Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Table of contents
TITLE PAGE i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF FIGURES v
(SRL)............................................................................................................ 15
Chapter 5 Use of Different Materials for the Working Platform ............................... 135
C3 Working example: column buckling of bamboo post using Kao Jue ... 174
iv
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Lists of figures
Fig. 2-2 Two failure modes for connection with node ................................................. 25
Fig. 2-3 Typical load-displacement curve for conection test with node ...................... 25
Fig. 2-4 Slippage failure for connection test without node .......................................... 25
Fig. 2-13 Reinforcement option: combining two adjacent ledgers with steel tubes .... 31
Fig. 2-17 Deformation of load case (2) at the position closest to the edge.................. 33
Fig. 2-18 Reinforcement option: installing steel tubes under the work platform ........ 33
Fig. 2-19 Load cases for Option 3.2 near the center of scaffolding............................. 34
Fig. 2-20 Moment diagram for two types of bamboo failure ...................................... 35
Fig. 2-24 Static point load test for various test cases ................................................... 39
Fig. 2-25 Bamboo post and standard labelling for Table 2-13 (a)-(f) .......................... 39
Fig. 2-27 Drop load test and typical drop force-time curves ....................................... 43
Fig. 3-2 Illustration of various options to facilitate the new erection process ............. 70
Fig. 3-4 Configuration of a HLL system with different anchorage options [14] ......... 71
Fig. 3-5 Miller SkyGrip Wire Rope Lifeline and anchorage [15] ................................ 71
Fig. 4-1 Normal steel tube (left) and anti-sliding steel tube (right) ............................. 93
Fig. 4-2 Test setup for normal steel tube-bamboo connection ..................................... 94
Fig. 4-3 Slippage tests for normal steel tube (post)-bamboo (ledger) connection ....... 95
Fig. 4-4 Rotational tests for normal steel tube (post)-bamboo (ledger) connection .... 96
Fig. 4-6 Test setup for connection involving anti-sliding steel tube ............................ 97
Fig. 4-7 Five different orientation angles for the anti-sliding steel tube ..................... 98
Fig. 4-8 Splitting of plastic stripes for 0°, 45° and 90° orientation ............................. 98
Fig. 4-9 Load-displacement curves for anti-sliding steel tube-bamboo connection .... 99
Fig. 4-10 Failure mode for 180° orientation of anti-sliding steel tube-bamboo
Fig. 4-11 Failure mode for 180° orientation of anti-sliding steel tube-normal steel tube
Fig. 4-12 Illustration of anti-sliding steel tube orientation with transom .................. 102
Fig. 4-13 Right-angle coupler (left) and swivel coupler (right)................................. 102
Fig. 4-14 Typical configuration of a double-layered bamboo scaffolding (DLBS) ... 102
Fig. 4-17 Two types of platform commonly used in scaffolding ............................... 105
Fig. 4-20 The full-scale mixed scaffolding used for test ........................................... 107
Fig. 4-21 Test arrangement for UDL test on platform ............................................... 108
Fig. 4-22 Test arrangement for static point load test on connection .......................... 109
Fig. 4-26 Setup of static point load test on connection .............................................. 112
Fig. 4-27 Load-displacement curves for Connections (1) and (3) (see Fig. 4-22)..... 113
Fig. 4-28 Failure of Connections (1) and (4) under static point load ........................ 113
Fig. 4-29 Comparison of load-displacement curves between test and analysis ......... 114
Fig. 5-2 Thin and thick wooden boards made out of plywood .................................. 140
Fig. 5-4 Three-point loading test on wooden board and iron plank ........................... 141
Fig. 5-5 A typical load-deflection curve for an iron plank ......................................... 141
Fig. 5-6 Dimensions and position of the partial area ................................................. 142
Fig. 5-7 Setup of static point load test on the middle span of platform ..................... 143
Fig. 5-8 Typical load-deflection curves of three platform types ................................ 144
Fig. 5-9 Comparison of load-deflection curves between test and analysis ................ 144
Fig. A-2 Test setup of splice with contact length 1.3 m and different number of ties157
Fig. A-3 Test setup of actual connection with six ties ............................................... 158
Fig. A-5 Failure mode and typical load-displacement curve of “打戒指” ................ 159
Fig. B-1 Three sizes of steel tube available in Hong Kong ....................................... 166
Fig. B-3 Load-displacement curve for specimen D2 under tensile test ..................... 168
vii
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Lists of tables
Table 2-6 Load-carrying capacity for Option 2 near the center of scaffolding ............ 47
Table 2-7 Load-carrying capacity for Option 2 near the edge of scaffolding .............. 48
Table 2-8 Effect of tube thickness on load-carrying capacity for Option 2 load case (1)
...................................................................................................................................... 48
Table 2-9 Load-carrying capacity for various options under load case (1) ................. 49
Table 2-10 Load-carrying capacity for Option 3.2 near the center of scaffold ............ 49
Table 2-12 Load-carrying capacity for Option 3.2 with a tube length of 1.2 m .......... 50
Table 2-13 Results of static point load test for test cases (1) to (6) ............................. 51
Table 2-14 Comparison of computer analysis with static point load test .................... 54
Table 2-15 Summary for the static point load test ....................................................... 57
Table 2-17 Anchorages for DLBS with 3 standards and a span of 0.6 m .................... 59
Table 2-19 Load-carrying capacity (in kN) of one anchor point for Option 2 with more
steel struts..................................................................................................................... 62
Table 2-20 Load-carrying capacity for Option 2 under two users ............................... 64
Table 4-1 Resistance for normal steel tube-bamboo connection ............................... 115
Table 4-2 Rotational stiffness for normal steel tube-bamboo connection ................. 115
Table 4-3 Test results for anti-sliding steel tube-bamboo/normal steel tube connection
.................................................................................................................................... 115
viii
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 4-4 Connection resistance for 0°, case 45° and case 90° orientation ............... 116
Table 4-5 Total displacement for 0°, case 45° and case 90° orientation .................... 116
Table 4-7 Material required for a one-bay unboarded lift ......................................... 117
Table 4-10 Self-weight and weight distribution of a one-bay unboarded lift ............ 118
Table 4-13 Allowable buckling loads for metal and bamboo posts ........................... 119
Table 4-15 Test data for Fook Shing anchor bolts [2, 3]............................................ 120
Table 4-16 Safety of anchor bolt and bracket for scaffolding with allowable height 120
Table 4-17 Comparison of three mixed scaffoldings and bamboo scaffolding ......... 121
Table 4-19 Comparison of UDL test results with computer analysis ........................ 126
Table 4-21 Displacement of connection under 2 kN static point load ....................... 129
Table 4-22 Results for static point load test (2 kN) on connection ............................ 130
Table 4-24 Comparison of connection displacement between test and analysis ....... 132
Table 4-26 Comparison of axial forces under 2.0 kN load ........................................ 132
Table 5-4 Results for static point load (3 kN) on working platform .......................... 146
ix
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 5-5 Comparison of deflection between test and analysis ................................. 147
Table 5-7 Summary for platform test and analysis .................................................... 149
Table A-1 Effects of presence of nodes and number of round turns on resistance .... 160
Table A-2 Experiments to study the effect of number of ties and contact length ...... 160
Table B-1 Summary of physical and mechanical properties of Kao Jue and Mao Jue
.................................................................................................................................... 168
Table B-2 Results of tensile test for three different sizes of steel tube ...................... 169
Table C-1 Buckling design example of Kao Jue with effective length 2 m ............... 175
Table D-1 Allowable compressive load for steel column with 𝐿𝐸 = 1.0 𝐻 ............. 177
x
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The safety and reliability of bamboo scaffoldings have been investigated previously in
three separate studies funded by the Occupational Safety and Health Council [1-3].
Recommendations have been made and published to ensure safe usage of these
temporary structures. Recent feedbacks from the industry however reveal that some
additional issues have surfaced and might hinder the safety of bamboo scaffoldings.
First, it was recommended in [1] that the intersections of the bamboo scaffoldings
cannot be used to anchor safety belts. This restriction unfortunately has created a
rather unfavorable condition for the workers to anchor the independent lifeline and the
safety harness to a reliable anchorage during erection, alteration or dismantling of
bamboo scaffolding, especially for bamboo scaffolding above the roof level. Also,
there appear some scaffoldings constructed using a mixture of both bamboo and metal
tubes. These mixed scaffoldings have created a series of new technical challenges that
need to be addressed. Furthermore, there is a concern that needs to be addressed about
using different materials for the working platform on the scaffoldings. This proposed
study is intended to investigate these three issues and to provide solutions and
practical guidebooks to the industry for the safe erection, usage as well as dismantling
of bamboo and mixed scaffoldings.
This research aims at conducting a systematic study on the three issues listed above
using both computer analyses and laboratory tests. The computer analyses are
conducted using the finite element analysis program SAP 2000 and the laboratory tests
1
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
are conducted in the Structural Laboratory of the Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology. Details of the proposed study are discussed in the following.
2
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(1) Anchorages selected for fall arrest systems shall have sufficient strength capable of
sustaining static load applied in the directions permitted by system of at least two times
the maximum arrest force (MAF) for certified anchorages [4, 5]. When more than one
fall arrest system is attached to an anchorage, the strength shall be multiplied by the
number of systems attached to the anchorage.
(2) According to the ANSI Z359.6 [6] and CSA Z259.16 [7], MAF imposed on a user’s
body shall not exceed 8 kN. Note that the 8 kN limitation aims at worker’s body mass
of at least 91 kg. A smaller MAF shall be applied to worker whose weight is less than 91
kg. In 2002, the Technical Committee on Fall Protection has actually voted to move
toward a standardized MAF of 6 kN in all standards, thus protecting workers down to
body mass of 67 kg, see Appendix A.6 of ANSI Z359.6 and Annex A.6 of CSA
Z259.16. The static strength test of 12kN required in BS EN 795 [8] is also based on
MAF of 6 kN and a safety factor of 2.
These two main requirements ensure the safety of workers and prevent their injuries
when fall happens. This chapter is focused on exploring possible anchorages for the
workers when they perform their jobs on bamboo scaffoldings. Several regional
reinforcement options are investigated through numerical analysis to explore whether
3
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
any part of scaffolding after reinforcement could have adequate strength to serve as safe
anchorages. To improve the accuracy of numerical analysis, systematic tests and
statistical analysis have been done to investigate the connection properties firstly. For
those options meeting the requirements, they will then be tested for deformation, static
and dynamic strength and integrity in the laboratory.
Connection plays a very important part in the load transfer mechanism for bamboo
scaffolding. External loads acting on a scaffolding will first be carried by its horizontal
transoms and ledgers and then transferred to its vertical posts via connections. The
connections of two bamboo members are fastened manually using plastic stripes. As
not much research has been done about the behavior of this type of connection in the
past, it is necessary to perform a study on the bamboo scaffolding connection in order
to model the scaffolding more accurately. This section presents an experimental
investigation on the resistance and the stiffness of bamboo scaffolding connection.
Through systematic tests and statistical analysis, the characteristic resistance and
stiffness of beam-column connection are proposed for further analysis. For other types
of connection, such as the column or beam splice and “打戒指”, their properties were
also investigated and concluded in Appendix A1 and A2 for practical design. The tests
were carried out in the Structural Engineering Laboratory of HKUST using the MTS
810 Universal Testing Machine. Also, a fixture was made as loading equipment to
simulate the actual load or moment condition. The dimensions of the test fixture are
presented in Appendix A3.
Fig. 2-1 shows a typical setup of beam-column connection test. A total of 75 tests were
conducted to obtain the following parameters:
4
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 2-2 summaries the resistance of bamboo connection with the presence of nodes. It
is seen that the mean connection resistance ranges between 1.89 and 2.21 kN with the
standard deviation (Std) ranges between 0.35 and 0.81 kN. Table 2-3 presents the
experimental results of connection resistance without the presence of nodes. It is seen
that the mean connection resistance ranges between 0.62 and 0.98 kN with the standard
deviation (Std) ranges between 0.06 and 0.22 kN. As a conservative measure, the
connection resistance without nodes was taken as the minimum slipping force during
the initial 30 mm displacement. Results show that the connection resistance is larger
when bamboo nodes are present around the connection.
Fig. 2-2 shows two failure modes for the connection with nodes: (a) rupture of plastic
strip and (b) slippage over the node. Note that these two failure modes could occur at
the same time. Fig. 2-3 shows a typical load-displacement curve for connection with
nodes under loading. It is seen that small initial slippage occurred which caused small
reduction of UTM force as UTM displacement increased. The plastic strip resettled
5
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
after the initial slippage and provided a bit more resistant force until the final failure.
For connection without the presence of nodes, the connection resistance depends
primarily on the number of turns of plastic stripes and the workmanship of the
scaffolding practitioners. The failure mode for all connection tests without the presence
of nodes is slippage between bamboo members (see Fig. 2-4).
As a conservative measure, the slipping stiffness of connection between two Kao Jue is
used as a representative value for all connections between bamboo members. Five tests
have been conducted in the laboratory and their load-displacement curves are shown
in Fig. 2-5 (a). It is seen that the force-displacement shows an approximately linear
trend up to about 20 mm. After that slippage occurred, the forces decreased slightly as
the slippage continued. Based on these five test results, the average minimum slipping
force within the initial 30 mm displacement is found to be 0.9 kN, which is used as
the slipping resistance in the further numerical analyses. A linear relation was used to
model the initial slippage through the least square method as shown in Fig. 2-5 (b).
The average slipping stiffness before reaching the maximum slipping resistance is
56.2 kN/m. In SAP 2000, the multi-linear element and panel zone are used to model the
slipping stiffness of the bamboo connection (see Fig. 2-6).
𝑉
θ = arctan( )
𝐻
𝑀 =𝐹×𝐻
where
𝐹: applied load;
𝑉: vertical displacement of loading point;
𝐻: horizontal distance between loading point and central line of vertical bamboo;
𝜃: rotational angle (rad); and
Fig. 2-8 shows three vertical load-displacement curves of the intersection between two
Kao Jue and the corresponding M − θ curves, respectively. It can be found that the
stiffness against rotation approximately follows linear relationship and the rotational
resistance is quite small. The rotational stiffness was obtained as the slope of straight
line though a linear curve fit.
7
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
This section presents some important points about the modeling of bamboo scaffolding
in SAP 2000. Modeling and analysis of scaffolding have been reported in some
previous studies [2, 9, 10]. Some useful information were extracted and applied in the
current modeling. The experimental results of connection obtained in the previous
section, including both the slipping stiffness and the rotational stiffness of connection,
were adopted to obtain more realistic behavior of scaffolding.
DLBS consists of two layers: an outer layer scaffolding and an inner layer of posts and
ledgers. For the outer layer, Mao Jue is used for both posts and base ledgers, and Kao
Jue is used for the other ledgers, standards, transoms and diagonal bracings. For the
inner layer, all posts and ledgers are Kao Jue and there are no standards, bracings and
secondary ledgers. Transoms are used to connect the inner and the outer layers. These
transoms are also used to support the working platform. Lateral restraints (putlogs) are
provided at regular or staggered interval to prevent inward and outward leaning of the
scaffold. The inner layer is at about 200 – 250 mm from the building face and the outer
layer is at about 600 mm from the inner layer [12].
With the above basic requirements of DLBS, there are several different configurations
and dimensions due to scaffolders’ own experience. Fig. 2-10 shows two typical
arrangements and configuration of DLBS in accordance with [9, 12].
8
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Even differences exist in the configuration and dimension of DLBS, the modeling of
scaffolding remains very much the same. Some details and key issues for the modeling
are summarized as follows:
(1) Bamboo members, Kao Jue and Mao Jue, were modeled as prismatic elements
with a circular hollow section using averaged external and internal diameters. Also,
their material properties under natural moisture content were used. The
dimensions and mechanical properties of bamboo were summarized in Appendix
B1.
(2) The vertical, horizontal and rotational stiffness of the joint between bamboo
members were modeled in SAP 2000 using multi-linear elements and panels. For
simplicity, the out-of-plane displacement between bamboo members at connection
was not considered.
(3) It should be noted that in each main ledger-post/standard fastening, there was
always a transom-post/standard fastening connected at the same location. Thus,
the total connection resistance, vertical stiffness and horizontal stiffness should be
doubled. The rotational stiffness was not doubled because the post/standard, main
ledger and transom were orthogonal to each other.
(4) The support condition of transoms linking up the ledgers of inner layer and outer
layer were simulated as a pinned connection.
(5) The putlog was comprised of a short bamboo strut and a metal tie (minimum at 6
mm∅) acting as a prop and a tie respectively to prevent inward and outward leaning
of the scaffold, which was modeled with only inward and outward restraints.
(6) All main posts were assumed to be pinned at the bottom. The braces were only
connected to main posts of outer layer as a conservative consideration.
(7) Nonlinear analysis with P-Delta effect was adopted in the SAP 2000 software. The
P-Delta effect referred specifically to the nonlinear geometric effect under a large
9
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
tensile or compressive direct stress upon transverse bending and shear behavior. A
compressive stress tends to make a structural member more flexible in transverse
bending and shear, whereas a tensile stress tends to stiffen the member against
transverse deformation [13]. Note that the P-Delta effect was not significant in our
numerical analysis.
We first focused on the alternative arrangement of DLBS as shown in Fig. 2-10 (b),
which actually gave a more conservative results than the configuration of DLBS in
Fig. 2-10 (a). More detailed analysis was considered to ensure the designed anchorage
can be applied on scaffolding with different arrangement and configuration. Fig. 2-11
shows the finite element model in accordance with the alternative arrangement of
DLBS.
The first option is to reinforce ledger using multiple bamboo members and/or steel
tubes. Note that the dimensions and mechanical properties of steel tubes were
10
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
experimentally tested and summarized in Appendix B2. Fig. 2-12 shows a partially
enlarged model after reinforcement. The contact surface between reinforced ledgers
was modeled by gap elements with no opening and stiffness of 3 MN/m. To decrease
the relative displacement between ledger and post (standard) at the connection, the
ledger was tied to every standard and post. The mechanical properties of connection
between bamboo and steel tube were also modeled using the multi-linear element and
panel zone according to testing results from Section 4.1. The concentrated load acting
on the anchorage was increased until the stress in ledger reaching its characteristic
strength. The characteristic strength (95% probability) for Kao Jue (BP) and Mao Jue
(PP) are 58.5 N/mm²and 53.4 N/mm² respectively, and the characteristic yield
strength for steel tube is 350 N/mm² (see Appendix B). Table 2-5 presents the
load-carrying capacity of anchorage for ledgers with different composition of BP, PP
and steel tube. It was found that there was no reinforcement cases that could meet the
load requirement.
The analysis above showed that the ledger consisting of three BP or two steel tubes
could not offer enough strength for an anchorage. Considering the load-carrying
capacity of ledger consisting of one steel tube and one BP could reach 6.9 kN, the
option of strengthening two adjacent ledgers using steel tubes was investigated. The
steel tubes were tied to bamboo standards/posts through plastic stripes and the two
ledgers were combined together though a linked steel tube. Two types of connection
between steel ledgers were considered: Type 1: an anti-sliding steel tube was used as
the linked strut connecting the two steel ledgers through 5-round plastic stripes; and
Type 2: a normal steel tube was used as the linked strut connecting the two steel
ledgers through metal couplers (swivel coupler). Fig. 2-13 shows the configuration of
this reinforcement option. The load-carrying capacity for Type 1 and Type 2 was
found to be 12.2 kN and 7.9 kN, respectively. Their corresponding moment
11
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
distribution diagrams in the ledgers are shown in Fig. 2-14. It should be noted that the
contact surface was modeled by gap elements with no opening and stiffness of 3000
kN/m in Fig. 2-14 (a). In Fig. 2-14 (b), due to the use of couplers, the contact surface
at coupler position (width of coupler 50mm) was modeled by gap elements with no
opening and stiffness of 3000 kN/m and the gap elements at other position have an
opening of 10 mm (thickness of coupler) and stiffness of 3000 kN/m (see Fig. 2-15).
It seems that metal coupler can ensure the applied force could be shared equally by the
connected ledgers which helps to obtain a larger load-carrying capacity. Further
analysis on this type of reinforcement was performed and three load cases near the
center as shown in Fig. 2-16 (a) were analyzed. For each load case, the load-carrying
capacities of reinforcement with different steel tube length at each side were studied.
Results obtained were summarized in Table 2-6. It is seen that the length of steel tube
at each side of reinforcement should be at least 0.6 m and the load case (3) seems to
offer the lowest load-carrying capacity of 12.1 kN under steel tubes failure. It should
be noted that the thickness of tube in Table 2-6 and Table 2-7 is 4 mm and the size
effect of tube will be investigated in the following.
Next, the load-carrying capacities of this reinforcement near the edge of scaffolding
were analyzed. Fig. 2-16 (b) shows the three load positions near the edge of
scaffolding with steel tube length of 0.6 m (1’, 2’, 3’) and 1.2 m (1’’, 2’’, 3’’),
respectively. Table 2-7 summarizes their load-carrying capacities. It is seen that the
length of steel tube at each side of anchor point should be at least 2.4 m and the load
case (3) seems to offer the lowest load-carrying capacity of 12.35 kN under steel
tubes failure. The load case (1) offers the highest load-carrying capacity among the
three load cases and the required length of steel tube at each side of anchor point is
0.6 m. Note that the load case (2) with steel tube length 0.6m at the position most
close to the edge (marked as ‘2’ in Fig. 2-16 (b)) will generate a very large
displacement when reaching the load-carrying capacity, which is not allowed and is
12
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
not considered in this report (see Fig. 2-17). Considering all three load cases near the
edge of scaffolding, at least 4.8 m long of steel tube (a total mass about 21 kg) should
be used to provide a safe anchorage, which is not practical.
Based on the analysis results and considering practical feasibility, the connection
between bamboo post (Mao Jue) and ledger corresponding to load case (1) could be
recommended as an anchor location for the personal protective equipment. It should
be noted that such an anchorage shall be used with at least 0.6 m long of steel tube at
each side of the anchor point.
It was noted that there were three steel tubes available in the market that have the same
outside diameter of 48.3 mm but different thickness of 2.3 mm, 3.2 mm and 4 mm
respectively. As the anchorages near the edge of scaffolding have smaller
load-carrying capacity than those in the middle region, the load-carrying capacities of
anchorages under load case (1) near the edge with different tube length and different
tube thickness were analyzed and summarized in Table 2-8. Results suggest that the
thickness of tube shall be at least 3.2 mm to provide a safe anchorage for this
reinforcement option.
The principle behind Option 2 is to transform the external point load into uniformly
distributed load which can be shared by a long span of bamboo ledger with a smaller
stress. Following the same principle, a steel tube was added underneath the work
platform as shown in Fig. 2-18. The steel tube was fastened to transoms using plastic
stripes. This steel tube has a potential to be used to anchor safety harness for the worker
at the platform below and for the whole range of platform.
As stated above, the safety factors for the steel tube and the bamboo member were
13
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
assumed to be 2. Hence the load-carrying capacity of the whole reinforced region shall
be at least 12 kN considering a MAF of 6 kN. In addition to installing one steel tube
underneath the platform, additional options were also investigated through numerical
analysis: Option 3.1: adding an additional transom to each existing one; Option 3.2:
using Option 3.1 plus adding one more steel tube (a total of two steel tubes) underneath
the platform.
The analysis was first conducted on a full-scale scaffolding with the anchorage
assumed to be around the middle of platform. For simplicity, the load-carry capacity
was calculated by imposing a static force at the connection between steel tube and the
transom which was connected to two posts (see load case (1) in Fig. 2-19). For those
options meeting the load requirement, more specific load cases covering the whole
platform were then conducted. Table 2-9 summaries the results obtained for the two
options (Option 3.1 and Option 3.2). The load-carrying capacity of the original design
with just one steel tube underneath the platform was also provided for comparison
(denoted as “Option 3” in Table 2-9). Results show that only Option 3.2 can offer a
load-carrying capacity larger than 12 kN (MAF of 6 kN and a safety factor of 2.0).
Hence this option was chosen for further analysis to determine whether this option can
offer sufficient load-carrying capacity under different loading conditions.
For Options 3.2 (adding two steel tubes underneath the platform and an additional
transom to each existing one), five load cases near the center as shown in Fig. 2-19
were analyzed. For each load case, the load-carrying capacities of anchorage with
different length of steel tube at two sides were analyzed. It should be noted that the
maximum stress in the outer layer ledger is always smaller than that of the inner layer
ledger due to additional standards at the outer layer. Results obtained are summarized
and shown again in Table 2-10. It is seen that only load case (1) with full tube length
of 6 m offers the load-carrying capacity larger than 12 kN. So this option cannot
provide safe anchorages along the whole length of platform.
14
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
lifeline (SRL)
From above analysis, these two options can both meet the load requirements and have
better performance than other choice: (a) Option 2: reinforcing two adjacent ledgers
with steel tubes and linking them through a steel strut; (b) Option 3.2: reinforcing
platform with two steel tubes and adding an additional transom to each existing one.
For Option 2, when the steel tube length is 0.6 m at each side of anchor point, the
load-carrying capacity is mostly determined by failure of bamboo ledger. Failure
could happen at the loading location or at the end of steel tube depending on load
cases and steel tube thickness. When the tube length is more than 1.2 m at two sides
of anchor point, the load-carrying capacity would be larger with longer tube and is
determined by the failure of tube or bamboo ledger at loading position. Also,
anchorages at more central region of scaffolding will have larger load-carrying
capacity. The load-carrying capacity of three load cases for Option 2 near the edge
with two critical tube length (0.6 m and 1.2 m) and three different tube size (thickness
= 2.3 mm, 3.2 mm and 4 mm) are summarized in Table 2-11. It is found that the
load-carrying capacities for all cases could be all larger than 8 kN.
15
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
For Option 3.2, the length of steel tube (thickness = 4 mm) at two sides of anchor
point shall be at least 1.2 m to provide safe anchorages with load-carrying capacity
larger than 8 kN as seen in Table 2-10. Also, the load-carrying capacity of anchorage
would increase as the tube length increases. The results near the edge of scaffolding
are summarized in Table 2-12. It is found that all cases with different tube size and
with tube length of at least 1.2 m can withstand a load larger than 8 kN.
A series of tests are devised to validate the reinforcement options determined above.
The tests are divided into two groups depending on whether the connecting subsystem
incorporating an energy absorbing device. These two groups are indicated by their
target load-carrying capacity of “12 kN” and “8 kN” respectively. These critical test
cases are described as follows.
12 kN anchorage tests:
The load case (1) for Option 2 (thickness of tube at least 3.2 mm and tube length at
least 0.6 m at each side of anchor point) was designed to provide safe anchorages with
12 kN load-carrying capacity in Section 2.3.2. From Table 2-8, all load-carrying
capacities with tube thickness of at least 3.2 mm were under bamboo failure. There
are two types of bamboo failure: (a) when tube length at each side of anchor point is
0.6 m, the bamboo failure occurred at the tube end; (b) when tube length at each side
of anchor point is at least 1.2 m, the bamboo failure occurred at the loading position
(see Fig. 2-20). These two types of bamboo failure with lowest load-carrying capacity
will be considered.
8 kN anchorage tests:
For load cases (2) and (3) of Option 2 from Table 2-11, only when the tube length was
16
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
0.6 m with tube thickness at least 3.2 mm, the load-carrying capacity was determined
by bamboo failure and happened at the tube end. The failure mode of load cases (2)
and (3) for other situations were tube failure at loading position. So, these two failure
modes (bamboo failure at tube end and tube failure at loading point) with lowest
load-carrying capacity will be considered.
From Table 2-12 for Option 3.2, there were two failure modes when reaching their
load-carrying capacities, one was bamboo failure of main inner ledger for load case (2)
and the other one was steel tube failure for all other situations. These two failure
modes with lowest load-carrying capacity will be considered.
In summary, the following six critical cases will be investigated in the experimental
study:
(1) The load case (1) for Option 2 with 0.6 m tube length (tube size: 48.3 mm × 4 mm)
at both sides of anchor point.
(2) The load case (1) for Option 2 with 1.2 m tube length (tube size: 48.3 mm × 3.2
mm) at both sides of anchor point.
(3) The load case (3) for Option 2 with 0.6 m tube length (tube size: 48.3 mm × 4 mm)
at both sides of anchor point.
(4) The load case (3) for Option 2 with 1.2 m tube length (tube size: 48.3 mm × 2.3
mm) at both sides of anchor point.
(5) The load case (2) for Option 3.2 with 1.2m tube length (tube size: 48.3 mm × 3.2
mm) at both sides of anchor point.
(6) The load case (5) for Option 3.2 with 1.2m tube length (tube size: 48.3 mm × 2.3
mm) at both sides of anchor point.
The objective of the full-scale scaffolding tests is to experimentally validate the safety
17
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
of anchorages. Both static load test and drop load test will be performed for the six
critical loading cases mentioned above. The description of full-scale scaffolding, test
setup and test results are presented in the following.
The scaffolding used for the test was a double-layer bamboo scaffolding (DLBS) with
dimensions of 4.8 m × 5.6 m × 0.6 m (length × height × width). Fig. 2-21 shows
configuration and dimension of scaffolding. Details of this scaffolding are described
below.
(1) Outer layer: Mao Jue was used as the main posts and base ledger of the outer layer.
Three Kao Jue were then erected in between two Mao Jue as standards which
were overhung from the ledgers but not resting on the ground. Kao Jue was used
as secondary and the other main ledgers as well as the diagonal members.
(2) Inner layer: Kao Jue was used throughout the inner layer. There was no bracing for
the inner layer.
(3) Platform: There were two platforms and their heights were 2.3 m and 3.95 m
respectively. The inner and outer ledgers were connected by transoms.
scaffolding with a point load of 8 kN and a drop load (free fall of a 100 kg dead
weight achieving at least a drop force of 8 kN). The testing positions for critical cases
are shown in Fig. 2-22 (b) shows the location of the load position for the four cases. It
should be noted that the required drop force of 8 kN is to maintain a general safety
factor of 2 [4, 5].
The static point load test was performed to check whether the anchor point can hold the
load about twice the maximum arrest force statically. Fig. 2-23 depicts details for the
test setup. The equipment used in the test included a tensile jack with load cell, data
logger and computer and strain gauges. Strain gauges were installed at bottom
locations of all the bamboo standards, posts and bracings. For metal tubes, strain
gauges were also installed to measure the bending moment in horizontal metal tube
and axial force in metal strut. Note that the bending moment in horizontal metal tubes
was measured at a distance of 10 or 5 cm from loading point depending on installing
convenience. There were a total 20 ports in data logger for strain gauges to connect so
that only the force in total ten bamboos or metal tubes could be measured every time.
Under this limitation, the main load-bearing components were selected for force
measurement. The load cell was mounted on ground through four expansion bolts,
which could sustain a pullout load over 20 kN.
The load generated by tensile jack was applied on a reinforced anchor point through
steel wire. Load was increased from 0 kN to a specified value (either 12 kN or 8 kN)
slowly to avoid dynamic effects. When the load reached the specified value, the load
would be maintained for 3 minutes to observe whether failure would occur in the
reinforced region. For each test case, three independent tests were conducted. Fig.
2-24 (a)-(c) show the anchor points under the specified loads for test cases (2), (3) and
(6), respectively. Axial forces and bending moments in selected components were
19
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
calculated by multiplying the measured strain values with the bamboo cross sectional
area and the section of modulus of area, respectively. The mean values and standard
deviations of strains and calculated forces for every test case were summarized in
Table 2-13 (a)-(f). The numbering of posts and standards are shown in Fig. 2-25. The
outside diameter of each selected bamboo component in Table 2-13 was obtained
through measurement. The thickness of bamboo was calculated by assuming a linear
relationship between thickness and outside diameter as following:
Note that the average value of thickness and outside diameter of Kao Jue and Mao Jue
are listed in Appendix B1. Based on the test results, the following observations can be
made:
(1) All reinforced anchor points could resist the required load for 3 minutes without
causing any damage to the scaffolding. The whole scaffolding remained stable and
intact during and after test.
(2) The deformation of bamboo ledger and metal tube was rather small.
(3) The relative slipping distance between connections at anchor point was negligible.
(4) The measured forces in bamboo standards was much smaller than those in bamboo
posts.
(5) The standard deviations of the measured strain for the same critical case were
quite small suggesting that the test results were quite consistent.
In this section, the results obtained from the finite element program SAP 2000 were
compared with that obtained from the static point load test. Table 2-14 (a)-(f) show
the comparison of axial force and bending moment in selected components between
the measured and the analyzed values. Results summarized in Table 2-15 show that
the average difference between the numerical analysis and the test results was about 26%
20
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Drop load test was performed to investigate the performance of reinforced anchor
points and the safety of scaffolding under dynamic loads. The procedure of drop load
test followed the test methods described in BS EN 795 [8] and BS EN 364 [16]. A
sand bag was used to simulate a person falling from a height. The six critical cases
mentioned above were all tested under free fall a 100 kg sand bag which generated a
required drop force as specified in Section 2.4.2.
The test equipment and setup is shown in Fig. 2-26. A load cell was attached to the
anchor point. One end of the lanyard was attached to the load cell and the other end to
the sand bag. During the test, the sand bag was raised to a free fall height that could
generate a drop force larger than the required drop force and hold at no more than 300
mm horizontally from the anchor point [8]. The sampling rate of the load cell was set
at 50 Hz to capture the dynamic load induced by the free fall of sand bag. For
simplicity, the strain values in components are not measured in the drop test.
For test cases (1) and (2), the free fall aimed at generating a peak load larger 9 kN at
the anchor point. For test cases (3) to (6), the peak load due to free fall should be
larger than 8 kN at the anchor point. For each test case, three independent tests were
conducted. Fig. 2-27 (a)-(c) show the anchor points before and after drop test for test
cases (2), (3) and (6), respectively. Also shown are their corresponding drop
force-time curves. Table 2-16 (a)-(f) show the test results with maximum drop force
and corresponding free fall for six critical cases respectively. From these results, the
following observations can be seen:
(1) The anchor points of all six test cases could withstand the free fall of a100 kg sand
21
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
bag without damaging any part of the scaffolding. All designed anchor points can
sustain a drop load larger than its designed load-carrying capacity.
(2) A small vibration of the scaffolding was observed which did not seem to affect the
stability and the safety of the scaffolding. The deformation of the anchor point
after the drop load test was negligible.
(3) For test case (3), the reinforced anchor point could withstand a drop load larger
than 8 kN which was the intended load-carrying capacity. When the drop load
increased to 11.96 kN, it was noted that the bamboo ledge at tube end fractured.
This failure mode coincided with the result obtained from the numerical result.
Note that the above findings and summaries were obtained on the scaffolding with the
configuration and dimensions specified in Fig. 2-21 (three standards between posts and
span of about 0.6 m between standards), which are concluded in Table 2-17. As the
configuration and dimension of scaffoldings vary from site to site, more detailed
analysis is needed to provide more general recommendations for these reinforcement
options. In this section, finite element numerical analyses were performed on three
additional scaffoldings with different configuration and dimensions as follow:
(1) Double layered bamboo scaffolding with three standards between posts of outer
layer and a larger span of 0.75 m between standards: results summarized in Table
2-18 (a);
(2) Double layered bamboo scaffolding with one standard between two posts of outer
layer and different spans of 0.6 m, 0.75 m or 0.9 m between standards respectively:
results summarized in Table 2-18 (b); and
(3) Single layered bamboo scaffolding (SLBS) with one standard between two posts
of outer layer and different spans of 0.6 m, 0.75 m or 0.9 m between standards
respectively: results summarized in Table 2-18 (c).
22
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Above analysis for Option 2 only use one steel strut to link the two adjacent ledgers at
the anchor points. In this section, we further explore the possibility of accommodate
multiple anchorages for Option 2 regional reinforcement by connecting the two
adjacent ledgers with additional steel struts as shown in Table 2-19. The load-carrying
capacity of the anchor points at the middle of reinforcement as well as additional
potential anchor points on the reinforcement were obtained through finite element
analysis presented above and are shown in Table 2-19. The load-carrying capacities of
the original Option 2 regional reinforcement (Table 2-11) are also listed for
comparison. It is seen that the additional steel struts do not seem to affect the
load-carrying capacity of the two anchor points at the middle of reinforcement.
Furthermore, the load-carrying capacity of those additional potential anchor points
produced due to the additional vertical steel struts can be larger than 8 kN as long as
these points are not located at the edges of the reinforcement.
Next, the load-carrying capacities for Option 2 regional reinforcement with different
length and additional steel struts under two users simultaneously were obtained and
are shown in Table 2-20. It is seen that Option 2 regional reinforcement with
additional steel struts can offer a load-carrying capacity larger than 8 kN for both
users simultaneously as long as the spacing between the two users is equal or larger
than two spans. This conclusion is now summarized in Fig. 2-28. The analysis results
show that it is possible to generate an anchorage region using Option 2 regional
reinforcement with additional steel struts. This anchorage region can accommodate
multiple users simultaneously as long as the spacing between the users is equal or
larger than two spans. The anchor points inside the reinforcement region can provide
a load-carrying capacity larger than 8 kN. It is recommended that energy absorbing
devices with a MAF of 4 kN be used on these anchor points so that these anchor
points can protect the users with a safety factor of two.
23
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
24
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
2
Small initial slippage
1.5
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80
UTM Displacement (mm)
Fig. 2-3 Typical load-displacement curve for conection test with node
Slipping distance
25
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
1.6
0.4 4
5
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1.6
1.4 y = 0.066x
1.2
y = 0.059x y = 0.049x
y = 0.055x
1
y = 0.052x
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
UTM Displacement (mm)
26
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Force (kN)
16, 0.9
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-16, -0.9 -0.8
-1
Relative displacement (mm)
27
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
0.6
0.4
0.3 1
2
0.2 3
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
UTM Displacement (mm)
0.07
M (kN·m)
0.06
y = 0.121x
0.05 y = 0.112x
0.04 y = 0.103x
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
θ (rad)
0.4
M=0.113× θ
M (kN·m)
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
M= 0 θ (rad)
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
28
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Bracing (outer
layer): Kao Jue
Bracing (outer
layer): Kao Jue
29
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
30
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Steel tube
Bamboo member
Connection between tubes (plastic stripes or coupler)
v
Fig. 2-13 Reinforcement option: combining two adjacent ledgers with steel tubes
F=7.90 kN
31
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
F=12.20 kN
Metal couplers
Normal steel tube
50 mm
Coupler
32
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
2
Edge
10.3 kN
Fig. 2-17 Deformation of load case (2) at the position closest to the edge
Fig. 2-18 Reinforcement option: installing steel tubes under the work platform
33
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Two transoms
Fig. 2-19 Load cases for Option 3.2 near the center of scaffolding
(a) Bamboo failure at the position of tube end (tube length at each side of anchor point
is 0.6 m)
(b) Bamboo failure at the position of loading point (tube length at each side of anchor
point is at least 1.2 m)
34
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(a) Front view of the scaffolding (b) Side view of the scaffolding
35
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(a) 12 kN anchorage
(b) 8 kN anchorage
36
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(a) Tensile jack and load cell (b) Data logger and computer
Strain gauges
on metal tubes
37
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Small slipping
`
(b) Test case (3) under static point load ≥ 8 kN
38
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Brace 1 Brace 2
Post 3
Standard 4
Standard 3
Standard 2
Standard 1 Post 8
Post 4 Post 7
Post 1 Post 6 Post 2
Post 5
Fig. 2-25 Bamboo post and standard labelling for Table 2-13 (a)-(f)
39
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Anchor point
Load cell
Data logger
& computer
40
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
3.2 m
(a) Test case (2): before and after drop test and typical drop force-time curve
41
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Before drop load test (free fall: 2.9 m) Before drop load test (free fall: 3.1 m)
Bamboo failure at tube end with free fall 3.1 m (no failure with free fall of 2.9 m)
(b) Test case (3): before and after drop test and typical drop force-time curve
42
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
2.0 m
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
(c) Test case (6): before and after drop test and typical drop force-time curve
Fig. 2-27 Drop load test and typical drop force-time curves
43
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
≥ 4 spans ≥ 1 span
≥ 1 span
≥ 1 span Anchorage region for energy absorbing devices ≥ 1 span
with MAF ≤ 4 kN
Horizontal spacing between two users ≥ 2 spans
44
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
45
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
46
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 2-6 Load-carrying capacity for Option 2 near the center of scaffolding
load-carrying capacity (kN) and corresponding maximum stress (N/mm²)
Length of tube at each
side of anchor point 0.6 m (1) 1.2 m (2) 1.8 m (3) 2.4 m (4) 3.0 m (5)
(No. of connections)
12.95 13.15 13.20 13.20 13.20
(1)
298.9 58.9 313.2 59.0 312.8 58.9 312.4 58.8 304.9 58.1
12.90 13.10 13.10 13.15 13.20
Load case (2)
303.8 58.5 348.1 58.4 342.1 58.3 333.9 58.5 325.4 58.5
12.80 12.10 12.10 12.40 12.50
(3)
298.0 58.1 350.6 47.0 349.5 47.0 350.8 46.5 349.9 50.1
Note 1: For each case, the upper value is load-carrying capacity and the under left and right values are
corresponding maximum stress in metal tube and bamboo ledger, respectively.
Note 2: Bold font represents failed component and its maximum stress.
47
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 2-7 Load-carrying capacity for Option 2 near the edge of scaffolding
Load-carrying capacity (kN) and corresponding maximum stress (N/mm²)
Length of tube at each
side of anchor point 0.6 m (1) 1.2 m (2) 1.8 m (3) 2.4 m (4) 3.0 m (5)
(No. of connections)
12.80 13.05 13.10 13.10 13.20
(1)
290.6 58.5 306.8 58.1 312.5 58.9 310.2 58.6 305.3 58.2
12.50 13.00 13.00 13.10 13.20
Load case (2)
286.9 59.0 350.5 57.2 349.5 55.8 333.9 58.4 325.8 58.8
10.70 11.50 11.80 12.35 12.45
(3)
257.5 58.9 351.1 46.1 350.6 47.1 350.9 46.4 350.5 47.1
Note 1: For each case, the upper value is load-carrying capacity and the under left and right values are
corresponding maximum stress in metal tube and bamboo ledger, respectively.
Note 2: Bold font represents failed component and its maximum stress.
Table 2-8 Effect of tube thickness on load-carrying capacity for Option 2 load case (1)
Load-carrying capacity (kN) and corresponding maximum stress (N/mm²)
Length of tube at each
side of anchor point 0.6 m (1) 1.2 m (2) 1.8 m (3) 2.4 m (4) 3.0 m (5)
(No. of connections)
12.80 13.05 13.10 13.10 13.20
4.0 mm
290.6 58.5 306.8 58.1 312.5 58.9 310.2 58.6 305.3 58.2
Tube 12.85 12.20 12.30 12.30 12.55
3.2 mm
thickness 345.4 58.6 312.9 58.3 315.3 58.7 314.9 58.6 318.8 58.4
11.70 11.20 11.20 11.40 11.60
2.3 mm
350.0 46.3 333.2 58.5 332.8 58.5 335.4 58.7 340.9 58.6
Note 1: For each case, the upper value is load-carrying capacity and the under left and right values
are corresponding maximum stress in metal tube and bamboo ledger, respectively.
Note 2: Bold font represents failed component and its maximum stress.
48
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 2-9 Load-carrying capacity for various options under load case (1)
Maximum Maximum
Maximum Maximum
Load-carrying Stress in Stress in
Reinforcement Stress in Stress in steel
capacity ledger of ledger of
options transom tube
outer layer inner layer
kN N/mm² N/mm² N/mm² N/mm²
Option 3 4.25 58.2 5.2 17.4 148.3
Option 3.1 8.80 56.3 16.2 39.7 350.1
Option 3.2 12.15 57.6 21.1 50.0 350.4
Note: Bold font represents failed component and its maximum stress.
Table 2-10 Load-carrying capacity for Option 3.2 near the center of scaffold
Load-carrying capacity (kN) and corresponding maximum stress (N/mm²)
Length of tube at
each side of anchor
0.6m (1) 1.2m (2) 1.8m (3) 2.4m (4) 3.0m (5)
point (No. of pairs
of transoms)
7.00 11.35 11.40 11.65 12.15
(1)
140.1 58.8 44.4 350.7 55.0 56.5 350.5 53.8 56.9 350.6 54.2 56.9 350.4 50.0 57.6
7.80 10.50 10.55 10.70 11.10
(2)
185.2 38.2 58.3 340.8 58.4 43.1 338.7 58.2 45.8 339.1 58.5 45.8 336.2 58.4 46.1
Load 7.00 11.00 11.05 11.25 11.60
(3)
case 149.0 58.7 52.0 350.1 44.5 46.1 350.5 44.9 46.1 350.7 45.2 46.1 350.5 44.7 46.4
9.40 10.65 10.90 11.20 11.50
(4)
266.4 58.4 49.7 350.1 58.3 52.9 351.0 53.4 53.6 349.9 56.7 53.9 350.7 57.8 53.9
9.00 10.40 10.60 11.10 11.40
(5)
263.0 58.6 141.5 351.0 52.6 42.8 349.7 52.4 42.5 350.6 52.5 42.8 350.4 52.4 43.1
Note 1: For each case, the upper value is load-carrying capacity and the under left, middle and right values
are corresponding maximum stress in metal tube, main ledger of inner layer and transom, respectively.
Note 2: Bold font represents failed component and its maximum stress.
49
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 2-12 Load-carrying capacity for Option 3.2 with a tube length of 1.2 m
Load-carrying capacity (kN) and corresponding maximum stress (N/mm²)
Tube size 48.3 × 4.0 mm 48.3 × 3.2 mm 48.3 × 2.3 mm
11.10 10.55 9.30
(1)
349.9 56.2 56.9 349.2 50.6 57.2 350.9 45.6 57.2
9.75 9.60 8.60
(2)
307.3 58.1 43.8 338.4 58.2 44.4 349.5 54.4 44.8
10.90 9.90 9.05
Load case (3)
350.6 50.3 43.8 350.2 45.9 44.8 350.1 44.5 46.1
10.65 9.80 8.70
(4)
350.3 56.7 53.9 350.3 56.1 52.9 351.0 51.3 52.3
10.20 9.40 8.20
(5)
349.5 51.3 42.5 350.4 48.9 42.8 350.1 43.9 41.8
Note 1: For each case, the upper value is load-carrying capacity and the under left, middle and right
values are corresponding maximum stress in metal tube, main ledger of inner layer and transom,
respectively.
Note 2: Bold font represents failed component and its maximum stress.
50
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 2-13 Results of static point load test for test cases (1) to (6)
(a) Test case (1) under 12 kN static point load
Measured axial
Strain Cross section area 𝐴
Young's force
Component modulus 𝐸 Outside
Mean Std Thickness 𝐴 Mean Std
diameter
× 10−6 𝜀 kN/mm² mm mm mm² kN
Post 1 -37.1 6.1 7.60 112.0 11.6 3659.5 -1.03 0.17
Standard 3 -42.8 6.8 8.55 43.6 5.6 665.8 -0.24 0.04
Axial Post 2 -382.8 41.4 7.60 102.2 10.6 3043.3 -8.85 0.96
force Standard 4 -35.6 7.9 8.55 45.2 5.8 715.3 -0.22 0.05
(front) Post 3 -13.6 3.8 7.60 107.9 11.2 3394.2 -0.35 0.10
Brace 2 -81.6 19.1 8.55 51.9 6.6 942.5 -0.66 0.15
Metal strut -62.5 7.6 200 48.3 3.2 453.4 -5.67 0.69
Measured
Strain Section of modulus of area 𝑍
Young's bending moment
Component modulus 𝐸 Outside
Mean Std Thickness 𝑍 Mean Std
diameter
× 10−6 𝜀 kN/mm² mm mm cm³ kN·m
Bending Upper tube 1238.5 127.5 200 48.3 4.0 5.7 1.42 0.15
moment Under tube 1107.8 80.7 200 48.3 4.0 5.7 1.27 0.09
(b) Test case (2) under 12 kN static point load
Measured axial
Strain Cross section area 𝐴
Young's force
Component modulus 𝐸 Outside
Mean Std Thickness 𝐴 Mean Std
diameter
× 10−6 𝜀 kN/mm² mm mm mm² kN
Post 1 -38.8 7.0 7.60 112.0 11.6 3659.5 -1.08 0.19
Standard 3 -37.1 5.9 8.55 43.6 5.6 665.8 -0.21 0.03
Axial Post 2 -365.9 64.3 7.60 102.2 10.6 3043.3 -8.46 1.49
force Standard 4 -37.9 5.4 8.55 45.2 5.8 715.3 -0.23 0.03
(front) Post 3 -17.7 3.9 7.60 107.9 11.2 3394.2 -0.46 0.10
Brace 2 -77.3 14.2 8.55 51.9 6.6 942.5 -0.62 0.11
Metal strut -63.8 5.3 200 48.3 3.2 453.4 -5.79 0.48
Measured
Strain Section of modulus of area 𝑍
Young's bending moment
Component modulus 𝐸 Outside
Mean Std Thickness 𝑍 Mean Std
diameter
× 10−6 𝜀 kN/mm² mm mm cm³ kN·m
Bending Upper tube 1461.1 89.1 200 48.3 3.2 4.8 1.40 0.09
moment Under tube 1353.2 102.7 200 48.3 3.2 4.8 1.30 0.10
51
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
52
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 2-14 Comparison of computer analysis with static point load test
(a) Test case (1) under 12 kN static point load
Difference
Measured mean
Component Analyzed value 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒𝑑 − 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
value |
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑
| × 100%
54
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
55
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
56
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
57
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
58
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 2-17 Anchorages for DLBS with 3 standards and a span of 0.6 m
Minimum tube
Reinforcement Load-carrying Location of Connecting
thickness T & Illustration
options capacity anchor point devices
length L
Only the
Anchor
T=3.2 mm, intersection No specific
12 kN points
L=0.6 m between post requirements
Option 2:
and ledger
adding two
steel tubes to
two adjacent
bamboo All
ledgers intersections
T=2.3 mm, Anchor
8 kN between points
L=0.6 m
post/standard Using energy
and ledger absorber
lanyard/
Self-retracting
lifeline Anchor
marked with region
All anchor
Option 3.2:
T=2.3 mm, points in the MAF ≤ 4 kN
platform 8 kN
L=1.2 m middle region
reinforcement
of tube
Note 1: The tube length represents minimum tube length at each side of anchor point;
Note 2: The load case (2) with steel tube length 0.6m at the position most close to the edge shouldn’t be
used as anchorage, see Section 2.3.2.
59
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Note 1: The tube length represents minimum tube length at each side of anchor point;
Note 2: The load case (2) with steel tube length 0.6m at the position most close to the edge shouldn’t be used
as anchorage, see Section 2.3.2.
60
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(b) Anchorages for DLBS with 1 standard between posts and span of 0.6, 0.75 or 0.9
m
Minimum tube
Load-carrying Location of Connecting
Span thickness T & Illustration
capacity anchor point devices
length L
T=2.3 mm,
0.6 m Using energy
L=1.2 m
absorber
All anchor
lanyard/
T=3.2 mm, points in the Anchor
0.75 m 8 kN Self-retracting
L=1.5 m middle region region
lifeline 0.6/0.75/0.9 m
of tube
marked with
T=4.0 mm,
0.90 m MAF ≤ 4 kN
L=1.8 m
Note 1: The tube length represents minimum tube length at each side of anchor point;
Note 2: This table only shows analytical results of Option 3.2 and the application of Option 2 for this table is
the same as in Table 2-18 (c).
61
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(c) Anchorages for SLBS with 1 standard between posts and span of 0.6, 0.75 or 0.9
m
Minimum tube
Load-carrying Location of Connecting
Span thickness T & Illustration
capacity anchor point devices
length L
0.75 m
0.75 m
Using energy
All absorber
Anchor
intersections lanyard/
T=2.3 mm, points
8 kN between Self-retracting
L=0.75 m
post/standard lifeline marked
and ledger with MAF ≤ 4 0.75 m
kN
Using energy
All absorber
intersections lanyard/ Anchor
T=2.3 mm, points
0.90 m 8 kN between Self-retracting
L=0.9 m
post/standard lifeline marked
and ledger with MAF ≤ 4 0.9 m
kN
Note 1: The tube length represents minimum tube length at each side of anchor point;
Note 2: The connection at the position most close to the edge is also not recommended as anchorage.
Table 2-19 Load-carrying capacity (in kN) of one anchor point for Option 2 with more
62
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
steel struts
Only one
Steel strut covering whole
steel strut
Critical reinforced region
Configuration connecting
case
anchor
Anchor point A B points
A
A B
A
(3) 10.3 5.7 - 10.7
Anchor
point
A B
63
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
1 6.5
User 1 User 2
2 8.7
User 1 User 2
3 10.3
User 1 User 2
4 10.6
Note: The load case (3) near the edge of scaffolding was chosen as the anchorage for “user 1”
because it offers the minimum load-carrying capacity among all three load cases for Option 2.
64
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
It is noted that Clause 5.3.1 (n) of the Code of Practice for Bamboo Scaffolding Safety
[17] states that “No shock loading on the platforms should be allowed.” It is believed
that such a restriction might have been originated from the consideration that any shock
loading acting on the platforms would result in vibration of the platforms and endanger
workmen on the platforms. Despite that the reinforcement options presented in the
previous chapter have been validated numerically and experimentally. Such a concern
remain valid and might hinder the overall acceptance of these reinforcement options.
Also Clause 5.3.1 (t) “When a scaffolder or workman has to work in a place where it is
impracticable to erect a safe working platform or to provide safe access and egress, the
use of safety nets and safety belt attached to a secure anchorage point or an
independent lifeline throughout the work is required.” suggests that safety belt attached
to a secure anchorage point or an independent lifeline is an alternative option to a safe
working platform. Such a safe working platform is usually not available till the last
stage of erection due to the reason that it appears to be more time efficient to construct
the outer layer as a whole before erecting inner layer and the working platforms [11].
In this section, a safer scaffolding erection process is proposed to address the safety
issue during the erection of bamboo scaffolding. This erection process ensures that a
safe working platform and necessary guardrails are available during the erection such
that the safety of scaffolders and workmen can be better protected without the need of
attaching safety belt to a secure anchorage or an independent lifeline. This proposed
erection process complies with the erection sequence for metal scaffolding described
in [18]. This erection sequence consists of the following steps:
65
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(1) Fig. 3-1 (a): the standards and posts for the next lift above are installed from a fully
planked platform (the existed lift);
(2) Fig. 3-1 (b): the main ledgers of both inner and outer layer for the next lift above
are installed;
(3) Fig. 3-1 (c): the guardrails (intermediate guardrail and top guardrail) and edge
protection for the lift above are then installed;
(4) Fig. 3-1 (d): the transoms and planks for the lift above are installed to form
working platform above;
(5) Fig. 3-1 (e): access the new working platform and install toe-boards; and
(6) Fig. 3-1 (f): install other components such as putlogs or metal brackets from the
new working platform.
Note that when working from a fully planked platform to erect standards/posts (where
the standard/post joint is 1 to 1.5 m above the existed platform level) and guardrails
for the lift above, several possible options such as a temporary ladder or platform as
shown in Fig. 3-2 are possible for the scaffolders to reach the desired height [18]. This
proposed erection process complying with the scaffolding requirements has been
modeled using a BIM software, Revit and Navisworks, for illustrative purpose.
several ledges’ height (see Fig. 3-3) and could pose a threat to scaffolders or workmen
as a secure anchorage point or an independent lifeline above the height of
scaffolders/workmen is almost non-existent.
It could be anticipated that the work above roof level would require mostly horizontal
movement. Hence, a horizontal lifeline (HLL) system will be an efficient way to
protect workmen from the consequence of falling. This HLL system can be either
permanent or temporary. As summarized in various standards including ANSI Z359.6
[6], CSA Z259.16 [7] and CSA Z259.13 [19], a good HLL system should meet the
following requirements:
(1) Their components and anchorages are of adequate strength to withstand the
maximum arrest load (MAL) or maximum arrest force (MAF).
(2) The MAF experienced by the user is within acceptable limits (such as 6 kN as
described above) to minimize the possibility of injury.
(3) Clearance in the fall path is adequate to prevent the user from hitting the ground or
any other obstruction.
(4) For a HLL system used to support bamboo scaffolding, the anchorage device should
be fixed on a permanent structure. Expansion bolts or rebar can be used to fix the
anchorages.
(5) A HLL system could be temporary or permanent and should allow at least two
workmen attached to it simultaneously.
(6) A stanchion can also be considered as a possible option for offering anchorage
points above the roof top.
According to the above requirement for selection of a HLL system, Fig. 3-4 shows a
typical HLL system produced by DBI-SALA [14]. The system consists of multi-span
horizontal lifeline, 2.3 m tall posts, different types of bases and various components
which make it more flexible to suit different types of structures.
67
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
When workers perform jobs on platform below roof level, the HLL system is also an
effective way to provide anchorages for needed horizontal movement. The stanchion
is not necessary and the configuration of the HLL system could be simpler. The
requirements (1)-(5) described above should be followed for choosing an applicable
system. When the HLL system is fixed on vertical concrete wall, the worker should be
able to reach the lifeline easily with his/her arm in order to travel across the scaffolding.
Most commercially available HLL products are single-span and allow a maximum
span up to 18 m. If the largest span allowed by manufacturer is not enough for worker
to perform their jobs, another single-span HLL system can be used independently. Fig.
3-5 gives an example of this type of system produced by Miller [15]. A Miller SkyGrip
Wire Rope Lifeline may be used in conjunction with approved Miller brand anchorage
connectors to provide a temporary HLL system that is quick and easy to install.
68
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
69
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
70
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Fig. 3-4 Configuration of a HLL system with different anchorage options [14]
Fig. 3-5 Miller SkyGrip Wire Rope Lifeline and anchorage [15]
71
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Recently, there are some scaffoldings constructed using a mixture of both bamboo and
metal tubes. While there are respective codes of practice for bamboo scaffolding safety
[17] and metal scaffolding safety [20], there is no specific guideline governing the safe
usage of this hybrid type of scaffoldings. These mixed scaffoldings have created a
series of new technical challenges that need to be addressed. In this chapter, issues
relating to the safe usage of mixed scaffoldings were investigated numerically and
validated experimentally. These issues are reported in the following.
A series of tests were conducted to obtain the slippage stiffness and rotational stiffness
72
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
of connection between normal steel tube and bamboo component (BP). Also, the effect
of bamboo node was considered in the tests. Fig. 4-2 shows the test setup for the
slippage stiffness and the rotational stiffness. In most normal steel tube-bamboo
connections, the bamboo serves as a horizontal member while the steel tube is used as
a vertical load-bearing column. A total of five load-displacement curves were obtained
and plotted in Fig. 4-3 for the slippage stiffness. The mean slippage stiffness before
reaching the maximum slippage resistance is 60.6 kN/m and the average minimum
resistive force during slippage and up to 30 mm displacement is 0.76 kN. Three
load-displacement curves and the corresponding M − θ curves were obtained and
plotted in Fig. 4-4 for the rotational stiffness. The mean rotational stiffness against the
direction of the fastening tie is found to be 0.11 kN∙m/rad.
Table 4-1 summaries the resistance for the normal steel tube-bamboo connection. As a
conservative measure, the connection resistance without nodes was taken as the
minimum slipping force during the initial 30 mm displacement. For connection with
the presence of bamboo node, there were two possible failure modes: (a) fracture of
plastic stripes and (b) the plastic stripes slipping over the node. For connection without
the presence of bamboo nodes, the failure mode was the slipping between two
members. Table 4-2 summaries the rotational stiffness for the normal steel-bamboo
connection. It is noted that the connection between two normal steel tubes fastened by
plastic stripes were also shown in the two tables for comparison. For simplicity, the
slippage stiffness of normal steel tube (vertical)-bamboo (horizontal) connection was
used as the representative mechanical property for this type of connection in the
modeling. In SAP2000, the multi-linear element and panel zone are also used to model
the bilinear stiffness behavior against rotation and the multi-linear slippage stiffness
behavior of the connection as shown in Fig. 4-5 (a) and (b).
73
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
For connection involving anti-sliding steel tube, the anti-slide steel tube is always used
as a vertical component such that the anti-sliding bump can take effect to prevent
slippage of horizontal component which can be either bamboo (BP) or normal steel
tube. Fig. 4-6 shows a typical setup for anti-sliding steel tube-bamboo/normal steel
tube connection test. For this type of connection, the orientation of anti-sliding bumps
would be an issue affecting its mechanical properties. Hence, tests were conducted with
different orientation angles of the bumps with respect to the perpendicular direction of
the post-ledger plane. A total of five different angles, 0°,45°, 90°, 135° and 180° were
selected to represent different connecting situations. Each angle was tested at least 5
times (see Fig. 4-7).
For connection tests with 0°, 45°, 90°, the failure modes was always splitting and
slipping of plastic stripes over the bump as seen in Fig. 4-8. Two typical
load-displacement curves with initial slippage and without initial slippage for
connection test with 0° are shown in Fig. 4-9. For the 135° orientation, the test results
obtained were very similar to those of normal steel tube-bamboo connection shown in
the previous section. This was due to the reason that the plastic strip was not in direct
contact with the bumps. For 180° orientation of anti-sliding steel tube-bamboo
connection, the failure mode was the damage of bamboo surface at the connection
between bamboo and the anti-sliding steel tube as shown in Fig. 4-10. For 180°
orientation of anti-sliding steel tube-normal steel tube connection, the failure mode was
the rotation of horizontal tube as shown in Fig. 4-11.
74
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
For the modeling of this type of connection, the average connection resistance and
average total displacement of 0°, 45° and 90° orientation were adopted. Linear
elements were selected to model the slippage behavior including the average
connection resistance and the average total displacement. Table 4-4 and Table 4-5
summarize the connection resistance and the total displacement, respectively. Note
that bilinear stiffness behavior against rotation for connection between anti-sliding
tube and bamboo or normal steel tube is assumed to be the same as described in
Section 4.1.1. In summary, the linear slippage stiffness of the connection was modeled
as follows:
For anti-sliding tube (vertical)-bamboo (horizontal) connection:
Slippage force = 51.21 kN/m × displacement
For anti-sliding tube (vertical)-normal steel tube (horizontal) connection:
Slippage force = 57.83 kN/m × displacement
All connections between two normal steel tubes were fastened by couplers as shown
in Fig. 4-13. Various types of couplers are available such as the right angle coupler
which is used to join tubes at right angles and the swivel coupler for connecting
components at flexible angles. Mechanical properties for different types of couplers
are summarized in Table 4-6 based on BS EN 74-1 [21] and BS 12811-1 [22].
75
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
In this section, the thermal expansion effect of steel tube on scaffolding connection
due to temperature change was investigated. The change in circumference of steel tube
due to temperature change could be approximated as:
where
𝑑𝐶 is change in circumference (mm);
𝑑0 and 𝑑1 are initial diameter and final diameter (mm), respectively;
𝑑𝑡 is temperature change (oC); and
𝛼 is linear thermal expansion coefficient (10 × 10-6/°C according to Annex E of BS
5975 [23]).
For a steel pipe with outer diameter 𝑑0 = 48.3 𝑚𝑚 and an assumed temperature
change of 𝑑𝑡 = ±25℃, the final outer diameter 𝑑1 would be 48.3 ± 0.012 𝑚𝑚.
According to previous research [1], the dimension of the fastening tie was width = 6
mm and thickness = 1 mm. The Young’s modulus of fastening tie was about 𝐸 =
2 𝑘𝑁/𝑚𝑚² . The force change ∆𝐹 in the fastening tie of steel tube-bamboo
connection due to temperature changing of 25℃ is about:
Note that the outer diameter of bamboo is assumed to be the same as steel tube. The
force change in the fastening tie of an anti-sliding steel tube and normal steel tube
connection due to a temperature change of 25℃ should be doubled (2.98 kN). In
previous report [1], it was also found that the mean tensile force in the fastening tie
during fixing the joints is about 23 N and the ultimate tensile force of fastening tie is
76
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
1,135 N. In summary, a temperature change of ±25℃ would not affect the property
of scaffolding connections very much.
The design of mixed scaffolding was based on the structural form of traditional double
layered bamboo scaffoldings (DLBS) such as the one shown in Fig. 4-14 [12]. As
shown in Fig. 4-15, there are three possible types for the mixed scaffolding:
Type 1: Posts and bracings of a DLBS are replaced by anti-sliding steel tubes.
Type 2: Type 1 plus main ledgers replaced by normal steel tubes.
Type 3: Posts, main ledgers and bracings of a DLBS are replaced by normal steel
tubes and connected using couplers.
In this study, the size of steel tube is 48.3 × 2.3 mm (outer diameter × thickness) and
its characteristic yield strength = 235 N/mm² and young’s modulus E = 200 GPa.
As the design of mixed scaffolding was based on the traditional DLBS, the finite
element modeling of bamboo components was the same as that in Section 2.2.2. Also,
nonlinear analysis with P-Delta effect has been considered in the analysis. Details of
the modeling are outlined as follow:
(1) The posts, main ledgers, and diagonal bracings substituted by steel tubes were
modeled as members with circular hollow cross sections.
(2) The vertical, horizontal and rotational stiffness of the joint between bamboo
77
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
members or between bamboo and steel tube members were modeled using
multi-linear elements and panel zones. For simplicity, the out-of-plane relative
displacement at connection was ignored.
(3) It should be noted that in each main ledger-post/standard fastening, there was
always a transom-post/standard fastening connected at the same location. Thus,
the total connection resistance, vertical stiffness and horizontal stiffness should be
doubled. The rotational stiffness was not doubled because the post/standard, main
ledger and transom were orthogonal to each other.
(4) For Type 3 mixed scaffolding, the joints between steel tubes fastened by right angle
couplers were assumed to be rigid connections. Those non-orthogonal connections
fastened by swivel couplers were modeled as panel zones with a simple constraint
which could not transmit moments.
(5) The bamboo transoms linking up the inner layer and outer layer ledgers were
simulated as pinned connection.
(6) For Type 1 and Type 2 mixed scaffolding, putlogs were anti-sliding steel tubes
fastened to scaffolding by plastic stripes and connected to wall by anchor bolts.
For Type 3 mixed scaffolding, putlogs were normal steel tubes fastened to
scaffolding by metal couplers and connected to wall with specific anchorages.
These putlogs were modeled with only inward and outward restraints and were
used to prevent inward and outward movement of the scaffoldings.
(7) All the main posts were assumed to be pinned at the bottom. The braces were only
connected to main posts of the outer layer.
In this section, the three mixed scaffolding types were compared with regard to the
following aspects:
The analytical result of pure bamboo scaffolding was also provided for comparison.
The configuration and dimensions of bamboo scaffolding and mixed scaffoldings
were assumed to be the same with a platform height of 2 m and width of 0.6 m as
shown respectively in Fig. 4-14 and Fig. 4-15.
To compare the cost of these mixed scaffoldings, a one-bay (1.3 m) unboarded lift as
shown in Fig. 4-16 was selected for analysis. The work platform board and toe-board
were not included as they could all be used on these scaffoldings. Table 4-7 summaries
the material required for constructing a one-bay unboarded lift for the bamboo
scaffolding and the three mixed scaffoldings. The actual length of a scaffolding
component was calculated by multiplying its net length (physical size of the
scaffolding) with an overlap factor. The overlap factors were determined according to
the requirements in relevant scaffolding codes. To calculate the material consumption,
the following assumptions have been made:
79
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
assumed to be 1.5 m. The overlap factor (1.1) for steel tube in this type was based
on that every 4.5 m increase of horizontal normal steel tube required 1.5 m
overlap, and then this increase is averaged to all tube length.
(6) For Type 3, the normal steel tubes for continuous diagonal brace were joined by 2
swivel or parallel couplers with an overlap length of 0.3 m [20]. The overlap
factor of 1.01 for steel tube was based on that every 5.7 m increase of brace
required 0.3 m overlap, and such an overlap is averaged by the total tube length.
(7) For Type 3, joints between posts and main ledgers should be made with sleeve
couplers or expanding joint pins [20] with no overlap. So, a total of 4.5 couplers (2
right angle couplers for post-ledger connection, 0.5 swivel or parallel couplers for
brace overlap, 1 sleeve coupler or expanding joint pin for ledgers and posts, and 1
swivel coupler for connection between steel brace and post) were required for a
one-bay lift.
A comparison of the material costs of three different mixed scaffoldings and bamboo
scaffolding is summarized in Table 4-8. It is seen that the material costs of Type 1, 2
and 3 mixed scaffoldings are 6, 8.4 and 7.7 times of that of bamboo scaffolding. It
should be noted that metal tube and fittings are recyclable which was not reflected in
this table. Furthermore, the labor cost of the three mixed scaffolding types and the
bamboo scaffolding should be in the following order: bamboo scaffolding ﹤ Type 1 ≈
Type 2 ﹤ Type 3.
There are no specific researches or data about the construction time of three different
mixed scaffolding and bamboo scaffolding. Obviously, the erection and dismantling of
bamboo scaffolding is faster than that of mixed scaffoldings as bamboo components are
much lighter than metal components. Comparing Type 1 and Type 2, moving, installing
and dismantling metal main ledgers would not be convenient and easy for a single
worker due to their relatively heavy weight (15.6 kg/piece). Hence constructing Type 1
should be faster than Type 2. Furthermore, the using of couplers in Type 3 would need
80
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
more time. In summary, the construction time of the three mixed scaffolding types and
the bamboo scaffolding should be in the following order: bamboo scaffolding ﹤ Type
1 ﹤ Type 2 ﹤ Type 3.
For comparison, the density of bamboo (Kao Jue and Mao Jue) under natural
condition was used, which was obtained according to average dry density, moisture
content for natural condition and geometric dimensions from Appendix B1. The
increased self-weight due to overlap and the using of coupler described in Section
4.3.1 has been considered in an equivalent density by applying corresponding
increasing factors, as shown in Table 4-9. The equivalent density (kg/m) of Kao Jue,
Mao Jue and steel tube were used to calculate the self-weight of a one-bay unboarded
lift for these scaffoldings and are summarized in Table 4-10 for comparison. It is seen
that the weight of a mixed scaffolding is about 2 to 3 times that of a bamboo
scaffolding.
This section compared the load-carrying capacity including allowable load (UDL) on
platform and allowable height of the three mixed scaffolding types and bamboo
scaffolding. Load-carrying capacity of a scaffolding and its components was
determined based on the method of permissible stress design for scaffoldings according
to BS 5975 [23] and BS EN 12811-1 [22]. In this method, all loads are unfactored loads
and all characteristic resistances are reduced to working resistances by dividing them
by a single factor: 1.1 (material factor) × 1.5 (load factor) = 1.65 for steel components
and 1.5 (material factor [9]) × 1.5 (load factor) = 2.25 for bamboo components. It
should be noted that the mechanical properties of bamboo under normal supply
condition from Appendix B1 was used in analysis.
81
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
The deflection of platform under two scaffolding duties (light duty 1.5 kN/m² and
special duty 3 kN/m²) was analyzed for the serviceability design. The deflection of
platform mainly comes from the relative slippage at the connections and the bending
deformation of components. The maximum member deflection across all components
supporting platform was recorded as the maximum deflection of platform. Due to
different configuration between the inner and outer layer, load on platform may not be
shared equally by all transoms and main ledgers. So, the allowable load and deflection
of these two types of platform were determined using a full-scale scaffolding model.
For Type 1 platform, wooden boards are fairly popular due to their lower price. For
simplicity, wooden boards were chosen as representative for Type 1 platform in this
section. In the full-scale model, Type 1 platform was modelled by two thick shell
element placing on bamboo transoms through gap elements and each shell element
represents one 225 mm (width) × 25 mm (thick) piece of wooden board as seen in Fig.
4-18 (a). The young's modulus and bending strength of wooden boards were obtained
from the test to be reported in Chapter 5. For Type 2 platform, usually five
82
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
longitudinal bamboos (Kao Jue) were fastened to transoms using plastic stripes as
seen in Fig. 4-18 (b). Based on these assumptions, the allowable loads and the
maximum deflections for the two types of platform for the bamboo scaffolding and
the three mixed scaffolding types are presented in Table 4-11 and Table 4-12,
respectively. It is seen that the allowable loads on the two types of platform are between
3.23 and 4.0 kN/m2 for all types of scaffolding considered. The allowable loads for
Type 1 mixed scaffolding are the same as those of bamboo scaffolding, while Types 2
and 3 mixed scaffolding have almost the same but slightly higher allowable loads.
Overall speaking, there is no significant difference among the allowable loads for the
two types of platform for all scaffoldings considered. As for the maximum deflection, it
is seen that, except that Type 3 mixed scaffolding has significantly the smallest
deflection, all the other scaffoldings (bamboo and Types 1 and 2 mixed scaffoldings)
have about the same maximum deflections.
83
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Metal brackets are used to support posts in tall scaffoldings. Fig. 4-21 shows the
dimensions and the modeling of a commonly used metal bracket for bamboo
scaffolding [12]. Test data about metal brackets obtained from previous research [2, 3]
were used in the modeling. The properties of the metal brackets were assumed to be:
young’s modulus E = 210 GPa and yield strength Fy = 350 MPa. These metal brackets
were assumed to be anchored using Fook Shing expansion bolts with properties
summarized in Table 4-15 [3]. The anchor bolts were modeled by two springs with
coefficients of KH and KV. The contact surface between the metal bracket and the
concrete panel was modeled by gap elements. The failure of an expansion bolt under
combined pull-out and shear forces is determined by the following formula [25]:
1.5 1.5
𝑁𝑆 𝑉𝑆
( ) +( ) ≤1
𝑁𝑅𝑢,𝑚 𝑉𝑅𝑢,𝑚
where
𝑁𝑅𝑢,𝑚 and 𝑉𝑅𝑢,𝑚 are the pull-out and shear strength (Table 4-15 (b)), respectively;
𝑁𝑠 and 𝑉𝑠 are the pull-out force and shear force under loading, respectively.
For simplicity and conservative consideration, the concrete was assumed to have a low
strength of 25 MPa. The maximum axial forces in posts of inner layer and outer layer
under allowable height shown in Table 4-14 were used as external load for a
conservative consideration. Table 4-16 shows the analysis results for different types of
1.5 1.5
𝑁𝑆 𝑉𝑆
scaffolding. It is seen that values of (
𝑁𝑅𝑢,𝑚
) +(
𝑉𝑅𝑢,𝑚
) are all smaller than 0.5 and the
maximum stress in steel is smaller than half of the yield strength under the condition
that the scaffolding was erected up to its allowable height. These results indicate that
the metal bracket has adequate strength to support either light-duty or heavy-duty
scaffoldings.
The load generated on putlogs is mainly from the wind load. Wind loads shall be
calculated by assuming that there is a velocity pressure on a reference area of the
working scaffolding, which is in general the projected area perpendicular to the wind
direction. According to the Code of Practice on Wind Effects in Hong Kong [26], the
total wind force 𝐹 acting on a scaffolding is determined by the following equation:
𝐹 = 𝐶𝑓 ∑ 𝑞𝑧 × 𝐴𝑧
where 𝐶𝑓 is the force coefficient for open framework, 𝐶𝑓 = 1.85 when the solidity
4.3.4 Summary
85
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
different mixed scaffoldings and bamboo scaffoldings are summarized in Table 4-17.
Those of a pure metal scaffolding according to code [20] was also provided for
comparison. This pure metal scaffolding was assumed to have platform height of 2 m,
width of 0.6 m and bay length of 1.3 m. All components in the metal scaffolding are
consisted of normal steel tubes same as those used in the mixed scaffoldings and there
is no standard between posts. The transoms are fixed to the inside and outside ledgers
with couplers at each pair of posts. The joint between tubes in metal scaffolding are
similar to Type 3 mixed scaffolding. From this table, the following findings can be
concluded:
(1) All three types of mixed scaffolding can meet the load requirements specified in
the bamboo scaffolding code [17] and the metal scaffolding code [20]. The mixed
scaffoldings have a better performance than bamboo scaffolding in terms of
load-carrying capacity. However, in terms of costs (material cost and labor cost),
self-weight and construction time, bamboo scaffolding is still much better than the
mixed scaffoldings. Metal scaffolding is the most costly but can offer a more
robust performance under different environmental condition.
(2) The allowable load (UDL) on platform of bamboo scaffolding and mixed
scaffoldings are all larger than 3 kN/m², which is determined by the failure of
bamboo transom between posts. Metal scaffolding gives the largest allowable load
(UDL) on platform among all scaffoldings, which is determined by the failure of
wooden boards. The allowable loads (UDL) on platform of Type 2 and Type 3 are
slightly larger than that of Type 1 and bamboo scaffolding.
(3) The deflection of platform under designed load is smallest in Type 3 mixed
scaffolding, which is slightly smaller than that of metal scaffolding. Bamboo
scaffolding and Type 1 and Type 2 mixed scaffoldings show a larger but similar
deflection behavior. Also, two different types of platform (wooden board and
closely-spaced bamboo members) give a similar load-carrying capacity and
deflection for all three mixed scaffoldings and bamboo scaffolding.
86
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(4) Bamboo scaffolding can only be used as light-duty scaffolding (two working
platforms rated at 1.5 kN/m²) and both mixed and metal scaffoldings can serve as
heavy-duty scaffolding (two working platforms rated at 2.50 kN/m² plus one
working platform rated at 0.75 kN/m²). Considering the allowable height within a
single zone (a separate zone between metal brackets), all mixed scaffoldings have
a larger erection height (more than twice) than the bamboo scaffolding.
The full-scale mixed scaffolding used for testing is a scaffolding with dimensions of
6.3 m×4.6 m×0.65 m (height×length×width) erected by the Sinoscaff (Hong Kong)
Limited. The properties of the anti-sliding tubes provided by this company were: 48.2
mm×2.23 mm (outer diameter×thickness), E = 204 GPa and a yield strength of 220
N/mm²[28]. The outer layer consisted of four anti-sliding steel tube posts and 3
bamboo standards (Kao Jue). The inner layer had four anti-sliding steel tube posts.
There were three platforms at the height of 1.1 m, 3.1 m and 5.1m, respectively. The
scaffolding was X-braced by two anti-sliding tubes at the outer layer and connected to
building façade through five putlogs. The configuration and dimension of mixed
scaffolding is shown in Fig. 4-20.
87
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
On this scaffolding, two types of test were performed: UDL test on platform and static
point load test on connection. Details of these tests are provided in the following.
(1) UDL of 5 kN/m² (equivalent point load of 10 kN) and 7.6 kN/m² (equivalent point
load of 15 kN) acting on two spans of platform, respectively.
(2) UDL of 5.1 kN/m2 (equivalent point load of 5 kN) and 10.3 kN/m2 (equivalent
point load of 10 kN) on the middle span of platform respectively.
(1) Connection of bamboo ledger and bamboo standard (load position (1) and (2) in
Fig. 4-22).
(2) Connection of bamboo ledger and anti-sliding steel tube post (load position (3)
and (4) in Fig. 4-22).
The equipment used in the tests were the same as that reported in Section 2.4. Strain
gauges were installed at the bottom of all bamboo standards and steel tube posts. For
each test case described in above, loads were conducted on both the upper platform
and the bottom platform separately. To create the UDL condition, a loading device
88
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
made by steel tubes and coupler was used to convert the applied point load to UDL as
shown in Fig. 4-23. For the UDL test on two spans of both the upper and the bottom
platform, a point load up to 10 kN (5.0 kN/m²) and 15 kN (7.6 kN/m²) was applied,
respectively. For UDL test on the middle span of both the upper and the bottom
platform, a point load up to 5 kN (5.1 kN/m²) and 10 kN (10.3 kN/m²) was applied,
respectively. Fig. 4-24 shows two of the loading conditions: middle span of the
bottom platform under 10 kN (10.3 kN/m²) load and two spans of the upper platform
under 15 kN (7.6 kN/m²) load. For each case, 3 independent tests were conducted.
Table 4-18 summarizes the test results according to the post number and standard
number labelling as shown in Fig. 4-25. Based on these testing results, the following
observations can be made:
(1) There were no notable deformation nor any sign of damage in any part of the
scaffolding even under an UDL with a magnitude twice as large as the required
value for all cases. The measured axial forces in posts were all much less than
their compressive buckling strength.
(2) Under UDL, the middle steel posts (posts 4, 6 of back layer and posts 3, 5 of front
layer) carried larger axial loads than the other posts.
(3) The axial forces in bamboo standards were much smaller than those in steel posts.
(4) For the same loading condition, the axial forces in the posts and standards were
approximately linearly proportional to the UDL magnitude.
(5) The standard deviations of the measured strains were quite small which suggested
that the test results were quite consistent and reliable.
To compare the test results obtained above, finite element analysis using SAP 2000
reported in Section 4.2 was performed for all the UDL cases tested above. Table 4-19
presents the comparison between the UDL test and the computer analysis results. Note
that strain gauges used in the test had a precision of 1 × 10−6 𝜀, hence comparison of
those axial forces obtained from strain values smaller than or around this precision
89
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
was not made. Table 4-20 further summarizes the average differences obtained
between the full-scale test and the numerical analysis. It shows that the average
difference in the axial forces between the full-scale UDL test and the numerical
analysis of Type 1 mixed scaffolding was about 33% for the bamboo members and
about 20% for the metal members.
The static point load tests were performed to obtain the deformation behavior and the
load-carrying capacity of connection and check whether the connection could be used
as an anchorage for safety harness. The setup of static point load test was similar to
that of UDL test. The load generated by tensile jack was applied on connection
through a steel wire. Two types of point load test were performed to obtain the
deformation behavior and the load-carrying capacity of scaffolding connection,
respectively. First, the point load applied on connection was slowly increased from 0
kN to 2 kN to obtain the deformation behavior of connection. The deformation at
about 10 cm away from the connection was measured by the LVDT as illustrated in
Fig. 4-26. Each of four connections as shown in Fig. 4-22 were tested three times.
Then, load acting on connection was increased gradually until some sign of
connection failure occurred to obtain its load-carrying capacity.
Fig. 4-27 shows the load-displacement curves for Connection (1) and Connection (3).
It is seen that the load-displacement relation is rather linear indicating that the
scaffolding remains linear elastic up to 2 kN load applied to these locations. Table
4-21 summaries the displacement measured near the four connections under 2 kN
static point load. Table 4-22 summarizes the mean values and standard deviations of
measured strains and axial forces for vertical posts and standards under 2 kN static
point load acting on each of the four connections. It is seen that the load acting on
connection was mainly carried by the posts directly underneath. The axial force in a
90
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
post decreases as the distance between the post and the connection increases. The
axial forces in the bamboo standards were generally very small comparing to those in
the posts.
Fig. 4-28 shows the failure of Connections (1) and (4) under static point load. The
ultimate failure loads corresponded to the maximum point loads attained during the
loading process. Table 4-23 summarizes the failure loads of these four connections.
Results show that the connections can only sustain around 4 kN load before failure.
This is not sufficient to be used as an anchorage for safety harness even an energy
absorbing connecting device is used (requiring a minimum of 8 kN). This indicates
that the connections in Type 1 mixed scaffolding cannot be used as an anchorage for
safety harness.
To compare the test results obtained above, finite element analysis using SAP 2000
reported in Section 4.2 was performed for all the static point load cases tested above.
Fig. 4-29 shows the comparison of load-displacement curves between test and
analysis for Connection (1) and (3). It is seen that the computer analysis results
coincided with the first test results very well at both connections, both of which
exhibited linear behavior. Tables 4-24 and 4-25 further summarize the comparison of
displacement and load-carrying capacity of connections between test and analysis,
respectively. It is seen that the displacement difference between test and analysis
ranges between 10 to 45 % if the average diameter from Appendix B1 was used in the
analysis. The difference becomes smaller (between 1 to 23%) if the diameters of
bamboo ledges were measured in-situ and used in the computer model. Similarly, the
difference of load-carrying capacity between test and analysis ranges between 15 to
30% if the measured diameters were used in the model. Table 4-26 compares the axial
forces in some of the posts and standards between test and analysis under 2 kN point
load acting on the four connections. Table 4-27 further summarizes the difference
between test and analysis results. It can be concluded that the axial force difference
91
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
between full-scale test and numerical analysis was about 38% for the bamboo members
and about 22% for the metal members.
For Type 3 mixed scaffolding, the steel ledger (48.3×2.3 mm) has a larger
load-carrying capacity due to the use of right angle couplers. Assume that the support
condition of the metal ledger are clamped supports with a span of 1.3m, the
load-carrying capacity at the midpoint is 5.3 kN under the yield strength of 235
N/mm² (or 7.95 kN under the yield strength 350 N/mm²). It can be briefly concluded
that the Type 3 mixed scaffolding also cannot provide safe anchorages to resist the
drop force of 4 kN with a safety factor of 2 even when an energy absorber lanyard or
SRL/Fall limiter is used.
92
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Fig. 4-1 Normal steel tube (left) and anti-sliding steel tube (right)
93
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(a) Test for slippage stiffness (b) Test for rotational stiffness
Fig. 4-2 Test setup for normal steel tube-bamboo connection
1.2
UTM Force (kN)
0.8 1
2
0.6
3
4
0.4
5
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
UTM Displacement (mm)
94
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
1
y = 0.068x y = 0.053x
y = 0.063x
y = 0.063x
0.8
1
0.6 2
3
0.4 4
5
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
UTM Displacement (mm)
0.6
UTM Force (kN)
0.5
0.4
1
0.3
2
0.2
3
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-0.1
UTM Displacement (mm)
95
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
0.07
M (kN·m) 0.06
y = 0.124x
0.05 y = 0.109x
y = 0.100x
0.04
1
0.03 2
3
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.01
θ (rad)
(b) M − θ curves
Fig. 4-4 Rotational tests for normal steel tube (post)-bamboo (ledger) connection
1
Force (kN)
12.5, 0.76
0.5
0
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
-0.5
-12.5, -0.76
-1
Relative displacement (mm)
0.35
M=0.11× θ
M (kN·m)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
M=0 θ (rad)
0
-4 -2 0 2 4
96
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Fig. 4-6 Test setup for connection involving anti-sliding steel tube
97
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
98
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
4
Connection resistance
3.5
Second bump
3
2.5
2
Slipping force
1.5
First bump
1
0.5
Initial slippage
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
UTM Displacement (mm)
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
99
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
UTM Displacement (mm)
100
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
UTM Displacement (mm)
Inner layer
101
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Bracing (outer
layer): Kao Jue
1.3 m
Ledger on the first
Standard (outer
lift: Mao Jue
layer): Kao Jue
102
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Anti-sliding tube
Standard (outer
layer): Kao Jue
Ledger on the first
1.3 m
lift: Mao Jue
1.3 m
103
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
1.3 m
2m
104
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
105
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
106
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
107
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
10 kN/15 kN
5 kN/10 kN
(2)
(4)
(1)
(3)
108
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Fig. 4-22 Test arrangement for static point load test on connection
(a) Two spans of bottom platform (b) Two spans of upper platform
(c) Middle span of bottom platform (d) Middle span of upper platform
Fig. 4-23 Setup of UDL test for platform
109
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(a) Middle span of the bottom platform under 10 kN (10.3 kN/m²) load
(b) Two spans of the upper platform under 15 kN (7.6 kN/m²) load
Fig. 4-24 UDL test on platform
110
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Brace 1 Brace 2
111
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
30
25
20 1st Test
15 2nd Test
10 3rd Test
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Point load (kN)
25
20
15 1st Test
2nd Test
10
3rd Test
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Point load (kN)
(b) Load-displacement curve for Connection (3)
112
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Fig. 4-27 Load-displacement curves for Connections (1) and (3) (see Fig. 4-22)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
113
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Diplacement (mm)
30
25
20 SAP 2000
1st Test
15
2nd Test
10
3rd Test
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Point load (kN)
20
15 SAP 2000
1st Test
10
2nd Test
3rd Test
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Point load (kN)
(b) Load-displacement curve for Connection (3)
Fig. 4-29 Comparison of load-displacement curves between test and analysis
114
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 4-3 Test results for anti-sliding steel tube-bamboo/normal steel tube connection
Test series Initial
No. of
Total slippage Connection Slippage
test with
No. of distance resistance displacement
Horizontal Vertical Angle initial
tests (average over (kN) (mm)
member member (°) slippage
𝑁 𝑁)
𝑛
mm Mean Std Mean Std
0 5 4 10.92 3.36 0.11 61.33 5.69
Anti- 45 5 3 4.20 2.81 0.24 54.05 6.28
Bamboo sliding 90 5 4 7.95 2.60 0.25 55.68 7.11
steel tube 135 5 / / 0.82 0.10 / /
180 5 1 1.20 1.81 0.45 20.24 9.81
0 5 2 2.95 3.42 0.23 52.08 5.80
Anti- 45 5 3 2.70 2.94 0.28 49.95 6.20
Normal
sliding 90 5 4 5.85 2.50 0.43 51.00 4.93
steel tube
steel tube 135 5 / / 0.88 0.16 / /
180 5 1 1.80 2.02 0.56 10.16 6.01
115
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 4-4 Connection resistance for 0°, case 45° and case 90° orientation
Horizontal Bamboo Normal steel tube
member 0° 45° 90° 0° 45° 90°
3.42 2.36 2.39 3.57 2.59 2.80
Connection 3.55 2.75 3.01 2.98 2.78 2.58
resistance 3.24 2.99 2.73 3.65 3.22 3.04
(kN) 3.26 2.96 2.33 3.47 2.79 2.28
3.34 2.97 2.52 3.41 3.33 1.81
Mean (kN) 3.36 2.81 2.60 3.42 2.94 2.50
Std (kN) 0.11 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.43
Overall (kN) Mean = 2.92 Std = 0.39 Mean = 2.95 Std = 0.49
Table 4-5 Total displacement for 0°, case 45° and case 90° orientation
Horizontal Bamboo Normal steel tube
member 0° 45° 90° 0° 45° 90°
65.05 64.48 51.04 56.33 46.10 55.52
Total 62.39 44.79 59.56 43.36 44.28 52.96
Displacement 51.88 54.36 47.88 47.53 55.38 56.12
(mm) 58.84 54.16 52.27 54.01 44.67 43.90
68.48 52.45 67.66 59.15 59.33 46.49
Mean (mm) 61.33 54.05 55.68 52.08 49.95 51.00
Std (mm) 5.69 6.28 7.11 5.80 6.20 4.93
Overall (mm) Mean = 57.02 Std = 7.11 Mean = 51.01 Std = 5.73
117
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 4-13 Allowable buckling loads for metal and bamboo posts
Allowable buckling
Buckling strength
Material Safety factor load
(kN)
(kN)
Metal post
9.13 1.65 5.53
(48.3×2.3 mm)
Bamboo inner post
2.31 2.25 1.54
(Kao Jue)
Bamboo outer post
9.33 2.25 6.22
(Mao Jue)
Note: The material factor (𝑟𝑚 =1.5) of bamboo column was considered in buckling strength.
119
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 4-15 Test data for Fook Shing anchor bolts [2, 3]
(a) Spring coefficients for Fook Shing anchor bolts
Concrete panel Low strength (25 MPa) Standard strength (65 MPa)
𝐾𝐻 (kN/cm) 15 25
𝐾𝑉 (kN/cm) 30 50
(b) Average pull-out and shear strengths for Fook Shing anchor bolts
Concrete panel Pull-out strength 𝑁𝑅𝑢,𝑚 (kN) Shear strength 𝑉𝑅𝑢,𝑚 (kN)
Low strength (25 MPa) 11.3 18.7
Standard strength (65 MPa) 18.2 30.1
Table 4-16 Safety of anchor bolt and bracket for scaffolding with allowable height
Maximum axial Safety check of anchor bolts and metal bracket
Scaffolding force in posts (kN) Force in top anchor bolt Maximum
Duty
type Inner Outer Pull-out Shear 𝑁𝑆
1.5
𝑉𝑆
1.5
stress in steel
( ) +( )
layer layer force (kN) force (kN) 𝑁𝑅𝑢,𝑚 𝑉𝑅𝑢,𝑚 (MPa)
Bamboo 1.54 2.09 1.55 1.20 0.07 35.89
Light Type 1 3.3 5.54 3.94 2.93 0.27 81.64
duty Type 2 3.68 5.53 4.02 3.05 0.28 88.16
Type 3 4.15 5.50 4.10 3.20 0.29 96.14
Bamboo scaffolding cannot be used for heavy-duty purpose
Heavy Type 1 3.89 5.49 4.04 3.11 0.28 91.61
Duty Type 2 4.23 5.57 4.16 3.25 0.30 97.83
Type 3 4.64 5.55 4.23 3.38 0.31 104.83
120
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
121
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
122
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
123
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
124
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
125
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
126
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
127
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
128
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 4-22 Results for static point load test (2 kN) on connection
(a) Connection (1)
Measured
Strain
Young's Cross section area 𝐴
axial force
modulus
Component Outside
Mean Std 𝐸 Thickness 𝐴 Mean Std
diameter
× 10−6 𝜀 kN/mm² mm mm mm² kN
Post 1 1.4 1.1 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 0.09 0.08
Post 3 -14.1 0.3 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.92 0.02
Post 5 -12.1 1.1 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.80 0.07
Post 7 1.1 0.6 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 0.07 0.04
Front Standard 1 0.9 0.7 8.55 49.7 6.34 863.3 0.007 0.01
Standard 2 -7.2 1.9 8.55 43.3 5.53 656.1 -0.04 0.01
Standard 3 -0.9 0.3 8.55 50.0 6.38 874.4 -0.007 0.00
Brace 1 -3.3 0.6 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.21 0.04
Brace 2 -4.0 0.4 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.26 0.03
(b) Connection (2)
Measured
Strain
Young's Cross section area 𝐴
axial force
modulus
Component Outside
Mean Std 𝐸 Thickness 𝐴 Mean Std
diameter
× 10−6 𝜀 kN/mm² mm mm mm² kN
Post 1 1.7 0.4 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 0.11 0.02
Post 3 -13.7 0.2 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.90 0.01
Post 5 -10.9 1.1 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.72 0.07
Post 7 1.2 0.5 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 0.08 0.03
Front Standard 1 1.1 0.8 8.55 49.7 6.34 863.3 0.008 0.01
Standard 2 -13.7 1.5 8.55 43.3 5.53 656.1 -0.08 0.01
Standard 3 -0.4 0.2 8.55 50.0 6.38 874.4 -0.003 0.001
Brace 1 -2.0 0.4 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.13 0.03
Brace 2 -2.3 0.2 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.15 0.01
130
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
131
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
132
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
133
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
134
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
There are two types of working platform commonly used in the industry. First one is
formed by placing wooden boards or pre-fabricated iron planks on transoms. The
other one is by fastening bamboo members (Kao Jue) on transoms at a closely-spaced
distance (≤ 150 mm) to form an integrated bamboo platform, above which thin
wooden boards are usually placed for ease of work as well as to prevent debris/objects
falling through. In this chapter, the safety of the following three commonly used
platform Types were investigated numerically and experimentally:
(1) Type 1: Integrated bamboo members with thin wooden boards, see Fig. 5-1 (a);
(2) Type 2: Thick wooden boards, see Fig. 5-1 (b);
(3) Type 3: Pre-fabricated iron planks, see Fig. 5-1 (c).
The material properties of bamboo (Kao Jue) have been studied in previous
investigations. Please see Appendix B1 for a summary. The wooden boards used in
this study were purchased from the market and were made of plywood as seen in Fig.
5-2. Both the thick and thin wooden boards have a width of 200 mm and with a
thickness of 25 mm and 12 mm, respectively. The iron planks were provided by the
Sinoscaff (HK) Ltd. with dimensions shown in Fig. 5-3.
Three-point loading tests were used to evaluate the flexure modulus and the ultimate
bending strength of the wooden boards and the iron planks. Specimens were placed in
135
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
the Dartec loading machine with round pin supports at both ends. Load was added at
the middle of specimens through a round tube as shown in Fig. 5-4. The distance
between two simply supported pins for wooden board test and iron plank test was set
as 0.6 m and 1.6 m, respectively. For the thick and thin wooden boards, six tests were
performed each. Four tests were performed for the iron planks. Fig. 5-5 shows a
typical load-deflection curve for the iron plank. The flexural modulus 𝐸 can be
obtained through the formula:
𝑃 48𝐸𝐼
= 3
∆ 𝐿
where
P is load in the initial load-deflection curve;
△ is the corresponding deflection;
L is the distance between the two simply supported pins;
I is the moment of area.
The ratio of P over △ can be obtained from a linear regression of the initial slope of the
load–deflection curve as shown in Fig. 5-5. Table 5-1 summarizes the mechanical
properties for the thin and thick wooden boards. It is seen that the ultimate load for
the thin wooden board is about 1 kN, while that for the thick wooden board is about
four times. Both of them have about the same ultimate bending strength 30-35 MPa
and about the same flexural modulus 4.5-4.8 GPa. Table 5-2 summarizes the
mechanical properties for the iron planks. It is seen that its ultimate load is about 2 kN,
ultimate bending strength is about 376 MPa and flexural modulus is about 167 GPa.
After obtain the properties of wooden boards and iron planks, the structural behavior
136
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
The Type 1 mixed scaffolding tested in Chapter 4 was used for the full-scale test of
working platform with three different types: integrated bamboo members with thin
wooden boards; thick wooden boards and iron planks. From the UDL test and
load-carrying capacity analysis of platform in Chapter 4, the platform boards would
not fail under the UDL and the load-carrying capacity is dominated by the failure of
bamboo transom. In this section, the safety and deflection behavior of three different
types on real support under partial area load or point load would be investigated.
According to BS EN 12811-1 [22], the working area for load classes 5 and 6 shall be
capable of supporting a uniformly distributed partial area load of 7.5 kN/m² and 10
kN/m², respectively. The partial area for load classes 5 and 6 is obtained by
multiplying the area of the bay by the partial area factor 0.4 and 0.5, respectively. The
dimensions and position of the partial area shall be chosen to give the most
unfavourable codition (maximum moment and deflection), as shown in Fig. 5-6. For
simplicity, an equivalent point load was used in test instead of the partial area load,
which gives a larger moment and deflection. The equivalent point load for load
classes 5 and 6 is 2.93 kN and 4.88 kN when testing in Type 1 mixed scaffolding with
bay length 1.5 m and platform width 0.65 m. A loading device made of the steel tube
and couplers was used to form a static point load condition (equivalent line UDL). The
static point load was applied in the middle working area of platform. The setup of
static point load test for the three platform types is shown in Fig. 5-7. The loading
device was set to apply a point load up to 3 kN or 5 kN on the middle of working area.
Each type was tested four times. The displacement at the midpoint of the inner layer
was recorded by LVDT for comparison.
137
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 5-3 summaries the deflection of the midpoint of the inner layer for the three
platform types under 3 kN and 5 kN point load for comparison. Fig. 5-8 shows the
load-deflection curves for the three types under a static point load larger than 3 kN. It
is seen that all three platform types have about the same linear elastic deflection
behavior under loads. This shows that the platform with all three types remained very
much intact during the tests. No noticeable damage on the platform and the
scaffolding was observed after all the tests. The measured axial force in bamboo
standards and steel posts were calculated by multiplying the measured strain values
with the calculated cross sectional area of bamboo and steel tube respectively. Table
5-4 summarizes the mean values and standard deviations of strains and axial forces
under recorded static point load of 3 kN. The post number and standard number are
the same as in Fig. 4-25. It is seen that the point load acting on the platform was
mainly carried by the posts directly under the loading position.
To compare the test results obtained above, finite element analysis using SAP 2000
reported in Section 4.2 was performed for all the static point load cases tested above.
Fig. 5-9 shows the comparison of load-deflection curves between test and analysis for
all three platform types. It is seen that the displacements estimated from the numerical
analysis are in general higher than those measured from the test. Both of them show
linear elastic behavior. Table 5-5 summarizes the comparison of displacement at the
midpoint of inner layer of the bottom platform for the three platform types under 3
and 5 kN load. It is seen that the difference between test and analysis ranges between
30 to 67%. Table 5-6 compares the axial forces in some of the posts and standards
between test and analysis under 3 kN point load acting on the platform. Table 5-7
further summarizes the difference between test and analysis results. It can be
concluded that the axial force difference between full-scale test and numerical analysis
was about 32% for the bamboo members and about 14% for the metal members. In
138
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
summary, both the test and analysis results confirm that all three platform types:
integrated bamboo members with thin wooden boards, thick wooden boards, and iron
planks, have similar mechanical behavior on real support and seem to be able to be
used as a safe platform for the scaffolding.
(a) Type 1: Integrated bamboo members (thin wooden boards are not shown)
139
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Fig. 5-2 Thin and thick wooden boards made out of plywood
140
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
1.6 m
0.6 m
2.5
Mid load (kN)
1.5
P y = 0.0488x + 0.2925
0.5
△
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Mid deflection (mm)
141
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Partial area
142
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
143
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Deflection (mm) 14
Bamboo +
12 thin wooden
board
10
8
Thick
wooden
6 board
2 Iron plank
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Line UDL (kN)
18
Bamboo + thin
wooden board
16
Model
14 Test
12
Thick wooden
10 board Model
8 Test
6
Iron plank
4
Model
2
Test
0
0 1 2 3 4
Line UDL (kN)
144
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
145
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table 5-4 Results for static point load (3 kN) on working platform
(a) Type 1: Integrated bamboo members with thin wooden boards
Measured
Strain
Young's Cross section area 𝐴
axial force
modulus
Component Outside
Mean Std 𝐸 Thickness 𝐴 Mean Std
diameter
× 10−6 𝜀 GPa mm mm mm² kN
Post 2 0.4 1.0 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 0.03 0.07
Post 4 -13.7 0.3 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.90 0.58
Back
Post 6 -14.5 1.0 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.95 0.52
Post 8 0.7 0.8 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 0.05 0.05
Post 1 1.2 0.7 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 0.08 0.05
Post 3 -9.7 1.9 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.64 0.12
Post 5 -9.0 2.4 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 -0.59 0.16
Front
Post 7 1.2 0.8 204 48.2 2.23 322.1 0.08 0.05
Standard 1 0.3 0.6 8.55 49.7 6.34 863.3 0.003 0.004
Standard 2 -8.6 2.7 8.55 43.3 5.53 656.1 -0.05 0.01
146
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
147
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
148
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
149
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
The aim of this study is on the safe usage of bamboo and mixed scaffoldings using
combination of laboratory tests and computer analysis. The computer analyses were
conducted using the finite element analysis program SAP 2000 and the laboratory tests
were conducted in the Structural Laboratory of the Hong Kong University of Science
and Technology. Conclusions and recommendations obtained from this study can be
summarized as follows.
150
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
151
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Appendix
The splice in scaffolding is the type of connection used to join or overlap same units
together. In this chapter, the experiments and analysis will be focused on four
parameters which affect the characteristic resistance of splice for bracings, ledgers and
standards used in the erection of bamboo scaffold. Firstly, we will analyze the effect of
presence of nodes, the contact length, number of ties and number of round turns on
resistance. Then the resistance of actual splice between bamboos according to Hong
Kong bamboo scaffolding codes [12, 17] will be investigated. The controlling variable
method was used to arrange experiments and analyze their different degrees of
influence. The setup of splice test is shown in Fig.A-1. In the test, one bamboo member
was hold in position and the load was applied parallel to the other one.
152
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(1) The resistance of splice under case 1 with 5 round turns and case 2 is very close.
The failure mode of these two cases is always slipping between bamboo members.
(2) Comparing case 1 with different round turns to fasten splice, the number of round
turns shows a big impact on the resistance.
(3) The splice fastened closely between two nodes (case 3) shows a very large
resistance, and the failure mode is always splitting of plastic stripes.
(1) The influence of number of ties on resistance is far greater than the contact length
between two bamboo members.
(2) The resistance of splice shows approximately multiple relationships with the
number of ties.
153
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
five tests were conducted for splice between two BP and two PP respectively. The
bamboo members were selected randomly and two different bamboo members were
used for each test. This arrangement can give a more realistic experimental result.
Tested resistance data is concluded in Table A-3, and from which, following
observations can be seen:
(1) The resistance of splice between two PP is smaller than which between two BP. This
is mainly because of the larger diameter of PP so that the number of round turns is
less than it in the splice between two BP.
(2) During tests, the occurrence of loose of stripes under loading for actual splice is
more often than above four-ties splice. This due to the bending effect is more
important in long bamboo members and this effect may cause the loose of plastic
strips during the deformation of strips under loading. Thus, the resistance of six-ties
splice didn’t show a larger resistance compared with four-ties splice.
(3) Due to the different shape (cross-section area, initial curvature) and surface property
of different bamboo members, a larger variation of resistance is shown compared
with previous tests.
It can be found that the failure mode of this type of connection is always the large
154
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
deformation of plastic stripes and slipping between bamboo members. The resistance
will increase as the slipping between two orthotropic members increased, and a relative
displacement larger than 100 mm will always happen without splitting and looseness of
plastic stripes. The failure mode of “打戒指” and a corresponding load-displacement
curve are shown in Fig. A-5 (a) and (b), respectively. This type of connection has a
larger connection resistance and smaller slipping stiffness compared with the
connection fastened by 5-round plastic stripes. The connection behavior of “打戒指”
has also been considered in design of bamboo scaffolding reinforced anchorages but it
couldn’t improve the safety of connection as anchorage due to its small slipping
stiffness.
155
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
156
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Fig. A-2 Test setup of splice with contact length 1.3 m and different number of ties
157
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
158
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
3
UTM Force (kN)
2.5
y = 0.0239x
2
1.5
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
UTM Displacement (mm)
159
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table A-1 Effects of presence of nodes and number of round turns on resistance
No. No. of
Test Contact Presence Resistance(kN) Failure
of round Illustration
series length(m) of nodes Mean Std Mode
tests turns
Case
5 0.45 5 None 0.53 0.128
1
Relative
slippage
Case
5 0.45 4 None 0.37 0.074 between
1
bamboo
members
Case
5 0.45 5 One side 0.52 0.044
2
Splitting
Case Two of
5 0.45 5 4.18 0.296
3 sides plastic
strips
Table A-2 Experiments to study the effect of number of ties and contact length
Contact No. of round Resistance(kN)
No. of tests No. of ties
length(m) turns Mean Std
5 0.65 5 2 1.02 0.237
5 1.3 5 2 1.38 0.275
5 1.3 5 4 2.20 0.179
160
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
There were two bamboo species, namely Bambusa Pervariabilis (or Kao Jue) and
Phyllostachys Pubecens (or Mao Jue), commonly used in bamboo scaffoldings. Recent
scientific investigations on bamboo as construction materials were published by Chung
and Yu in 2002 [30]. Compression and bending tests were conducted to establish the
characteristic strengths and the Young’s modulus of these bamboo species. Table B-1
summaries the physical and mechanical properties of Kao Jue and Mao Jue under
different moisture. The experimental results have been verified with an average model
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑦
factor about 2 ( 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
) when using a proposed
material partial safety factor 1.5 against the characteristic strength (at fifth percentile)
to get the design strength of bamboo. So the proposed mechanical properties with the
appropriate material partial safety factor were used in analysis for this report.
161
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
According to material requirements of loose tubes (BS EN 12811-1 [22]), loose tubes
connected by couplers (BS EN 74-1 [21]) shall have a minimum nominal yield
strength of 235 N/mm², nominal external diameter of 48.3 mm and a minimum
nominal wall thickness of 3.2 mm. It should however be noted that the steel tubes
with the same external diameter but a thickness of 2.3mm are commonly used in
mixed scaffoldings in Hong Kong.
There are three sizes of steel tube commonly available in Hong Kong (see Fig. B-1):
(a) 48.3 mm (external diameter) × 4 mm (thickness) complying with BS EN 10255
[31]; (b) 48.3 mm × 3.2 mm complying with [31] and (c) 48.3 mm × 2.3 mm with no
specific standards. To determine their mechanical properties, tensile test were carried
out in accordance with ASTM E8 [32]. Dimensions of the test specimens are shown in
Appendix B3. Due to the curved surface of tube, a pair of testing fixture with the same
curved surface shape was made for the test. The dimensions of the fixture are also
presented in Appendix B3. The tensile test was carried out in the Structural
Engineering Laboratory of HKUST using a MTS Universal Testing Machine with
MTS 647 hydraulic wedge grip (see Fig. B-2). Fig. B-3 (a) and (b) show the
load-displacement curve and the enlarged initial stress-strain curve of specimen D2
for obtaining the yield strength and the young’s modulus of the specimen,
respectively.
Results obtained from the tensile test are shown in Table B-2. It can be see that the
characteristic yield strength, which is about 350 MPa for all three sizes of steel tube,
is much larger than the minimum yield strength of 235 N/mm² (235 MPa) as specified
in [22]. Also, the average Young’s modulus was tested to be about 200 GPa. In this
report, the yield strength 350 MPa (characteristic value) and Young’s modulus 200
GPa were adopted in the finite element numerical analysis for steel tubes from Hong
162
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Kong market. In Table B-2, the original cross-section area 𝑆0 of a test specimen is
calculated according to the formula given in [32]:
𝑏 𝐷2 𝑏 𝑏 𝐷 − 2𝑎 2 𝑏
𝑆0 = ( ) × √𝐷2 − 𝑏 2 + ( ) × 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( ) − ( ) × √(𝐷 − 2𝑎)2 − 𝑏 2 − ( ) × 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑠𝑖𝑛 ( )
4 4 𝐷 4 2 𝐷 − 2𝑎
where
𝑎: thickness of the tube wall;
𝑏: average width of the stripe; and
𝐷: external diameter of the tube.
The percentages of elongation after fracture under a fixed gauge length of 50 mm were
obtained in test. These elongation values should be converted to those corresponding to
a gauge length of 𝐿 = 5.65√𝑆0 using the formula given in BS EN ISO 2566-1 [33]:
−0.4
𝐴 √𝑆0
𝐴𝑟 = ( )
2 𝐿0
where
163
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
164
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
165
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
166
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
25
UTM force (kN)
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (mm)
167
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
0.4
Stress (GPa)
y = 202.29x
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002
Strain ε
Table B-1 Summary of physical and mechanical properties of Kao Jue and Mao Jue
Avg. Avg. 95% characteristic Avg. Young's
external internal strength (N/mm²) modulus (kN/mm²)
Bamboo Moisture content
diameter diameter
Compression Bending Compression Bending
(mm) (mm)
Dry < 5.0% 79.0 80.0 10.3 22.0
Kao Jue
Natural 12.5% 40.7 30.4 57.0 58.5 8.6 19.2
(BP)
Wet > 20.0% 35.0 37.0 6.8 16.4
Dry < 5.0% 117.0 51.0 9.4 13.2
Mao
Natural 20.0% 68.6 54.5 73.2 53.4 7.6 11.0
Jue (PP)
Wet > 30.0% 44.0 55.0 6.4 9.6
Note: Based on a total of 364 compression and 91 bending tests reported in [30].
168
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Table B-2 Results of tensile test for three different sizes of steel tube
Dimensions Testing Properties
Percentage
Width Cross Lower elongation after
External Tensile Young’s
Thick of section yield fracture on
Specimen diameter strength modulus
𝑇 strip area strength 50mm
𝐷 𝑅𝑚 𝐸
𝑏 𝑆0 𝑅𝑒𝐿 gauge 5.65√𝑆0
length
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm²) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) ( %)
48.3×2.3 mm (no standards)
A1 48.3 2.2 12.5 28.3 367 469 199 28% 34%
A2 48.3 2.3 12.5 28.6 381 472 188 25% 31%
B1 48.4 2.3 12.5 28.8 377 472 182 23% 28%
B2 48.4 2.2 12.6 28.7 362 468 243 25% 30%
C1 48.3 2.3 12.6 28.8 375 469 215 20% 24%
C2 48.3 2.3 12.5 29.1 380 470 201 21% 25%
Average 48.3 2.3 12.6 28.7 374 470 205 24% 29%
48.3×3.2 mm (BS EN 10255)
D1 48.4 3.3 12.5 41.8 381 473 181 20% 23%
D2 48.4 3.2 12.6 41.3 385 473 202 21% 24%
E1 48.6 3.3 12.5 41.8 388 477 185 21% 24%
E2 48.6 3.3 12.6 41.9 394 472 176 22% 25%
F1 48.4 3.2 12.5 40.9 388 476 196 20% 23%
F2 48.4 3.2 12.5 40.3 391 481 209 21% 24%
Average 48.5 3.3 12.5 41.3 388 475 192 21% 24%
48.3×4.0 mm (BS EN 10255)
G1 48.7 3.9 12.5 49.1 358 436 198 25% 27%
G2 48.7 3.9 12.6 49.7 347 411 198 26% 29%
H1 48.7 3.9 12.5 49.2 351 418 186 26% 28%
H2 48.7 3.8 12.6 49.1 365 437 188 26% 28%
I1 48.7 4.0 12.6 50.6 353 406 203 20% 22%
I2 48.7 4.0 12.5 51.2 360 426 212 20% 22%
Average 48.7 3.9 12.5 49.8 356 422 197 24% 26%
(1) Yield strength: Average = 372.5 MPa; Std = 14.4 MPa; Characteristic strength
Summary (95%) = 348.8 MPa;
(2) Young’s modulus: Average = 197.9 GPa; Std = 15.3 MPa.
169
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
(1) The effective length of structural bamboo in bamboo scaffolding was determined
through advanced non-linear finite element analysis using Nonlinear Integrated
Design and Analysis software (NIDA). It is shown that the axial buckling
resistances of the bamboo columns are affected significantly by the presence or the
absence of lateral restraints. It was also found that due to the presence of bracing
members and secondary ledgers in the outer layer and larger dimensions of post
(Mao Jue) of outer layer, the post of the inner layer (Kao Jue) always fails against
buckling firstly.
(2) The Robertson constant of Mao Jue and Kao Jue should be selected as 15 and 28
respectively [34], which represent initial imperfection of bamboo members.
(3) Also, the non-prismatic effect of bamboo is considered by incorporating a
non-prismatic parameter, 𝛼 , to the elastic Euler buckling load of the bamboo
member, see Appendix C2.
170
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
According to previous research [10], it was recommended that the effective length of
a structural bamboo may conservatively be taken as follows.
ℎ𝑒 = 𝑘𝑒 × 𝐻
where
𝑘𝑒 is the effective length coefficient
= 1.0 for SLBS with regular lateral restraints with H = 1.0 h to 3.0 h;
= 0.7 for SLBS with staggered lateral restraints with H = 2.0 h to 3.0 h;
𝐻 is the system length between lateral restraints; and
ℎ is the height of a platform, or the vertical distance between two platforms.
Inner layer
ℎ𝑒 = 𝑘𝑒 × ℎ
where
𝑘𝑒 is the effective length coefficient, 𝑘𝑒 = 𝑘𝑖 × 𝑘𝑏 ;
𝑘𝑖 is the secondary effective length coefficient which depends on the restraint
171
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
𝑘𝑏 = 1.0 for DLBS with regular lateral restraints, or 0.7 for DLBS with staggered
lateral restraints;
𝐻 is the system length between lateral restraints; and
ℎ is the height of a platform, or the vertical distance between two platforms.
ℎ𝑒 = 𝑘𝑒 × ℎ
where
𝑘𝑒 is the effective length coefficient, = 1.0 for DLBS with 𝐻 = 1.0ℎ 𝑡𝑜 3.0ℎ;
ℎ is the height of base column, but not less than height of a platform; and
𝐻 is the system length between lateral restraints.
Outer layer
ℎ𝑒 = 𝑘𝑒 × 𝐻
where
172
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
Based on the predicted structural performance of DLBS from the non-linear analysis,
the maximum value of 𝐻 should not exceed 2.667 h in practice.
The elastic critical buckling strength of the bamboo column 𝑝𝑐𝑟 is given by:
𝜋 2 𝐸𝑏
𝑝𝑐𝑟 = 𝛼
𝜆12
where the non-prismatic parameter 𝛼 is the minimum root of the following cubic
function,
173
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
𝑔(𝛼) = 𝑐3 𝛼 3 + 𝑐2 𝛼 2 + 𝑐1 𝛼 + 𝑐0 = 0
where
𝑐3 = −0.2880
𝑐2 = 2.016(2 + 𝜌)
𝑐1 = −(14.11 + 14.11𝜌 + 3.098𝜌2 )
𝑐0 = 10.37 + 15.55𝜌 + 7.047𝜌2 + 0.932𝜌3
𝐼2 −𝐼1
𝜌=
𝐼1
If the value of ρ lies between 0 and 3, the value of 𝛼 may be calculated approximately
as follows:
It should be noted that the value of non-prismatic parameter 𝛼 for Kao Jue is found
to range from 1.00–1.28 [10], and thus, the variation of external diameter and
thickness along the length of Kao Jue is considered not to be significant. In assessing
axial buckling resistances of Kao Jue, the external and the internal diameters are
considered to be constant along the length of the bamboo so that non-prismatic
parameter is 1.0 for Kao Jue.
For simplicity, the vertical distance between ties in bamboo scaffolding are assumed to
equal to 𝐻 = 2ℎ = 4𝑚, ℎ is the vertical distance between lifts. Assume the lateral
restraints are provided to the base ledger of bamboo scaffoldings and this is the
174
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
𝜂 = 0.001𝑎(𝜆1 − 𝜆0 )
𝑎 = 28
where 𝑎 is Robertson constant;
Perry factor 𝜂 𝜆0 = 14.12
𝐸
𝜆0 = 0.2𝜋 𝑝 𝑏 is Limiting slenderness 𝜂 = 4.01
𝑐,𝑑
𝑝𝑐𝑟 × 𝑝𝑐,𝑑
𝑝𝑐𝑐,𝑑 = 0.5
Design compressive buckling ∅ + (∅2 − 𝑝𝑐𝑟 × 𝑝𝑐,𝑑 ) ∅ = 38.16𝑁/𝑚𝑚²
strength 𝑝𝑐𝑐,𝑑 𝑝𝑐,𝑑 +(1+𝜂)𝑝𝑐𝑟 𝑝𝑐𝑐,𝑑 = 4.016𝑁/𝑚𝑚²
where ∅ = 2
𝑝𝑐𝑐,𝑑 × 𝐴1
𝑃=
Permissible axial load 𝑃 𝛾𝑚 𝑃 = 1.54𝑘𝑁
where 𝛾𝑚 = 1.5
Note 1: Above design method is based on [9].
Note 2: Subscripts 1 and 2 denote the upper (smaller) cross-section and the lower (larger)
cross-section, respectively.
Note 3: 𝛾𝑓 = 1.5 is a single partial safety factor for loads and 𝛾𝑚 = 1.5 is a single partial safety
factor for resistances.
175
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
N = χA𝑓𝑦
Where
1
χ=
𝜙 + (𝜙 2 − 𝜆̅2 )0.5
where
𝐿𝐸
𝜆=
𝑟
Where
χ is the reduction factor for the relevant buckling mode;
A is the cross-sectional area of the post;
𝜆 is the slenderness ratio;
176
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
𝜆̅ is non-dimensional slenderness.
𝑁
P𝑐 =
1.65
Here, assume the vertical distance between lateral restraints 𝐻 = 2ℎ and the platform
height ℎ is 2 m. The effective length 𝐿𝐸 of steel column is taken as 1.0 𝐻. Note that
a distance of 4 m between lateral restraints is actually the maximum vertical distance
between ties allowed in bamboo scaffolding code [17]. The allowable compressive
load for steel tube column is given in Table D-1.
Table D-1 Allowable compressive load for steel column with 𝐿𝐸 = 1.0 𝐻
Modulus Characteristic
Effective Outside Wall Characteristic Permissible
of compressive Single
length diameter thickness yield strength axial load
elasticity strength factor
m mm mm N/mm² N/mm² kN kN
𝐿𝐸 = 2.0 ℎ 48.3 2.3 200000 235 9.13 1.65 5.53
Note: The Characteristic compressive strength 9.13 kN is the same in Table B.2 of BS 5975 [23].
177
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
References
[1] Chang, C. C. and Yu, T. X., An Engineering Study for Improving Safety and
Reliability of Bamboo Scaffoldings. Hong Kong: Occupational Safety and Health
Council, 2002.
[2] Chang, C. C., An Engineering Study for Safety and Reliability of Truss-Out Metal
Bracket Bamboo Scaffoldings. Hong Kong: Occupational Safety and Health Council,
2005.
[3] Chang, C. C., Follow-Up Study on Safety and Reliability of Truss-Out Metal
Bracket Bamboo Scaffoldings. Hong Kong: Occupational Safety and Health Council,
2006.
[5] Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA 1926.502: Fall Protection
Systems Criteria and Practices. 2015.
[6] American National Standards Institute, ANSI Z359.6: Specifications and Design
Requirements for Active Fall Protection Systems. 2009.
178
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
[9] Chung, K. F. and Chan, S. L., Design of Bamboo Scaffolds. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, 2002.
[10] Yu, W. K., Structural Behaviour of Tubular Skeletal Framework. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2004.
[11] Chung, K. F. and Siu, Y. C., Erection of Bamboo Scaffolds. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, 2002.
[12] Hong Kong Buildings Department, Guidelines on the Design and Construction of
Bamboo Scaffolds. 2015.
[13] Computers and Structures, Inc., CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000,
ETABS, SAFE and CSiBridge. 2015.
[17] Occupational Safety and Health Branch, Code of Practice for Bamboo
Scaffolding Safety. Labour Department, 2014.
[18] WorkCover New South Wales, Erecting, Altering and Dismantling Scaffolding
Part 1: Prefabricated Steel Modular Scaffolding. 2010.
[20] Occupational Safety and Health Branch, Code of Practice for Metal Scaffolding
Safety. Labour Department, 2013.
179
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
[21] British Standards Institution, BS EN 74: Couplers, Spigot Pins and Baseplates
for use in Falsework and Scaffolds. Part 1: Couplers for Tubes. Requirements and
Test Procedures. 2005.
[23] British Standards Institution, BS 5975: Code of Practice for Temporary Works
Procedures and the Permissible Stress Design of Falsework. 2008.
[24] Sinoscaff (HK) Ltd., "A new design of scaffolding," CN 201439635 U, 2009.
[26] Hong Kong Buildings Department, Code of Practice on Wind Effects in Hong
Kong. 2004.
[27] Time Pacific (11) Consultants Ltd., Stability Checking of Metal Scaffolding
for Sinoscaff (HK) Ltd. 2015.
[28] Sinoscaff (HK) Ltd., Techinical Report of the Steel Scaffolding. 2013.
[29] So, Y. S., Scaffolding Systems in Hong Kong: Current Practice and Development
of MBMSS. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong, 2009.
[30] Chung, K. F. and Yu, W. K., "Mechanical properties of structural bamboo for
bamboo scaffoldings," Eng. Struct., vol. 24, pp. 429-442, 2002.
[31] British Standards Institution, BS EN 10225: Weldable Structural Steels for Fixed
Offshore Structures. Technical Delivery Conditions. 2004.
[32] American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM E8: Standard Test Methods
for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. 2009.
180
Occupational Safety and Health Council
Study on Safe Usage of Bamboo and Mixed Scaffoldings
[34] Yu, W. K., Chung, K. F. and Chan, S. L., "Column buckling of structural
bamboo," Eng. Struct., vol. 25, pp. 755-768, 2003.
[35] Yu, W. K., Chung, K. F. and Chan, S. L., "Axial buckling of bamboo columns in
bamboo scaffolds," Eng. Struct., vol. 27, pp. 61-73, 2005.
[36] British Standards Institution, BS EN 1993: Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings. 2005.
181
Occupational Safety and Health Council