Temporary works for engineers course
Temporary works for engineers course
This week I attended the Laing O’Rourke Temporary Works for Engineers course. I thought I would make some reflections on the course by considering its relevance to the Royal Engineers and the role of engineers on site in solving temporary works challenges. I recently said I would avoid text heavy blogs so I am already breaking my own rule; therefore I have stolen some pictures from Google to break it up!
I have uploaded the pre-course assessment as a general level of expectation of the knowledge of the engineers prior to attendance.
The course was run by the head of the Laing O’Rourke Temporary Works office, Kit Yardley, supported by their senior geotechnical engineer, Keith Miller. The target audience for the course was civil engineering and building graduates who had gained significant site experience (therefore about 5 years since graduation). The aim of the course was “to give participants a working knowledge of temporary works, group procedures, use of the Laing O’Rourke precast assembly manual and the use of current EN/BS standards and guidance in the industry”. The course achieved this aim and effectively covered content within the PET (C) structures, foundations, applied structures modules condensed into only 3 days with a fairly healthy A4 folder to take away.
Course content – PET officers are well prepared technically.
What is the safe depth of an unsupported excavation…
The participants were not required to take in all of the subject matter but become more aware of risks of working with, and designing, temporary elements. The course content included cranes and hoists, soils, excavation support, formwork, falsework, backpropping, concrete pressure, scaffolding, loading platforms, pile/crane mats and many other temporary works structures. I found it comforting that the majority of the theory behind each of the topics was covered on the PET course, where others clearly had not recently been refreshed in modules I cited above. Most of the participants completed the pre-course work getting all of the answers correct, although a couple struggled with question 8.
Experience required.
The area which was unfamiliar to me was the understanding of proprietary systems that are used for falsework and the Laing O’Rourke precast system. While this sort of knowledge can be gained now on site, it is somewhat symptomatic of the imbalance of site experience PET officers have compared to their technical understanding gained on Phase 1. I believe it is better to have a technical understanding which is then enhanced through gaining practical experience on site.
Temporary works course for military engineers.
I would strongly argue that with a little tweaking of specific lectures from the PET course a very thorough and relevant temporary works course could be delivered to military construction forces. The challenge would be to deliver sufficient practical information to the MCF. There were numerous insightful examples of good and bad temporary works practices delivered during the Laing O’Rourke course, supplemented with photographs, sketches and You Tube clips and so I am sure relevance to military engineering projects could easily be achieved.
I think a temporary works coordinator course would be a useful addition to the set of tools delivered to an MCF project delivery team. The ability to recognise the non-designed temporary works that are required for a project to be delivered, and how they are to be managed (identified, designed, checked, certified, monitored, reviewed), would only improve the efficiency and safety of a project.
- Cause of failure? Prop locations, different crane used to that designed for, outrigger spreaders
Conclusion
My initial view of working on a Laing O’Rourke project is that they appear pretty diligent regarding temporary works challenges. Their engineers get site experience after graduating from a civil/building degree. There is a rotation between sites (it seems everyone will do their time at Hinkley) to gain broad experiences. When suitably experienced, engineers are trained (refreshed) in engineering principles to strengthen their ability to manage and lead temporary works. This seems pretty analogous to officers within the Royal Engineers but perhaps a slightly greater emphasis on temporary works for the wider Corps MCFs should be made (as well as the many other courses they are now advised to complete) as we move back into an upstream capacity building role.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Sounds like a worthwhile few days. How comfortable do you feel now with proprietary systems? Did if focus more on SLS or permissible stresses? And can I have a copy of the pre-course workbook? I’m dying to have a crack at question 8 – whatever it is!
Guz – link to workbook on my post, I hope it works? You will find it very easy (no more than 15mins for all of the 14 questions – all multiple choice)
The content was broad so some parts covered by permissible stress (mainly BS relating to formwork as covered by Rich Marsh) but limit state design used for structural elements designed under eurocode.
My knowledge of proprietary systems is much better (I now understand what is meant when people say “this beam was supported by gas!”). Still loads to learn, not least about the specific Laing O’Rourke system of precast beams not requiring formwork.
Damian
Where was the crane? – a good blog – thanks
Regards
Hi Neil – the incident was on Friday 26 September 2008 – Castle Hill, Sydney, Australia. The crane was a 250t Crane (never used before). The blog the photo is from states the cause as “a failure of back propping beneath the 200mm thick concrete deck”. I would simply question was the crane lined up over the props. After all, it is not very easy to tell where to position the crane because you cannot see though the slab from below (or above) until after the crane had fallen through it!
Thanks Damian,
Thoroughly enjoyed the menatal arithmtic involved in the multi-guess booklet. I have to confess to teaching continuos beams to Clerk of Works on Friday so Q8 was no challenge. It looks like a good set of questions to make sure folks have a basic grasp on forces, load paths and pressures so probably not to be sniffed at. I wonder how we would sell a temporary works course to the MCF, presumably the first requirement is actually for the MCF to identify a need and ask for a course to fill the gap, which without the awareness is an improbability. All a little chicken and egg.