Jump to content

load testing


sunray

Recommended Posts

I have flown a 21ft steel scaff bar with socket boxes from the steel truss. It has been spec'd to the minutest detail and installed exactly to the consultants spec. Including the makes of stuffing glands and cable ties etc.

 

Payment is due 21 days after invoice run on the last Thursday of the month so tomorrow.

 

Today I have received the request for load test results and re-invoice as the properties landlord has questioned the load on the roof structure.

 

There is no mention anywhere in the spec or contract for a SWL or load test, do I throw this back to the customer or consultant?

 

Edit; To clarify, the customer supplied the consultants spec and the contract is with the customer, the only contact with consultant was regarding the use of black fittings on a galv bar (questioned by customer when they saw them) and acceptance testing by consultant (which cost me a whole extra weeks hire of 8M access tower).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Your solicitor may think differently but if you hung it then my first reaction would be that you should have had the roof beams tested as capable of being used this way. The consultant might well have been meticulous in speccing the bars and fixings but unless he is a structural engineer is highly unlikely to have agreed to be responsible for the building integrity.

 

I came across a similar problem in a brand new arena and the solution there was that the guys hanging hoists and truss had to have a structural engineer come in and map the hanging points. They passed on the costs (AFIK) but it was their responsibility to hang stuff safely if they wanted the work at all.

 

As a note to others, just because a beam holds up the roof does not mean it is OK to hang stuff off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Your solicitor may think differently but if you hung it then my first reaction would be that you should have had the roof beams tested as capable of being used this way. The consultant might well have been meticulous in speccing the bars and fixings but unless he is a structural engineer is highly unlikely to have agreed to be responsible for the building integrity.

I came across a similar problem in a brand new arena and the solution there was that the guys hanging hoists and truss had to have a structural engineer come in and map the hanging points. They passed on the costs (AFIK) but it was their responsibility to hang stuff safely if they wanted the work at all.

As a note to others, just because a beam holds up the roof does not mean it is OK to hang stuff off it.

 

I totally agree with your last comment, in another building I took one look at the roof metal work and refused point blank to touch the job despite the fact that I'd done loads of other work in the property. Someone else did the job for them and to date has been no problem but AFAIC it doesn't look right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Your solicitor may think differently but if you hung it then my first reaction would be that you should have had the roof beams tested as capable of being used this way. The consultant might well have been meticulous in speccing the bars and fixings but unless he is a structural engineer is highly unlikely to have agreed to be responsible for the building integrity.

I came across a similar problem in a brand new arena and the solution there was that the guys hanging hoists and truss had to have a structural engineer come in and map the hanging points. They passed on the costs (AFIK) but it was their responsibility to hang stuff safely if they wanted the work at all.

As a note to others, just because a beam holds up the roof does not mean it is OK to hang stuff off it.

 

I totally agree with your last comment, in another building I took one look at the roof metal work and refused point blank to touch the job despite the fact that I'd done loads of other work in the property. Someone else did the job for them and to date has been no problem but AFAIC it doesn't look right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did your spec say? Did your quote say something like:- Our offer excludes all structural calculations except those required for the manufacture of the actual goods supplied? Have you complied with parts #4 and #5 of BS 7905-1?There are two ways to prove what you have provided is fit for purpose:- either by calculation by a structural engineer or by load test. Load test is by far the cheapest, easiest and simplest to do as long as you follow standard procedure (25% overload for minimum one minute:- static; dynamic loading is different however given that this is a lighting bar, dynamic loading should not come into play)It is NOT unreasonable to be asked for either of the above. If you haven't done either....maybe you should not be installing this type of kit in the first place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the correct procedure is to do a couple of chin-ups on the bar, and then claim an SWL of whatever you weigh?

 

 

I'm not a structural engineer, but I'm curious how a simple load test will satisfy the landlord's worries about the load on the roof structure. You can put as much weight as you want on the bar, but is someone going to then look for deflection in the roof trusses etc. to try and ascertain if there is any issue? If there are decent plans available then this should be a table-top exercise for the consulting engineer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I'm curious how a simple load test will satisfy the landlord's worries about the load on the roof structure...

 

Because the piece of paper that says 'you can hang XXkg every YY meters' comes with a built-in get-out-of-jail card. Or, more importantly from the landlord and their insurers viewpoint, a transfer of liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My estimate was for 2 jobs:

1, to supply and install the bar and 3 electric projector screens and their associated bracketry and wiring to the specification provided by the customer.

 

2, to remove redundant air ducting which was in the way and associated air handling unit.

 

Sadly the ductwork was mounted on a completely different part of the metalwork so I can't quote it as a load.I'm taking advice tomorrow so I'll get a better idea then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we talking about two different things here? I suspect that the landlord and the customer are two separate entities. I also suspect that the landlord has asked for reassurance of structural integrity and the customer has interpreted that as a load test. Further I suspect that the landlord means one thing and the customer another and before going too far it might be sensible to clarify any possible confusion.

 

A load test is a sensible measure but it may not be at all what the landlord needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we talking about two different things here? I suspect that the landlord and the customer are two separate entities. I also suspect that the landlord has asked for reassurance of structural integrity and the customer has interpreted that as a load test. Further I suspect that the landlord means one thing and the customer another and before going too far it might be sensible to clarify any possible confusion.A load test is a sensible measure but it may not be at all what the landlord needs.

Yes the landlord and customer are two different bodies, the letter is from the customer indicating the landlord is requiring a load test, you may very well be correct by assuming there is confusion but so far I have not received a reply to my early email asking for more detail. I have a solicitors meeting arranged for the morning and I'll take the opportunity to seek some advice while I'm there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

............ if you hung it then my first reaction would be that you should have had the roof beams tested as capable of being used this way.

In my spec'ing days the contract always included a clause to the effect that "the installer shall satisfy himself, blah, blah, blah"). I always tried to keep my specs as loose as possible, consistent with achieving a tight performance spec, on the grounds that if you only get reputable firms with a good track record to quote they may just have a better way of achieving what you want than you do. In the case of fitting new (or doubling the size of existing) lighting grids, the successful quotes were all conditional on a go-head from the client's structural engineer.

 

The only load-testing I got involved in was when a local authority employed a company who normally specialised in lifting big marine engines out of warships (at which they were no doubt very competent) to test some winched-bars in 2 of their halls. A bit of a wasted exercise, as by the time they wrote up their results they had lost all track of which bar or winch was in what hall.

 

In Sunray's case a load-test would now be testing the integrity of the roof-structure as well as your workmanship. With hindsight it seems unwise not to have requested the client to give a structural engineer's all-clear before starting work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some very interesting replies which I will take forward and say thank you.

By coincidence I had an appointment with my solicitor this morning and asked him to go through the paper trail. The result is the offers and contract were so tight I have no obligation to provide anything over and above, any recourse is with the consultant who spec'd, inspected and signed to say my work conforms to his spec. Customer  has already responded to say they are considering Solicitors requests.

 

 

 

Update 14.45:

Wow. Customer has replied, from the language I'd guess it has come from their legal department especially as it was CC'd to my solicitor:

Thank you for your detailed communication of 19th inst.

We have now readdressed the details of your estimate and the terms contained therein and our subsequent acceptance of the said terms. We are now of the opinion the said terms have been complied with and the condition of the installed works are to a standard acceptable to ??&?? according to their instructions and terms.

We now find ourselves in a position to settle your original account in full and have instructed our accounts department to make such settlement at their earliest convenience...

 

OK this has cost me a remarkably small £48 for the letter, I'd guess this would have been settled too if requested. I'm not sure if I feel I have got away with something or rather got it right in the first place. I assume the next invoice run will be next month, but that's OK with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly, This came as a bit of a surprise to me as I've done a fair bit of work for them and the pattern has always been spot on, but this was the first job at this sort of value. I'd taken it at face value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.