Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Experimental and analytical studies on steel scaffolds under eccentric loads

Jui-Lin Peng a , Kuan-Hung Chen b , Siu-Lai Chan c,∗ , Wei Tong Chen a
a Department of Constr. Engrg., Yunlin University of Sci. and Technol., Touliu, Yunlin, 640 Taiwan, ROC
b Central Taiwan Science Park Administration, National Science Council, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, ROC
c Department of Civil and Struct. Engrg., Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Steel scaffolds collapse quite often in many places with a considerable number of reported casualties,
Received 25 August 2007 but their behaviour has not been studied to the extent of many other permanent structures. This paper
Accepted 25 March 2008 investigates the effect of eccentric loads on steel scaffolding systems used in construction sites. The type
of scaffold considered here is the door-shaped steel scaffold with an inner reinforced gable sub-frame. The
Keywords: single-side cross-brace scaffolding systems with various eccentric loads are mainly focused on two issues,
Critical load
namely, the unrestrained boundary and the removal of cross-braces at the access location. This study
Eccentric load
Scaffold
shows that regardless of the lowest layer of cross-brace in a scaffold being removed or not, the critical
Scaffolding load of a scaffolding system under an eccentric load is the lowest, whereas that of scaffolding system
under a concentric load is the maximum. If the bottom jack base of a scaffolding system in construction
sites is strengthened to a fixed end, the critical load of this scaffolding system will be greatly increased.
If a scaffolding system is erected more than 8 stories high, the critical load of the scaffolding system
with the fixed end base can be increased to 2.4 times that with the hinged base. However, whether the
cross-braces at the lowest story of a scaffolding system are removed or not, the simulated scaffolding test
indicates that the critical load of a used scaffolding system under the eccentric load is the lowest and its
load reduction also appears significant.
© 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd

1. Introduction used as a “scaffolding system”, it is erected in a single row and,

During the construction of buildings, steel scaffolds are used
for two purposes – one is the “scaffolding system” for finishing
of the facade, while the other is a “shoring system” in support of
construction loads. When used as a scaffolding system, the steel
scaffold is frequently used as equipment auxiliary to related works
in construction sites. For instance, in processing works such as
assembly and disassembly of vertical formworks and plastering
work on facades, the scaffold can provide a good working site for
the workers. When applied as a shoring system, the steel scaffold
works as a falsework system for supporting the construction
loads of the freshly placed concrete, steel, formwork and crews
on the slab during construction. The setups of the two purposes
are different. Fig. 1 indicates that under normal condition, the
steel assembly scaffold installed in construction sites as shown
is used as a working scaffolding system. In Fig. 2, the assembly
of the steel scaffold is for using as a shoring system in support
of construction loads on the slab. The most significant difference
between the two systems of scaffolds is that when the system is
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: 852 27666047; fax: 852 23346389.
E-mail address: ceslchan@polyu.edu.hk (S.-L. Chan).
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.03.024
secondly, cross-braces only exist on the one side. When the system
is used as a “shoring system,” it is erected in multiple rows and,
secondly, cross-braces exist on both sides. Further, according to
the survey of a scaffolding system used in construction sites in
Taiwan, a scaffolding system set up in construction sites frequently
has no restraint at top stories. This greatly differs from the “shoring
system” where its top horizontal formwork is restrained [1].
Since scaffold systems are erected in a single row in construc-
tion sites, works are frequently processed at the edge closest to
the building when workers perform operations such as installing
the vertical formwork and plastering the façade of buildings. This
causes the scaffolding system to bear an eccentric load. The dis-
crepancy between such an eccentric load and the concentric load
really is worthy of a study into the influence of eccentric loads to
the critical load of the scaffolding system erected as a single-row.
Fig. 3 shows a collapse case of scaffolding system in a construction
site in southern Taiwan.
At present, the experimental studies of critical loads of steel
scaffolds have a common drawback [2–5]. Tests have to allow
for the limitation of laboratory facilities with a hydraulic thrust
headthat only operates in a single direction. This leads to critical
loadstudies of these scaffolds under the restrained boundary
condition without any eccentricity load and with lateral restraint
at the top. This type of concentric load with a lateral restraint
 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435
Fig. 1. Assembly of steel scaffold for using as working scaffold in construction site.
Fig. 2. Assembly of steel scaffold for using as formwork support in construction
site.
condition is not quite the same as scaffolds under eccentric loads
in actual construction conditions in Taiwan and most other places.
2. Research significance
This study mainly focuses on the effect of eccentric load on the
critical load of the door-shaped steel scaffold. The steel scaffolding
system considered in this study is based on the assembly obtained
from site investigations in Taiwan. Basically, the cross-braces of the
scaffolding system discussed here are setup on the single-side only.
Furthermore, two more common setups of a scaffolding system
in construction sites are investigated. Namely, they are (A) the
conditions of different boundaries, and (B) removal of the lowest
layer cross-braces. The effects of the two cases on the steel scaffold
are described respectively as follows:
A. Different boundary conditions
After the assembly of a scaffolding system is completed in
construction sites, the uppermost layer of the scaffolding structure
is commonly erected in an unrestrained condition. However, due
423
Fig. 3. Scaffold collapse occurred at a construction site in southern Taiwan.
to the limitation of the hydraulic system in the laboratory, the
top layers of most previously tested or studied scaffolds were
restrained [2–5]. The simulated mock-up of a scaffolding system
did not allow free lateral displacement at the top layer of scaffold
like that used in actual construction sites. For understanding the
influence of this phenomenon, it is necessary to investigate this
aspect.
B. Removal of lowest layer cross-braces
For the purposes of convenience and easy access of personnel
and material transportation in construction sites, the cross-braces
of the lowest layer of a scaffolding system are commonly removed.
This action is specially important at the entrance location of a
scaffolding system. The cause of most scaffolding collapses can be
traced to the aforementioned location. Therefore,whether or not
the removal of the lowest layer of these cross-braces of scaffolding
systems has caused the decrement of the critical load in the
scaffolding structure is worthy of study.
3. Formulation, analysis approach and member dimensions
3.1. Formulation
This study is carried out by using a 3-dimensional second-order
elastic semi-rigid joint analysis. Equivalent lateral notional forces
of 0.1%–0.5% of the total vertically static loads are used to simulate
the initial imperfection of the scaffolding system. The computer
program GMNAF (i.e. Geometric and Material Nonlinear Analysis of
Frames) developed by Chan and his co-workers [6,7] is used in this
study. In GMNAF, the pointwise equilibrating polynomial element
is adopted and a second-order elastic/plastic analysis can be used.
In plastic analysis, the sectional strength is kept unchanged during
the iteration for equilibrium when the section capacity factor
(φ = F /py A + M/Mc in which φ is the section capacity factor, F
is the applied axial force, py is the design strength, A is the area,
M is the applied moment at the section and Mc is the sectional
moment capacity) is equal or greater than 1. Compatibility at the
424 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435

Fig. 4. Relationship Between Forces and Displacement in Element.

end nodes and the equilibrium for moment and shear at mid-
span as well as end nodes are maintained, which overcomes the
error associated with a conventional displacement-based straight
cubic finite beam-column element satisfying equilibrium and
compatibility at the end nodes only. For details, references 6 and
Fig. 5. Load vs. Deformation Relations of Structure in Different Analyses.
7 should be referred.
Six boundary conditions are imposed to evaluate the shape
functions of the system. As shown in Fig. 4, four boundary
conditions satisfy the compatibility as follows.

for x = −L/2; y(−L/2) = 0 and y0 (−L/2) = θ1 (1)

for x = L/2; y(L/2) = 0 and y (L/2) = θ2 .
0
(2)
The remaining two equilibrium conditions for moment and shear
at mid-span are listed as follows.
M2 + M1 M2 − M1
EIy00 = Py + x+ at x = 0 (3)
L 2
M2 + M1
EIy000 = Py0 + at x = 0 (4)
L
where y is the lateral displacement, EI is the flexural rigidity, M1
and M2 are applied nodal moments at nodes, and L is the member
length. A fifth-order polynomial y with six unknowns can be found Fig. 6. Arrangement and dimensions of scaffold unit and cross-brace.
by calculation from Eqs. (1) to (4).
load of the second order elastic analysis of a structure. In past
y = (S1 S2 )(Lθ1 Lθ2 )T . (5)
studies [8,9], the failure load of the scaffolding system was close
The two shape functions, S1 and S2 , can be derived based on the to the second order elastic analysis, but not the second inelastic
conditions stipulated in Eqs. (1)–(4) as follows. analysis. This is because the scaffolding system is slender and
controlled by elastic buckling such that the code-recommended
K1 K2 K1 K2 imperfection of 1% of scaffold height assumed in an inelastic
S1 = + and S2 = − (6)
H1 H2 H1 H2 analysis makes the result well below the tested load as the tested
specimen is generally in better quality and more perfect than the
where
!  !  ones used on site.
x PL2 x 3 PL2 x 5
K1 = −20 + 80 − +4 ; 3.3. Member dimensions
L EI L EI L
PL2 Fig. 6 indicates the arrangement of basic units and the sectional
H1 = 80 +
EI dimensions of the scaffold and the cross-brace. Basically, the
Chinese National Standard (CNS) [10] specifies the required
!  ! 
1 PL2 x 2 PL2 x 4
K2 = 6 − 48 − −2 ; dimensions of the scaffold. Regarding the vertical post and
2 EI L EI L
horizontal bar of the scaffolding unit, as shown in cross-sections
PL2 A-A and B-B in Fig. 6, both cross-sectional areas A are 3.157 cm2
H2 = 48 + . with moment of area Iy (=Iz ) = 6.403 cm4 . Regarding the cross-
EI
section C-C of the reinforced gable-type sub-frame shown in Fig. 6,
This present fifth-order element is different from the conventional
its cross-sectional area A is 1.583 cm2 with moment of area equal
Hermite cubic finite element which is only suitable for linear or
to Iy (=Iz ) = 1.265 cm4 . The dimensions of cross-braces are also
moderately nonlinear problems.
shown in section D-D where its cross-sectional area A is 1.238 cm2
with moment of area of Iy (=Iz ) = 0.607 cm4 . Since all members
3.2. Analysis approach of the scaffolding unit are made of the carbon steel in compliance
with CNS requirement, the elastic modulus E in the analysis is
Fig. 5 shows the load vs. deformation relations of a structure taken as that of the standard steel material as 20012.4 kN/cm2 .
with different analysis approaches. In Fig. 5, the elastic stability Since the shape and the model of steel scaffolds are identical
analysis based on the eigenvalue approach is the upper strength to the ones applied in former tests [11], the joint stiffness
bound of the second order elastic analysis based on the load- 784.8 kN cm/rad (80 tonne cm/rad) between vertical columns of
deflection approach. The value of the asymptote of the second the steel scaffold obtained from the research are used as the basic
order elastic analysis is the solution of the elastic stability analysis. reference data for analyzing the joint stiffness of the scaffold in this
It means that the value of the asymptote is the statically critical study.
 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435 425

Fig. 7. Basic arrangement of scaffold with single-side cross-brace in loading test.

4. Test setup

4.1. Basic arrangement of scaffold Fig. 8. Arrangement of scaffold with unstrained boundary and eccentric load.

The basic arrangement for loading test of steel scaffold is shown

in Fig. 7. The H-beam frame under a hydraulic device was placed
on the scaffolding system. During the test, the hydraulic load was
gradually applied to the scaffolding system under the H-beam
frame. While increasing the load, LVDT on both sides of the load
cell was installed for simultaneous measurement of the vertical
displacement of the loaded scaffolding structure.
At the test setup of the scaffold, the adjustment jack-base
without a base-plate is erected below the posts or legs. This specific
jack-base is placed on 4 pieces of iron sheet in modeling the
boundary condition as a “hinge” in the analysis. The conditions of
top-most layer and lowest layer are similar so that their boundary
conditions are also assumed as a “hinge” in the analysis. As shown
in Fig. 7, the boundary condition of the top layer is restrained
by 4 horizontal restraints and 4 horizontal bars to prevent lateral
displacement. The horizontal H-beam frame on the top layer of the
scaffolding system can only provide a vertical movement during
the test. Fig. 9. Lateral displacement of tested scaffold boundary.

4.2. Arrangement of lateral unrestrained boundary
Fig. 8 shows the assembly of the scaffolding system with an
unrestrained boundary condition provided with lateral movement
and under the eccentric load. To simulate an unrestrained
boundary condition for the scaffolding system in Fig. 8, two pieces
of steel plate are provided at the bottom of vertical posts of the
scaffold. Further, between the two steel plates, 9 steel balls are
installed in a cross-frame window shape, i.e. 3 balls provided at
each of the 3 rows equally spaced as shown in Fig. 8. This type
of setup enables the bottom steel plate to be movable after the
scaffolding structure is under the vertical axial load.
Fig. 9 indicates the different conditions of the boundary’s
lateralmovement during the test. Fig. 9(I) shows the lateral
movement at the top layer of the tested specimen AB. Nevertheless,
due to expansion in a mono-axial direction of the hydraulic thrust
head at a fixed position, the loading position cannot move along the
lateral displacement during the test as shown in Fig. 9(II). Fig. 9(II)
differs greatly from the expected phenomenon in Fig. 9(I).
Fig. 9(III) shows the loading condition of the tested specimen AB
being placed upside down. In Fig. 9(III), the displacement of point
B at the bottom is similar to the displacement condition of point B
at the top in Fig. 9(I). If the own weight of the scaffolding specimen
AB is not taken into consideration, the critical load of structure AB
in Fig. 9(I) resembles the condition shown in Fig. 9(III).
The steel scaffold applied in the test is brand new; nevertheless,
most scaffolds used in construction sites have been used several
times. For simulating the worst condition of the steel scaffold
used in construction sites, the new steel scaffolds are loaded twice
in the study. This means that the steel scaffold is loaded to the
ultimate load in its first loading test. After unloading, the tested
scaffold is re-setup to the original configuration and re-loaded to
the ultimate load for the second time. In this loading arrangement,
the second ultimate load of the tested scaffold is considered as
ideally the lower bound of the critical load of the used scaffold in
real construction sites.
4.3. Arrangement of eccentric load
Fig. 10 shows the top view of the setup of scaffolding systems
and different types of eccentric loads on the tested steel scaffold
discussed in this paper. The letters L, R, T, B shown in Fig. 10(I)
426 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435

Table 1
Loading test result of basic setup scaffolds
Setup model Two-stories Three-stories
Double-side cross-brace Single-side cross-brace Double-side cross-brace Single-side cross-brace

Test No. A 109.1 (62.9) 103.1 (47.7) 112.9 (46.3) 68.3 (46.0)
B 126.3 (75.3) 102.8 (50.0) 95.3 (55.3) 72.2 (50.0)

Test Setup

Average 117.7 (69.1) 102.9 (48.9) 104.1 (50.8) 70.2 (39.3)

Ratio 0.59 0.48 0.49 0.56
Annotation:
1. unit: kN
2. result of 1st loading test (result of 2nd loading test)
3. (): result of 2nd loading test
4. ratio: (result of 2nd loading test)/(result of 1st loading test).

Fig. 10. loading locations in the eccentric loading tests.

represent the loading locations on the Left, Right, Top and Bottom,
respectively, of the steel scaffold. As shown in Fig. 10(I), two steel
scaffolds are placed at the top and the bottom and a pair of cross-
braces are setup on the right side. On the left side, no cross-
brace is installed. To compare the buckling strength of scaffolds,
a concentric loading test is applied. Fig. 10(I) is the concentric
loading arrangement.
In Fig. 10(I), “Center” indicates that the applied load is applied
to the center of the scaffold; i.e. with respect to the xy coordinate,
the loading coordinate lies at (d/2, L/2). The eccentric load in
Fig. 11. Deformation condition of concentric loading test for basic setup scaffold
Fig. 10(II) is T/4 with the eccentric load placed at the position (d/2, with single- side cross-brace and restrained boundary.
3L/4) of the xy coordinate. The setup for L/4 eccentric loading test is
the same as T/4 eccentric loading test. The difference between the
two tests is the loading location of the test L/4 placed at (d/4, L/2) The discrepancy between single and double cross-braces of steel
of xy coordinate shown in Fig. 10(III). Similar to the TL/4 eccentric scaffolds is first investigated in this study. Fig. 11 shows the test
loading test, the load was placed at asymmetric location along result of a 2-story basic setup scaffold with single-side cross-brace
the upper & lower and left & right directions, i.e. at the location and restrained boundaries at the top and bottom. A restrained
(d/4, 3L/4) of xy coordinate shown in Fig. 10(IV). These 4 types of horizontal boundary condition at the top and bottom and applying
eccentric loading tests are separately processed with two types of a concentric load are considered for these basic steel scaffolds
cross-braces on the single-side and without cross-brace which is setup in the tests. The critical load of the tested basic setup scaffold
to allow easy access by workers in construction sites. is considered as a basis of comparison with other conditions in this
paper.
5. Test, analysis and discussion The test results of the basic setup scaffolds are shown in Table 1
which reveals that the averaged critical load of the 2-story scaffold
5.1. Test result of basic setup scaffold with cross-braces at both sides is 117.7 kN, and the critical load
obtained from second-time load is 69.1 kN, which is approximately
The tested scaffold studied in this research is the door-shaped 41% lower. The averaged critical load for the 2-story scaffold with
steel scaffold with an inner reinforced gable-type sub-frame. only single-side cross-braces is 102.9 kN, and the failure load
 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435 427

Table 2
Analyzed joint stiffness of scaffold under eccentric loads and unrestrained boundary
Load types Setup model Test No. Test results (kN) Analytic results (kN)
Test strength average 1569.6! Error (%) 1765.8! Error (%) 1962! Error (%)

Without eccentricity Single-side cross-brace A 62.2 62.0 55.1 11 57.8 7 59.3 4

B 61.8
Removal of cross-braces in lowest layer A 37.5 35.7 34.1 4 35.7 0 37.1 -4
B 33.8
T/4 eccentricity Single-side cross-brace A 40.8 42.2 40.5 4 42.3 0 43.4 -3
B 43.6
Removal of cross-braces in lowest layer A 34.8 31.5 30.2 4 31.8 1 32.7 -4
B 28.2
L/4 eccentricity Single-side cross-brace A 47.8 40.1 37.4 7 39.6 1 40.2 0
B 32.3
Removal of cross-braces in lowest layer A 21.1 23.2 30.0 -29 31.3 -35 32.5 -40
B 25.3
TL/4 eccentricity Single-side cross-brace A 35.7 32.0 29.0 9 30.8 4 31.5 2
B 25.1
C 35.2
Removal of cross-braces in lowest layer A 22.4 18.1 23.3 -29 25.9 -43 26.7 -48
B 13.9
Annotation:
1.! analytic stiffness of jack base (Unit: kN cm/rad); (1765.8 kN cm/rad = 180 tonne cm/rad)
2. the joint stiffness of scaffoldings: 784.8 kN cm/rad (= 80 tonne cm/rad).

obtained from second-time load is 48.9 kN, which is approximately

52% lower. In these 2-story scaffolds, the strength with single
cross-brace is close to the case with double cross-braces.
The tested averaged critical load for the 3-layer scaffold with
double cross-braces is 104.1 kN, whereas load from second-time
load is 50.8 kN, which is approximately 51% lower. The tested
averaged critical load for the 3-layer scaffold with single cross-
brace is 70.2 kN, whereas that load from the second-time load is
39.3 kN, approximately 44% lower. For these 3-story scaffolds, the
strength with a single cross-brace is about 2/3 (= 70.2/104.1) as
the case with double cross-braces.

5.2. Lateral unrestrained boundary

5.2.1. Joint stiffness

For simulating lateral unrestrained condition of the top layer
boundary of the scaffold, a 2-story scaffolding system is loaded and
studied. During the test, the 2-story scaffolding system is placed
upside down. As shown in Fig. 8, the bottom part of the upside
down scaffolding structure is the top part of the original scaffolding
structure used in the construction site. As the steel balls enable
the steel plates above to move laterally so that the steel plates are
deemed to be an unrestrained movable condition of the scaffolding
system.
Further, the top part of the tested upside down scaffolding
structure, i.e. the bottom part of the original scaffolding structure,
is in direct contact with the H-beam in Fig. 8. There is a contact
area between the H-beam and the steel tube of the scaffold. Since
the steel plate is very stiff so that the scaffolding tube at the contact
surface does not easily rotate; therefore, a semi-rigid joint can be
considered for simulating the mentioned condition in the analysis.
Table 2 shows the comparison between the analyzed joint stiff-
ness and test values. The stiffness of the joint connecting the scaf-
folds in Fig. 12, ks1 , is 784.8 kN cm/rad (= 80 tonne cm/rad) [11],
and the stiffness of the semi-rigid joint of the 3 types of scaffold’s
jack base, ks2 , is respectively 1569.6, 1765.8, 1962.0 kN cm/rad
(= 160, 180, 200 tonne cm/rad). In Table 2, after comparing the
analyzed and the testing results, the error is minimum when
the jack base stiffness is 1765.8 kN cm/rad. Therefore, ks2 =
1765.8 kN cm/rad in Fig. 12 is taken as data reference for the semi-
rigid jack base in the following analyses.
Fig. 12. Stiffness of semi-rigid joint and jack base of scaffolding system in Analysis.
5.2.2. Single-side cross-braces
5.2.2.1. Test result.
A. Without eccentricity
For investigation of the effect of eccentric load to the critical
load of the scaffolding system, a loading test without eccentricity
was processed first. The outcome of the concentric loading test
is applied as the basis for comparing different types of eccentric
loads. The arrangement of the loading position is shown in
Fig. 10(I). As shown in Fig. 13, during the concentric loading test,
the damages of the scaffolding structure all occurred at the side
with no cross-braces erected. The damage was caused by the
sudden occurrence of a large lateral displacement at the steel plate
boundary at one of the two sides of the scaffold.
Table 3 indicates the result of this test. The averaged critical
load of the concentric loading case with single-side cross-braces
is 62.0 kN. Compared to the load of the single-side cross-braces
when the boundary is not allowing lateral displacement and the
load being concentric in Table 1, it is found that the critical load
has been reduced by 40% (= (102.9 − 62.0)/102.9). This shows
us that the unrestrained boundary condition of the top scaffold
layer having displacement greatly affects the critical load of the
428 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435

Table 3
Tested critical loads of scaffolds with various single-side cross-braces under eccentric loads
Setup model Without eccentricity T/4 eccentricity
Single-side cross-brace Removal of cross-braces in lowest layer Single-side cross-brace Removal of cross-braces in lowest layer

Test No. A 62.2 (33.8) 37.5 (26.7) 40.8 (30.3) 34.8 (5.1)
B 61.8 (32.8) 33.8 (21.0) 43.6 (17.1) 28.2 (5.8)

Load type & Test

setup

Average 62.0 (33.3) 35.7 (23.9) 42.2 (23.7) 31.5 (5.5)

Setup model L/4 eccentricity TL/4 eccentricity

Single-side cross-brace removal of cross-braces in lowest layer Single-side cross-brace removal of cross-braces in lowest layer
Test No. A 47.8 (28.9) 21.1 (14.2) 35.7 (7.7) 22.4 (4.3)
B 32.3 (18.4) 25.3 (10.4) 25.1 (10.0) 13.9 (4.5)
C # # 35.2 (8.7) #

Load type & Test

setup

Average 40.1 (23.7) 23.2 (12.3) 32.0 (8.8) 18.1 (4.4)

Annotation: 1. unit: kN; 2. #no test 3. (): result of 2nd loading test.

Fig. 13. Deformation condition of concentric loading test for scaffold with single-
side cross-brace.
overall scaffolding structure. Furthermore, the critical load of the
second loading case compared to the first-time load has an average
difference of approximately 46% (= (62.0 − 33.3)/62.0). This
implies that the variation between brand new and old sets of
scaffolds is significant to the critical loads of the scaffolds as shown
in Table 3.
B. T/4 Eccentricity
A T/4 eccentric loading arrangement is as shown in Fig. 10(II).
This shows the damage to scaffolding structures after being placed
withloads that are close to the topside where damage due to
deformation of the steel scaffold occurred. The failure mode of
T/4 loading case is similar to the concentric loading condition. The
averaged critical load of the first-time load is 42.2 kN; compared
to the concentric loading case, the critical load has been reduced
by 32% (= (62.0 − 42.2)/62.0). The averaged critical load of the
second-time load is 23.7 kN. When compared to the first-time load,
the critical load has been reduced by 44% (= (42.2 − 23.7)/42.2).
The critical load of the T/4 loading case is shown in Table 3. Fig. 14
shows the applied vertical load vs. the vertical displacement for the
first-time load, and Fig. 15 indicates the applied vertical load vs. the
vertical displacement for the second-time load. The curve tendency
of the two figures is similar when compared with the condition of
scaffolds with a concentric loading condition.
C. L/4 Eccentricity
Fig. 10(III) indicates the arrangement of a L/4 eccentric loading
case. The deformation of the L/4 eccentric loading test indicates
that the failure occurred mainly in the scaffold near the left side (L
side) without cross-braces. This failure type is similar to that of the
concentric loading test. The averaged critical load of a L/4 eccentric
load is slightly less than a T/4 eccentric load. When compared to
the concentric loading case of the same installation condition, the
critical load of a T/4 eccentric load is reduced by approximately 35%
(= (62.0 − 40.1)/62.0) as shown in Table 3. The averaged critical
load of the second-time load is 23.7 kN; compared to the first-time,
it is reduced by approximately 41% (= (40.1 − 23.7)/40.1).
D. TL/4 Eccentricity
A TL/4 eccentric loading arrangement is shown in Fig. 10(IV).
In this case, the test result shows that the small deformation in
the scaffolding system initially occurred close to the side near
the loading jack. When the vertical load reached its ultimate
maximum load, a large deformation occurred at a steel plate of the
bottom boundary of the scaffolding system. The type of damage
 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435
Fig. 14. T/4 eccentric load vs. axial deflection of scaffold with single-side cross-
braces for 1st – time load.
Fig. 15. T/4 eccentric load vs. axial deflection of scaffold with single-side cross-
braces for 2nd – time load.
is similar to the case of a concentric loading condition, and the
obtained averaged ultimate critical load is 32.0 kN. Compared
to the critical load of the concentric loading condition with a
restrained boundary, the critical load is reduced by approximately
69% (= (102.9 − 32.0)/102.9). Similarly, the deformation of
the second-time load was gradually increased from the originally
deformed position until the scaffolding failed. The second-time
averaged critical load is 8.8 kN; compared to the first-time load, the
critical load has been reduced for 73% (= (32.0 − 8.8)/32.0). All the
failure loads of the scaffolding systems are tabulated in Table 3.
5.2.2.2. Comparison of analysis and test results. Fig. 16 shows the
computed critical loads of 2-story to 12-story scaffolding systems.
In the analysis, all assumptions are based on the conditions in the
experimental tests; i.e. the scaffolding top is laterally unrestrained,
joint stiffness between scaffolds is 784.8 kN cm/rad, and semi-
rigid stiffness of the base is 1765.8 kN cm/rad. In Fig. 16, the
circle symbol shows the test results of 2-story scaffolds for 4
types of eccentric loading conditions. From Fig. 16 and Table 2,
the computed critical loads of 2-story scaffold for the 4 types of
eccentric loads are close to the experimental tested failure loads.
In Fig. 16, the computed critical load is 58.3 kN for the 2-story
scaffolding system and 57.0 kN for the 12-story scaffolding system
429
Fig. 16. Analysis and test results of scaffolding system with single-side cross-braces
and top guided-end boundary (bottom stiffness: 1765.8 kN cm/rad).
Fig. 17. Analysis results of scaffolding system with single-side cross-braces and top
free-end boundary (hinged bottom).
under concentric loads. The critical load is 43.1 kN for the 2-story
case and 41.6 kN for the 12-story case under the T/4 eccentric
loading condition. For the L/4 eccentric loading case, the critical
loads are 40.5 kN and 39.7 kN for the 2-story and 12-story cases,
respectively. For the TL/4 eccentric loading case, the critical load
is 31.5 kN for the 2-story and 30.9 kN for the 12-story. According
to the tendency of the 4 curves shown in Fig. 16, the critical loads
of the scaffolding systems slightly decrease with the increase in
the number of stories of the scaffolding systems. The slope of
these curves is almost a constant and the tendency differs greatly
from that of the critical loads of steel scaffolds used as formwork
supports.
Fig. 17 shows the critical loads of the 4-types with the
conditions like those found in real construction sites; i.e. the top
of the scaffolds is free, the joint stiffness between scaffolds is 784.8
kN cm/rad, and the bottom base is hinged. The biggest difference
between Figs. 17 and 16 lies on the assumption of the lowest
bottom part of the scaffold. The base stiffness of scaffold in the
construction site is simulated as a lower bounded “hinge”. There
is no processed test for the condition shown in Fig. 17; the analysis
is processed purely numerically. The analysis is conducted with
430 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435

Table 4
Tested critical load comparisons to brand new and simulated worst scaffolds
Single-side cross-brace Removal of cross-braces in lowest layer
1st load 2nd load Reduction (%) 1st load 2nd load Reduction (%)

Without Eccentricity (kN)

62.0 33.3 47 35.7 23.9 33

T/4 Eccentricity (kN)

42.2 23.7 44 31.5 5.5 83

L/4 Eccentricity (kN)

40.1 23.7 41 23.2 12.3 47

TL/4 Eccentricity(kN)
32.0 8.8 73 18.1 4.4 76

respect to the 4 types of loading conditions for the 2-story to 12-

story scaffolding systems.
Fig. 17 shows that the critical loads of scaffolds under the
concentric loads are 22.8 kN for the 2-story and 22.4 kN for the 12-
story scaffolding systems. For the T/4 eccentric loading case, the
critical load for the 2-story is 18.1 kN and for the 12-story it is 17.8
kN. For the L/4 eccentric loading case, the critical load for 2-story is
15.3 kN, and for 12-story it is 14.7 kN. For the TL/4 eccentric loading
case, the 2-story critical load is 12.7 kN and the 12-story load is 12.3
kN. The tendency of the 4 curves shown in Fig. 17 is quite close to
that of Fig. 16. The critical loads of scaffolding systems are unlikely
to greatly decrease with the adding of further scaffolding stories.
The curve tendency is also almost a constant.
The scaffolding system used in construction sites has the single-
side cross-braces and the boundary conditions of free-end at
the top and hinged-base at the bottom. The experimental tests
use the scaffolding system with the same unrestrained lateral
boundary conditions and semi-rigid joint base with stiffness
1765.8 kN cm/rad. Comparing Figs. 16 and 17, the critical loads
of scaffolding systems used in construction sites are about 40%
that of scaffolding systems tested in the laboratory regardless of
adding the “numbers of stories” or placing the “eccentric load”.
For example, for a 12-story scaffolding system placed under a TL/4
eccentric load, the critical load of the hinged- base condition is 40%
(= 12.3/30.9) of the load under the semi-rigid joint condition;
i.e. the strength of the hinged-base condition is 60% less.
Table 4 reveals critical loads of the simulated worst scaffolding
system under concentric loads in real construction sites. The
critical load of scaffolding systems tested the second time is
considered as the worst strength of the scaffolding system, i.e. the
lower bound strength. Comparing the strengths of used or old
systems against the brand new scaffolds with single-side cross-
braces, the decrement of critical loads of scaffolds is 40% or more.
This indicates that when old scaffold is used in construction sites
with only the tested strength for brand new scaffolds available,
it is necessary to reduce the strength of new scaffold by a factor
considering old or re-used material and eccentric loading effects.
5.2.3. Removal of cross-braces in lowest story
5.2.3.1. Test result.
A. Without Eccentricity
As previously discussed, it is known that in construction sites,
the cross-braces erected at the access location of the scaffold’s
lowest story are frequently all removed for convenient access. This
paper investigates this issue. The test is still mainly based on 2 story
scaffolding system. Two sets of tests are processed without the
eccentric load where each scaffold is loaded twice. Fig. 18 shows
the test result of a scaffolding system with the removal of cross-
braces at the access location under the concentric load. In Fig. 18,
similar to the failure of single-side cross-braces erection described
in the last section, after the load is applied, the failure is all caused
Fig. 18. Deformation shape of concentric loading test for removal of cross-braces
at access location.
by the sudden occurrence of a deformation in the out-of-plane
direction of the face of a scaffold without cross-braces.
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the averaged critical load of the
scaffold in the concentric loading test is 35.7 kN. Compared with
the critical load of the scaffold with single-side cross-braces and
without the bottom cross-brace, the critical load is reduced by 42%
(= (62.0 − 35.7)/62.0). This shows that the removal of scaffolding
system cross-braces at the access location greatly affects the
critical loads of the overall scaffolding system. In the second load,
the failure is caused by the occurrence of a deformation similar to
the case for the first load. The averaged critical load of the second-
time load, compared to the first-time load, has a reduction of 33%
(= (35.7 − 23.9)/35.7).
B. T/4 Eccentricity
Figs. 8 and 10(II) show the T/4 eccentric loading arrangement.
After the scaffolding system is loaded, the bottom part of the
scaffolding boundary began to deform on the left side (L side)
location close to the load without cross-braces, i.e. close to area
B in Fig. 8(II). When the ultimate load is reached, the damage was
caused by the simultaneous occurrence of a displacement of the
4 vertical posts of the scaffold. If compared to the case of full
single-side cross-braces under the same T/4 eccentric load, the
averaged critical load is reduced by 25% (= (42.2 − 31.5)/42.2) in
Tables 3 and 4. If the critical load of the scaffolding system under
T/4 eccentric load without cross-braces is compared to the case
of concentric load, the averaged critical load is reduced by 12%
(= (35.7 − 31.5)/35.7).
The above analysis and comparisons indicate that removing the
cross-braces at the access location of a scaffolding system reduces
the critical load of the overall scaffolding structure. Moreover, the
effect of eccentric load also reduces the strength of scaffolds. Since
the deformation resulting from the first-time load is very large,
the structure fails very soon under the second-time load and the
obtained critical load is greatly reduced. Compared with the first-
time load, the scaffolding system has a load reduction of 83% (=
(31.5 − 5.5)/31.5) as shown in Tables 3 and 4.
 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435 431

C. L/4 Eccentricity
Fig. 10(III) shows the L/4 eccentric loading arrangement. After
the scaffolding system is loaded, a large deformation occurs on the
left side (L side) of the scaffold without cross-braces. Moreover, the
scaffolding posts close to the loading location deformed first. When
the applied load was close to the ultimate load, a large deformation
occurs simultaneously in the two scaffolds and in their out-of-
plane directions.
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the averaged critical load of the
structure is 23.2 kN. Compared to the scaffold with single-side
cross-braces and under the same eccentric loading condition, the
averaged critical load is reduced by approximately 42% (= (40.1 −
23.2)/40.1). If compared to the same assembly with removal of
cross-braces at the access location and under a concentric loading
condition, the averaged critical load is reduced by 35% (= (35.7 −
23.2)/35.7). Comparing the critical load of the second-time load
with that of the first-time load, the averaged critical load is reduced
by 47% (= (23.2 − 12.3)/23.2) as shown in Tables 3 and 4.
D. TL/4 Eccentricity
The TL/4 eccentric loading arrangement is shown in Fig. 10(IV).
Fig. 19. Analysis and test results of scaffolding system with removal of cross-
The test result reveals the damaged model of structure; i.e. the braces at the access location and top guided-end boundary (bottom stiffness: 1765.8
lateral deformation of the system also occurs in the out-of- kN cm/rad).
plane direction of the scaffold. The averaged critical load of the
scaffolding system is 18.1 kN. In Table 3, tests A and B have a big
variation due to the hard setup in tests as well as a variation in
imperfection which is somehow random in nature. Compared to
the assembly for single-side cross-braces under the same eccentric
condition, the averaged critical load is reduced by 43% (= (32.0 −
18.1)/32.0). This indicates that under TL/4 eccentric load, the
removal of cross-braces at the access location has a big impact to
the critical load of the overall scaffolding structure.
Comparing to the scaffolding system with the removal of cross-
braces at the access location under the concentric load, the critical
load of the scaffolding system under the TL/4 eccentric load is
reduced by 49% (= (35.7 − 18.1)/35.7). The deformation of the
second-time load similarly occurs as the deformed position of the
first-time load and the averaged critical load of the scaffolding
system is 4.4 kN. Comparing the critical load of the second-time
load with that of the first-time load, the averaged critical load is
reduced by 76% (= (18.1 − 4.4)/18.1) as shown in Tables 3 and 4.

5.2.3.2. Comparison of analysis and test. Fig. 19 shows the analysis

and test results of various scaffolding systems with the removal of
cross-braces at the access location, unrestrained boundary at top, Fig. 20. Analysis results of scaffolding system with removal of cross-braces at the
and assumed bottom base stiffness of 1765.8 kN cm/rad. These access location and top free-end boundary (hinged bottom).

assumptions are based on the laboratory test results. The 4 circles

in the Fig. 19 are the test results of 2-story scaffolding system under
4 types of eccentric loads. As shown in Fig. 19, the critical loads
of scaffolding systems under the concentric load are 35.7 kN for
2-story and 35.2 kN for 12-story scaffolds. For the T/4 eccentric
loading case, the critical loads are 32.1 kN for 2-story and 31.8 kN
for 12-story scaffolds. For the L/4 eccentric load, the critical loads
are 31.9 kN for 2-story and 31.6 kN for 12-story scaffolds. For the
TL/4 eccentric load, the critical loads are 26.4 kN for 2-story and
25.9 kN for 12-story scaffolds. The tendency of 4 curves in Fig. 19
is very close to those in Figs. 16 and 17. These critical loads of the
scaffolding systems do not change by incrementing the scaffolding
story and they can almost be taken as a fixed value.
Fig. 20 shows the analysis results of the scaffolding systems
based on real construction site conditions with a top-most
unrestrained boundary and a bottom-hinged base. Additionally,
Fig. 20 also reveals the analyzed critical loads of scaffolding
systems from 2 to 12 stories under 4 different types of eccentric
loads. For the concentric loading case, Fig. 20 shows that the critical
loads of a scaffolding system with removal of cross-braces at the
access location are 9.4 kN for 2-story and 9.0 kN for 12-story
scaffolds. For the T/4 eccentric load, the critical loads are 9.0 kN
for 2-story and 8.8 kN for 12-story scaffolds. For the L/4 eccentric
load, the critical loads are 8.8 kN for 2-story and 8.8 kN for 12-story
scaffolds. For the TL/4 eccentric load, the critical loads are 7.9 kN for
2-story and 7.7 kN for 12-story scaffolds. The tendency of 4 curves
in Fig. 20 is close to that in Fig. 19 and has no relationship with the
number of scaffolding stories. In addition, the critical loads for the 4
curves are very similar and can almost be taken as a fixed number.
Based on the scaffolding installation in real construction with
single-side cross-braces with removal of cross-braces at the access
location, the critical loads of these setup scaffolds are only 30%
of the ones obtained from the analyses based on laboratory
boundary conditions, regardless of the numbers of stories and
load eccentricities. For example, for a 12-story scaffolding system
with removal of cross-braces at access location and under the TL/4
eccentric load, the critical load of the scaffolding system, compared
without removing cross-braces, is reduced by 70% (= (25.9 −
7.7)/25.9). It is found that under the site boundary condition with
the scaffold base as a hinge, the critical load of the scaffolding
system is reduced to a very low value.
432 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435

(a) 2-story. (b) 3-story. (c) 4-story. (d) 5-story.

Fig. 21. Deformation shapes of various stories of scaffolding systems with bottom hinged base and top free-end boundary.

As shown in Fig. 21, the deformation shapes indicate the

scaffolding system failures in Fig. 20. Fig. 21 indicates the
deformations of scaffolds under various eccentric loads from 2-
story to 5-story scaffolds. Regarding the scaffolding failures from
2 to 5 stories, the deformation types occurring at joint positions
between the first and the second stories are almost identical
regardless of how many stories of the scaffolds are fabricated.
Additionally, the second stories or those above the loaded scaffolds
deform almost the same, as shown in Fig. 21.
Table 4 reveals the tested critical loads of the simulated used
scaffold with removal of cross-braces at the access location;
i.e. loading the scaffolding systems twice. The second-time loaded
scaffold is used to simulate the lower bounded strength of used
scaffolds in actual construction sites. Comparing the lower limit
of the critical load of used scaffolds to the loads for the brand
new scaffolds, the critical loads of used scaffolds are reduced by
more than 40%. If the used scaffolds are used in construction sites,
the tested critical loads of new scaffold cannot be used directly.
It is necessary to multiply a “used reduction factor” to the tested
critical loads of new scaffolds for a safe design. Moreover, the
critical loads of the used scaffold under various eccentric loads
must be taken into account. The scaffolding systems under the L/4 Fig. 22. Comparison of analyzed critical loads for different scaffold stories with top
free-end boundary and different bottom bases.
and TL/4 loading cases perform worst and their reductions are also
the largest. In construction sites, special attention must be given to
system. Furthermore, the critical loads here are reduced with the
scaffolding systems under these two types of eccentric loads.
increasing story number and this decrease resembles the behavior
of a column curve in general steel structures.
5.3. Improved fixity at bottom base Fig. 22 shows that after the bottom is changed to a fixed-end
base, the critical load of the scaffolding system no long resembles
The scaffolding system with the top free-ended boundary and the load from the assumption of hinged base, regardless of number
the bottom-hinged base considerably weakens the scaffolding of scaffolding stories. The critical loads of the scaffolding systems
strength. This paper investigates the variation in scaffolding with different bases are shown in Table 5. The different values
strength by changing the bottom condition from a hinged base to of critical loads of fixed-end and hinged bases are high at lower
a fixed base. For simplifying this issue, the preliminary analysis is scaffolding stories. For instance, the difference of 2 stories is 4.1
merely focused on the scaffolding system with single-side cross- (= 92.4/22.8). However, the difference in the value of the critical
braces and unrestrained top boundary under concentric loads. The load gradually decreases along with increasing the number of
result of the analysis is shown in Fig. 22. scaffolding stories. Nevertheless, the critical load gradually tends
In Fig. 22, the curve with the symbol N represents the to stabilize when the number scaffolding stories exceeds 8. For
assumption of a hinged base allowing for no fix-end moment instance, the difference value at the 12-story scaffolding system
in the scaffolding system, whereas the curve with the symbol is 2.4 (= 53.9/22.4). This indicates that the critical loads of
 represents the assumption of fixed base which does not scaffolding systems over 8 stories with either hinged or fixed bases
allow any rotation. As shown in Fig. 22, after upgrading the converge to a constant load.
bottom boundary condition from a bottom-hinged base to a fixed- Fig. 23 indicates the deformation of a scaffolding system with
end base, the critical loads of the scaffolding system increase the bottom bases fixed. Comparing with Figs. 19 and 21, the out-
significantly. Therefore, if the bottom boundary condition of the of-plane deformation of the scaffolding system with the bases fixed
scaffolding system in a construction site is modified to fixed-end is similar to the scaffold with the bases hinged. However, except
base, it can greatly increase the critical load of the scaffolding for the out-of-plane deformation, the other aspects of its behaviors
 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435 433

(a) 2-story. (b) 3-story. (c) 4-story. (d) 5-story.

Fig. 23. Deformation shapes of various stories of scaffolding systems with bottom fixed-end base and top free-end boundary.

Table 5
Analyzed critical loads of scaffolding systems with top unrestrained boundary and
bottom hinged/fixed-end bases
No. of stories Hinged base (kN) Fixed-end base (kN)

2 22.8 92.4
3 22.8 75.7
4 22.8 65.8
5 22.7 60.6
6 22.6 58.0
7 22.6 56.3
8 22.6 55.4
9 22.6 54.7
10 22.6 54.3
11 22.6 54.0
12 22.4 53.9

are very different. The deformation of fixed base case in Fig. 23,
except 2-story scaffold, was found to be outward at odd numbers
of scaffolding stories inward at even numbers of scaffolding stories.
Further, Fig. 23 also reveals that the deformation of top scaffold
is larger than at the bottom. This deformation mode is totally
different from the case of bases hinged shown in Fig. 21, which
has almost the same deformation in the scaffolding units above the
second scaffolding level.
5.4. Effect of removing cross-braces at access
As previously discussed, steel scaffolds are frequently setup
with a single row close to the façade of building during
construction. Moreover, the cross-braces near the façade are
always removed for easy access so that the scaffolding system
is fabricated with single-side cross-braces [11]. Furthermore, for
the convenient entrance of workers and materials in construction
sites, the cross-braces on the lowest story at access location are
frequently removed. For comparing the variations of the critical
loads of scaffolding systems between before and after removing
the cross-braces at the lowest story scaffold access location, this
study investigates the critical load of scaffold under concentric
load and under the TL/4 eccentric load. The concentric load can be
considered as the upper bound critical load, and the TL/4 eccentric
load is taken as the strength lower bound. The actual condition in
construction sites should lie within these two bounds.
The boundary conditions of the scaffolding systems are also
assumed in two types in the comparison. One is the laboratory
boundary condition; i.e. the scaffolding base is placed on a steel
plate whose base stiffness is 1765.8 kN cm/rad, the joint stiffness
between scaffolds is 784.5 kN cm/rad, and the top boundary is
laterally movable but not allowed to rotate. The other case is
the construction site boundary condition; i.e. in construction site
Fig. 24. Comparison of analyzed critical loads between single-side cross-braces and
removal of cross-braces at access location with base stiffness 1765.8 kN cm/rad.
the scaffolding base is placed on the concrete slab or wooden
floor whose stiffness is zero like a hinged base, the joint stiffness
between scaffolds is 784.5 kN cm/rad, and the top boundary is
movable and rotational as a free end.
5.4.1. Semi-rigid joint base
Fig. 24 shows the analysis results based on the laboratory
boundary conditions. The symbols, N and  in Fig. 22, indicate the
analyses of scaffolding systems with removal of cross-braces at
access location under “concentric load” and “TL/4 eccentric load”
respectively. Further, the symbol 4 and  indicate the two types
of analysis results under the condition of single-side cross-braces.
In Fig. 24, for the concentric load over the scaffolding system
with single-side cross-braces, the critical loads are 58.3 kN for 2-
story and 57.0 kN for 12-story scaffolds. The average critical load
of the all scaffolds of 2-story to 12-story is 57.7 kN. Furthermore,
for the concentric load over the scaffolding system with removal
of cross-braces at access location, the critical loads are 35.7 kN for
2-story and 35.2 kN for 12-story scaffolds. The average critical load
of the all scaffolds of 2-story to 12-story scaffolds is 35.5 kN. For the
convenience of comparison, the averaged critical load is adopted.
After comparing the averaged critical loads of the scaffolds under
the conditions of removing cross-braces at the access location and
single-side cross-braces, it is found that the difference values of
scaffolds under removing and without removing cross-braces is
434 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435
Table 6
Ratios of critical loads of scaffolding systems with single-side cross-braces and removal of cross-braces at access location
Model Semi-rigid base!
Center (kN)
Without cross-braces(a) 35.5
With cross-braces(b) 57.7
Ratio (a)/(b) 0.62
Reduction rate 1-(a)/(b) 0.38
:
1. ! the analytic stiffness of base is 1765.8 kN cm/rad (with its top boundary movable & un-rotational)
2. !! with its top boundary movable & rotational.
Fig. 25. Comparison of analyzed critical loads between single-side cross-braces and
removal of cross-braces at access location with hinged base.
0.62 (= 35.5/57.7). The critical load is reduced by 38% as shown
in Table 6.
In Fig. 24, for the TL/4 eccentric load over the scaffolding system
with single-side cross-braces, the critical load of 2-story scaffold
with single-side cross-braces was obtained as 31.5 kN and as 30.9
kN for 12-story. The averaged critical load of all scaffolds from 2-
to 12-story scaffolds is 31.2 kN. However, for the TL/4 eccentric
load over the scaffolding system with removal of cross-braces at
access location, the 2-story is 26.4 kN and the 12-story is 25.9
kN. The average critical load of all scaffolds from 2-story to 12-
story scaffolds is 26.2 kN. The ratio of averaged critical loads of the
scaffolds with removal cross-braces at access location to that with
single-side cross-braces is 0.84 (= 26.2/31.2). The critical load is
reduced by 16% as shown in Table 6.
5.4.2. Hinged base
Fig. 25 shows the analysis results of the scaffolding systems
based on construction site conditions. The symbols are defined
similarly as in Fig. 24. As shown in Fig. 24, it can be seen that under
the condition of single-side cross-braces without eccentric loads,
the critical load of the 2-story scaffolding system is 22.8 kN and
22.4 kN for the 12-story scaffold. The averaged critical load of all
scaffolds is 22.6 kN. Furthermore, for the condition of removing
cross-braces at the access location, the critical load is 9.4 kN for
2-story scaffold, and 9.0 kN for 12-story scaffold. The averaged
critical load of all scaffolds from 2-story to 12-story scaffolding
systems is 9.2 kN. However, comparing the critical load under the
conditions of removing and retaining the cross-braces, the ratio of
two averaged critical loads is obtained as 0.41 (= 9.2/22.6). The
critical load is reduced by 59% as shown in Table 6.
Similarly, it is found from Fig. 25 that for scaffolding systems
under the TL/4 eccentric load, the critical load of 2-story scaffolding
Hinged base!!
TL/4 (kN) Center (kN) TL/4 (kN)
26.2 9.2 7.8
31.2 22.6 12.5
0.84 0.41 0.62
0.16 0.59 0.38
(A) Hinged end base. (B) Fixed end base.
Fig. 26. Failure shapes of Scaffolding systems with single-side cross-braces and
different Bases.
system with single-side cross-braces is 12.7 kN. The load for 12-
story scaffold is 12.3 kN and the averaged critical load is 12.5 kN.
Moreover, for the condition of removing cross-braces at access
location, the critical load of 2-story scaffold is 7.9 kN and the load
of 12-story scaffold is 7.7 kN. The averaged critical load of total
scaffolding systems is 7.8 kN. The ratio of the averaged critical loads
of the two conditions of removing and without removing cross-
braces is 0.62 (= 7.8/12.5). The critical load is reduced by 38% as
shown in Table 6.
Summarizing the above findings, for a scaffolding system under
the TL/4 eccentric load and after removal of the cross-braces at the
lowest layer at the access location, a great reduction in the critical
load of scaffolding system will result. The practice of removing
the scaffoldingsystem’s cross-braces at lowest layer for easy access
should be avoided.
5.5. Failures of scaffolding systems
Based on the unrestrained top boundary and the hinged and
fixed end bases, the scaffolding system with single-side cross-
braces has a larger deformation on the side without cross-braces
than the side with the cross-brace. Fig. 26 shows these buckling
shapes of the scaffolding systems based on hinged and fixed end
bases.
The critical loads of scaffolding systems with single-side cross-
braces change insignificantly under the vertically compression
load. The trend of the column curve, Pcra , sharply decreases to
a constant value when the structure is very slender under the
compression load in Fig. 27. The side of cross-braces mainly
supports the compression load, since the side without cross-braces
with large deformation cannot effectively support the compression
load. The side with cross-braces deforms in the out-of-plane
direction as shown in Fig. 27. The critical load sharply decreases
to a constant value after the height of the scaffolds is over L1 in
 J.-L. Peng et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 422–435
Fig. 27. Trends of column curves for slender and non-slender scaffolds under
compression load.
Fig. 27. Fig. 27 also shows the trend of the column curve, Pcrb , for
an non-slender structure. This phenomenon can explain why the
critical loads of scaffolding systems with a hinged base change
insignificantly with different stories in Fig. 22 since the height and
the scaffolding configuration make the structure very slender.
6. Conclusions
This study does not discuss the effect of ties or linking bar
connecting the scaffold to the façade of the building. The use
of ties will lead to a totally different structural behavior. In
summary, based on the results obtained from the described tests
and analyses, the following key observations can be concluded:
1. The test result shows that regardless of whether the cross-
braces of the lowest layer of a scaffold is removed or not, the
critical load of the TL/4 eccentric load is the lowest whereas the
critical load of the concentric load is the highest. For removing
cross-braces, the averaged critical load of the TL/4 eccentric load
is approximately 18.2 kN and it becomes 35.7 kN for concentric
loading case. The difference in buckling strength for these two
conditions is about half.
2. When the base of scaffold is semi-rigid or hinged, the critical
load of the structure slightly decreases with an increase in
the number of stories. When the structure is damaged, the
difference between the deformations at top of the first story and
at the uppermost top story is not significant.
3. In construction sites, if the scaffolding base is upgraded to a
fixed support, it can greatly increase the critical load of the
scaffolding system. When a scaffold is installed for more than 8
stories, the critical load under fixed end base is approximately
2.4 times as that of a hinged base, which is a constant value. This
information is applicable in scaffolding design as a reference.
4. Under an unrestrained boundary condition, the critical load
is reduced by removing the cross-braces at the bottom
layer of scaffolds. Based on the concentric load, the critical
load with an unrestrained boundary condition is reduced by
approximately 40% compared to the scaffold under a restrained
boundary condition. Based on the maximum TL/4 eccentric
load, the critical load is reduced by approximately 69%. From
this phenomenon, if the top layer boundary of a scaffold is
translationally unrestrained, the critical load is greatly reduced.
435
5. If a scaffolding bottom-base is considered as a hinged base in
construction sites, after the lowest cross-braces are removed
under the concentric loading condition, the critical load is 9.2
kN. The critical load under TL/4 eccentric load is 7.8 kN. Such
type of low critical loads are incapable of bearing even the self-
weight of a 10-story scaffold. Therefore, the removal of cross-
braces of the lowest layer at the access location of a scaffolding
system has a tendency to greatly reduce the critical load of the
scaffolding system. Therefore, the act of removing the cross-
braces at the lowest layer should be avoided in construction
sites.
6. After comparing the analysis and test results, it was found that
the semi-rigid joint stiffness of the base of scaffold setup in this
research is about 1765.8 kN cm/rad.
7. From the result of the eccentric loading test, it was discovered
that regardless of whether the cross-brace at the bottom layer
of a scaffold is removed or not, the critical load of the simulated
used scaffolding system is lowest at the TL/4 eccentric load.
The reduction is also a maximum. The critical load of the T/4
eccentric load is lower than that of L/4 eccentric load with a
greater strength reduction.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the financial supports by the
National Science Council of Taiwan (Project No. NSC 92-2211-E-
224-015) and the Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region Government under the projects “Advanced
analysis of steel frames and trusses of non-compact sections using
the deteriorating plastic hinge method (PolyU 5117/06E)” and
“Advanced analysis for progressive collapse and robustness design
of steel structures (PolyU 5115/07E)”. Suggestions by Professor
T. Yen of Chaoyang University of Technology are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] Peng JL, Yen T, Shih IM. Preliminary investigation of usage and failure models of
tubular steel scaffolding in construction. Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health Journal 2001;9:335–55 [in Chinese].
[2] Weesner LB, Jones HL. Experimental and analytical capacity of frame
scaffolding. Engineering Structures 2001;23:592–9.
[3] Yu WK. An investigation into structural behaviour of modular steel scaffolds.
Steel and Composite Structures 2004;4(3):211–26.
[4] Peng JL, Pan ADE, Chen WF, Yen T, Chan SL. Structural modeling and analysis
of modular falsework systems. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 1997;
123(9):1245–51.
[5] Peng JL, Pan ADE, Chen WF. Approximate analysis method for modular tubular
falsework. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 2001;127(3):256–63.
[6] Chan SL. Geometric and material nonlinear analysis of beam-columns and
frames using the minimum residual displacement method. International
Journal for Numerical Method in Engineering 1988;26:2657–69.
[7] Chan SL, Zhou ZH. A pointwise equilibrium polynomial (pep) element for
nonlinear analysis of frame. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 1994;
120(6):1703–17.
[8] Peng JL, Rosowsky DV, Pan AD, Chen WF, Chan SL, Yen T. High clearance
scaffold systems during construction - II. Structural analysis and development
of design guidelines. Engineering Structures 1996;18(3):258–67.
[9] Huang YL, Kao YG, Rosowsky DV. Load-carrying capacities and failure modes
of scaffold-shoring systems, Part II: An analytical model and its closed-form
solution. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 2000;10(1):67–79.
[10] Chinese National Standard. CNS - 4750, No. A2067, Steel Scaffold [in Chinese].
[11] Peng JL, Pan JL, Huang PS. Investigation of load-carrying capacity of scaffolding
structures in construction. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Civil and
Hydraulic Engineering 2004;16(3):425–35 [in Chinese].