final-report-of-the-advisory-committee-on-falsework-bragg-report - Flipbook - Page 95
(c) Two separate contracts were let, one for the foundations and another for
the superstructure.
(d) The contract specification included this clause:
"2-2-3. Falsework. The Contractor shall furnish, construct and subsequently remove all falsework required for the erection of the steelwork.
Falsework shall be properly designed and substantially constructed and
maintained for the loads which will come upon it. The Contractor shall
submit to the Engineer, plans showing the falsework he proposes to use
to enable the Engineer to satisfy himself that the falsework proposed to
be used complies with the requirements of this Specification. Approval
of the Contractor's plans shall not be considered as relieving the Contractor of any responsibility ... ".
It further provided that approval of the Contractor's plans should not
be considered as relieving the Contractor of any responsibility.
(e) The second contractual obligation on the Contractor, namely to submit
to the Engineer plans showing the falsework he proposed tousein bentN4,
was not performed. When asked why not, a spokesman for the Contractors frankly replied that as far as he could find out it was "purely an
oversight".
(f) The partners from the Consulting Engineers, both stated in their evidence
that they would approve the procedure of erection but not any of the
details or equipment. Nevertheless the Chief Justice commented in his
report that:
It is clear from the evidence before me that had the Engineers called for
plans showing the falsework which the Contractor proposed to use, in
sufficient detail to enable the Engineers to satisfy themselves as to compliance with the requirements of the specification, the inadequacy of the
upper grillage probably would have been discovered and the collapse
avoided.
Accordingly, I must find there was a lack of care on the part of the
Engineers in not requiring the Contractor to submit plans of the falsework.
(g) The Chief Justice in his report stated:
Accordingly, upon the evidence the collapse was caused by and was the
result of negligence which consisted in:
(a) failing properly to design and substantially to construct false
bent N4 for the loads which would come upon it as required by
Clause 2-2-3 of the contract specification, and
(b) failing to submit to the Engineers plans showing the falsework the
Contractor proposed to use in the erection of span 5 as required
by Clause 2-2-3, and
(c) leaving the design of the upper grillage of false bent N4 to a comparatively inexperienced engineer, and failing to provide for adequate or effective checking of the design and the calculations made
in connection with the design.
96
