Safety information search results
Filter your results
Building or structure type
Project or lifecycle stage
Design
Operation or occupation
Codes, standards & regulations
Fire incident response
Construction period
Method of construction
Structural form
Elements & systems
Plant & equipment
Weather & natural hazards
Utilities
Safety reporting
Organisations
Project delivery methods
Business practice
Risk management
Public incidents
Theme pages
Locations
Content type
- CROSS-AUS Newsletter 1 (2)
- CROSS-AUS [sub-heading only] (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 1 (5)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 2 (5)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 3 (1)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 4 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 5 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 6 (3)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 8 (1)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 9 (1)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 10 (4)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 14 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 15 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 16 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 17 (4)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 19 (1)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 20 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 21 (1)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 22 (1)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 25 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 27 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 29 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 30 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 31 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 32 (4)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 33 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 34 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 35 (1)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 37 (4)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 38 (3)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 39 (2)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 40 (1)
- CROSS-UK Newsletter 55 (1)
- (-) CROSS-UK [sub-heading only] (69)
- CROSS Newsletter (26)
- CROSS Safety Report (69)
- News [sub-heading only] (14)
CROSS regions
Steelwork connection design
A reporter was asked to design connections for a multi-storey building for which the frame had been designed by another engineer. The result was a near collapse situation.
1 March 2006
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 25
Region: CROSS-UK
Differing reinforcement couplers
On a recent project, because of supply problems, the contractor decided to change from the specified rebar couplers (type ‘A’) to those of another manufacturer (type ‘B’).
1 March 2006
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 28
Region: CROSS-UK
Mobile phone masts
The concern of an overseas reporter is that erection, foundation design and construction, and maintenance of mobile phone masts are not carried out adequately.
1 March 2006
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 22
Region: CROSS-UK
Latent shear stud defects
Shear studs appeared to be satisfactory when checked with the standard pull-over to five degrees but when hit with a hammer they snapped off.
1 November 2005
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 13
Region: CROSS-UK
Concerns over structural design submissions
Concern was expressed about the standard of structural design submissions presented to local authorities.
1 November 2005
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 14
Region: CROSS-UK
Stud framing with self-tapping screws
A reporter raises concerns about contractors not using the specified screws for constructing metal stud frame walls.
1 November 2005
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 11
Region: CROSS-UK
Structural steel - reinforced concrete interface
A reporter describes how the substructure of a building was constructed out of position to the extent that the steel frame could not be erected to tolerance and could not be connected to the holding down bolts.
1 March 2006
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 19
Region: CROSS-UK
Girder collapse
The failure was of a two-storey high trussed girder with a 36m span, designed to carry a composite steel and concrete floor at the lower level and a trussed roof at higher level.
1 March 2006
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 30
Region: CROSS-UK
Fixings to steelwork
The use of proprietary self tapping screws to fix to materials thicker than 10-12mm is questioned by a reporter.
1 November 2006
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 44
Region: CROSS-UK
Liquid metal assisted cracking
Large cracks appeared down the sides of gusset welds after a truss was erected on site.
1 November 2006
CROSS Safety Report
Report ID: 49
Region: CROSS-UK