Quick Search

813 Failure of waling beam connected to raking prop

Report ID: 813

Published: Newsletter 55 - July 2019

Report Overview

A reporter witnessed a failure on site as a result of the design issues discussed in CROSS report 298 Props to large excavations.

Report Content

A reporter writes in response to CROSS report 298 Props to large excavations, as they have witnessed a failure on site as a result of the design issues discussed in this report.

The photo below shows a detail where the design required a cantilever beam to resist the vertical reaction from a raking prop where it connected to the waling beam. The cantilever beam was welded to the sheet pile behind and the design required that a large fillet weld be applied around the entire beam.

However, the contractor installed the cantilever beam after the waling beam had been fixed and was therefore unable to fully weld around the bottom flange.

The partial weld to the bottom flange failed, allowing the beam to rotate upwards. The weld to the web of the beam seemed to remain intact, with the rotation causing local deformation of the sheet pile at the web.

The reporter adds that additional brackets were welded on as an emergency remedial measure.


One feature that this failure highlights is that ‘design’ is not just a matter of calculation. If it was impractical for the contractor to install the cantilever beams prior to the waling beam, then the temporary works designer could have realised that with the waling beam in place first, it would be difficult or impossible to weld or otherwise fix the bottom flange of the cantilever beam.

Equally, if the design cannot be built, there should be an onus on the contractor to go back the Temporary Works Coordinator to flag the issue and get a revised solution from the temporary works designer. A discussion on construction sequencing between the temporary works designer and the contractor should have resolved this issue.

From the description, the cantilever beam failed upwards, implying tension on the bottom flange, which is the exact location where the weld was omitted. Self-evidently, the resistance of the profile weld must have been significantly less than the design intent.

This incident shows a repeated theme from numerous CROSS reports that what was actually built did not match the design intent. As with report 844 Defects in tapered thread reinforcement bars for coupling, site inspections are highly desirable.


CROSS depends on you for reports - if you have experienced a safety issue that you can share with CROSS, please Submit a CROSS Report which is treated as confidential

If you have any comments regarding this CROSS report, please Submit Feedback

View other CROSS reports published in Newsletter 55


Failure of waling beam connected to raking prop (a) view from under waling beam that has not resisted moment

(b) view from above waling beam that has not resisted moment (with emergency retrofitted supports highlighted in green)

Email Updates

How to Report

Online submission:
Submit by post: