Bluey wrote:
Simon,
Nice work on the blockwork, I am pleased to hear that you have the patience to undo things that you are not happy with in order to get them correct.
Thanks! I will confess to being a bit of a perfectionist with some things, but with this in particular I felt it's pretty important to get it right, given the structural importance of this wall in the project. I'd rather spend a single day now and undo a potential mistake, than have it come back to bite me in the arse later (or worse, be there for me to look at and worry about forever!)
Bluey wrote:
As far as stepping the formwork up, I assume that you would be trying to do each full panel in the one day to avoid a dry or cold joint (especially with the reo).
Absolutely, once I start a panel I'm not going to stop until it's finished

Bluey wrote:
... you could look at making the forms only 600mm high so you can step them up more regularly.
Yeah, I've been thinking this myself. Quite aside from the weight of a 1200 high panel, given the wall is only 2520 high I'd probably need at least one 600 high panel for the final lift so it may be more sensible to make them all 600. My reason for leaning towards a bigger form though is that I'd like to avoid the hard visible lines in the wall that seem to be common with smaller panels.
Bluey wrote:
I am interested the way you have added vertical elements to the formwork. Are the outside vertical elements only there to hold the small vertical pieces that sit against the ply in place?
The detail of the walers and form reinforcement are really subject to change, depending on the materials I find at my disposal when I come to build them. I've drawn them all at 90x45 mainly because I'll have plenty of it around, but I've also got a good supply of second hand 150x45 structural pine which I picked up to build the slab forms. Since I've got more slabs to pour I've been aiming not to cut this up any more than necessary.
What I've drawn currently is full-length horizontal walers with infill pieces (screwed & glued) between them vertically, then vertical spars over the top of the whole lot (screwed & glued again) to tie them together and provide a positive mechanism to lock the forms together when they're stacked.
Bluey wrote:
I assume that you are posting your designs so that you can receive feedback. I did not have any bowing of the formwork between the horizontal walers, only bowing of the waler itself. If you wanted to reduce this, I think the best way would be by increasing the width of the waler (in my case from 125x45 to 150x45) or using graded hardwood instead of oregan. Reducing the spacing to less than 300mm would also help. Let me know if I have misunderstood the intention of your design.
No, not at all - the more feedback, the merrier; positive or negative. The whole point of drawing everything up to the last detail is intended to be a learning exercise - I've certainly discovered a few design shortcomings myself this way, and I'm happy to accept advise from others who've been there already and can spot problems that I may not.
It's interesting that you got very little bowing with just horizontal bracing.. maybe I'm just being paranoid by adding it vertically as well

Bluey wrote:
Quote:
Anyone with a tamper, what's yours?
I see on the Ingersoll Rand website that their backfill tamper has a 3/8 inch NPT inlet and min 1/2 inch hose.
http://www.ingersollrandproducts.com/IS/modelcomp.aspx?am_en=506Since I posted that I've been googling incessantly to try and figure out what is commonly used on these tools. I found a PDF on Michigan Pneumatic's website which has specs, and all of their throttle bodies have a 1/2" NPT inlet thread. Mine measures pretty close to the specs for that thread (13 or 14TPI tapered, 0.850" at the largest end), so I reckon that's what I've got. I'll take the throttle off and pop into Pirtek tomorrow, they should be able to identify it (and supply a barb fitting too).