Comparative Analysis of Three Typical Cantilever

Scaffold Supporting Systems

Dajiang Geng 
China Construction 4th Engineering Bureau 6th Co., Ltd. Shanghai 201100
Ning Dai  (  1710512@tongji.edu.cn )
Tongji University
De Zhang 
Shanghai Road and Bridge Group Co., Ltd. Shanghai 200433
Xuesheng Jin 
China Construction 4th Engineering Bureau 6th Co., Ltd. Shanghai 201100
Minjian Long 
China Construction 4th Engineering Bureau Co., Ltd. Shanghai 201100

Research Article

Keywords: Cantilever scaffold, Comparative analysis, FEM, Analytical formula, Bene t comparison

Posted Date: October 6th, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-930129/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  
Read Full License
 Comparative Analysis of Three Typical Cantilever Scaffold
Supporting Systems
Dajiang Geng1, Ning Dai2, De Zhang3, Xuesheng Jin1, Minjian Long4

(1China Construction 4th Engineering Bureau 6th Co., Ltd. Shanghai 201100, China
2
Key Laboratory of Rail Infrastructure Durability and System Safety,
Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China
3
Shanghai Road and Bridge Group Co., Ltd. Shanghai 200433, China
4
China Construction 4th Engineering Bureau Co., Ltd. Shanghai 201100, China)

(Corresponding author: Ning Dai; Email: 1710512@tongji.edu.cn)

Abstract: In order to effectively guide the selection of scaffold in designing the cantilever scaffold,
comprehensive analyses of three typical scaffold supporting systems (including fully cantilever,
bottom-supporting cantilever and pull-up cantilever) are carried out. The calculation formulas of the
internal force for the three scaffold supporting systems are proposed based on the theoretical
analysis, which are effectively verified by the finite element method (FEM). In addition, the force
mechanism and benefits of the three scaffold supporting systems are compared and analyzed
combined with actual engineering. The results indicate that there is high calculating accuracy for
the proposed internal force and deflection calculation formulas about the scaffold supporting
systems. According to the distribution uniformity of the internal force and controlling of the
deformation of the main girder, the bottom-supporting cantilever system is undoubtedly the best
choice. While the pull-up cantilever supporting system is the best choice when considering the
aspects of cost, construction period and social benefits, which ought to be popularized in
engineering practice.

Key words: Cantilever scaffold; Comparative analysis; FEM; Analytical formula; Benefit
comparison

1 Introduction
Scaffold plays an important role in the building construction, based on the principles of action,
scaffold currently includes attached lifting frames, climbing frames and cantilever frames [1-3].
According to the classification of the force systems, the scaffold includes fully cantilever, bottom-
supporting cantilever, pull-up cantilever and bottom-supporting pull-up cantilever systems [4-6].

1
Even though the fully cantilever scaffold is widely used in actual engineering [7], this type of
scaffold requiring holes left ahead of time in the walls and floors, which do harm to the building
structure and may lead to later leakage. In order to solve these problems when using fully cantilever
scaffold, the bottom-supporting cantilever scaffold [4,5,8] and pull-up cantilever scaffold [9-12]
were effectively put forward. So far, much work has been done on the designing, installation, using
and monitoring of the fully cantilever scaffold [13-20], and rich experience has also been
accumulated on the actual engineering application. However, even though the bottom-supporting
cantilever scaffold and pull-up cantilever scaffold are widely used, as well as current research
focuses on the engineering construction, the designing method of these two types of scaffolds
remain referring to the designing of fully cantilever scaffold. Because the supporting systems of
fully cantilever scaffold, bottom-supporting cantilever scaffold and pull-up cantilever scaffold are
different, it is obviously unreasonable to design these two scaffolds according to the method of fully
cantilever scaffold.
In addition, cutting cost is hoped when erecting and dismantling scaffolds. Therefore, this
research try to evaluate the differences of three typical cantilever scaffold supporting systems on the
structures, forces and benefits, which provide a valuable reference for the engineering designing
and choosing of scaffold supporting systems.

2 Comparative analysis of the structures of three supporting system

The structures of the three scaffolds (cantilever scaffold, bottom-supporting cantilever scaffold,
and pull-up cantilever scaffold) are shown in Fig. 1(a), Figs. 1(b) and 1(c), respectively. According
to Fig.1, the force transmission systems of the three scaffolds are similar, in which the force is
transmitted from scaffold plate → horizontal rod → longitudinal horizontal rod → vertical rod →
load-bearing beam. And the major difference of the scaffolds is the way the force transmitting from
the load-bearing beam to the structure.

(a) Fully cantilever (b) Bottom-supporting

(c) Pull-up cantilever
scaffold cantilever scaffold

2
 scaffold
Fig.1 Comparison of three types of scaffolds
The load on the bearing beam in Fig. 1(a) is directly transmitted to the structure floor and wall,
and the load-bearing beam and structure floor are generally fixed by 3 U-shape bolts. While the load
on the cantilever bearing beam of bottom-supporting cantilever scaffold (see in Fig. 1(b)) is partially
transmitted to the bottom-supporting beam, which is eventually transmitted to the building structure
by the bottom-supporting beam and cantilever beam. The fixing bolts are used between bottom-
supporting beams and building structure walls, between cantilever beams and building structure
walls, between bottom-supporting beams and cantilever beams, respectively. As to the pull-up
cantilever scaffold in Fig. 1(c), the load on the cantilever bearing beam is partially transmitted to
the upper tie rod and then transmitted to the structure through upper tie rod and cantilever beam. It
is notable that the cantilever beams and building structure walls are fixed by bolts, and the upper tie
rods and structure walls are articulated, the articulated connection is also used for the upper tie rods
and cantilever beams.
Therefore, the most obvious differences among the three scaffold systems are the supporting
systems, and the difference in supporting system will inevitably lead to different force transmission
paths and force on the scaffold, different installation and disassembly construction procedures, as
well as different construction periods, economic benefits and social benefits.

3 The overall force analysis of three supporting systems

3.1 Force analysis and verification of the fully cantilever supporting system
3.1.2 Force analysis
As Figure 1(a) shows, the supporting system of fully cantilever scaffold can be simplified to
Fig. 2 [13]. And Fn is the concentrated force transmitted by the vertical pole, and q represents
the self-weight line load of cantilever main beam, lc and lb denote the distances of the anchor
point center of main cantilever beam to the supporting point of floor and the free end of beam,
respectively. lni and lno mean the distances of the inner vertical rod and outer vertical rod to the
anchor point center of the main cantilever beam, respectively.

Fig.2 Force diagram of fully cantilever supporting system

According to Figure 2, the bending moment of the cantilever main beam is

3
 1
 2 q(lb  x)2  Fn (lni  x)  Fn (lno  x) 0  x  lni

 1
M oh =  q(lb  x)2  Fn (lno  x) lni  x  lno (1)
 2
 1
 q(lb  x)2 lno  x  lb
 2

And the shear force is

q(lb  x)  2Fn 0  x  lni


Voh =  q(lb  x)  Fn lni  x  lno (2)
 q(l  x) lno  x  lb
 b

The free end deflection is

woh =
q
24EI
 6EI

4lb3lc  3lb 4  lc3lb  + n 2lblc lni  lno   3lb lni 2  lno 2   lni 3 +lno 3 
F
 (3)

Where, x represents the distance between the section of cantilever main beam and the anchor
point center. E means the elastic modulus of the cantilever main beam, and I represents the
inertia moment of the cantilever main beam.
3.1.2 FEM verification
FEM is an effective way for the modern numerical calculation, which has been widely used in
engineering practice [21,22]. Hence, the FEM was used in this research to verify the accuracy and
precision of the force of fully cantilever supporting system before calculating it by eqs. (1) to (3).
As table 1 shows the geometric parameters, the cantilever main beam is an articulated unit with
a cantilever on one side, which was set as I16 steel. A 2-node linear beam element and ideal
elastoplastic constitutive model were used in the simulation, with the elastic modulus 206 GPa,
Poisson's ratio 0.30, and the yield stress 235 MPa. The value of concentrated load Fn =20.00kN ,
and the self-weight load q =0.246kN / m .

Table 1 Calculation parameters of fully cantilever supporting system

Parameters Values（m） Parameters Values（m）

lc 1.75 lb 1.40
lni 0.38 lno 1.18

As shown in Fig.3 the bending moment results by eq. (1) and FEM, the deflections of eq. (3)
and FEM are 17.86 mm and 18.79 mm, respectively. And the results indicate that the internal force
and deformation of the fully cantilever supporting system by eqs. (1) to (3) has a higher calculating
accuracy.
4
 36

32 Analytical Method
FEM
28

24

M(kN·m)
20

16

12

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
x(m)

Figure 3 Comparison of the FEM and theoretical calculation results

3.2 Force analysis and verification of bottom-supporting cantilever supporting system

3.2.1 Force analysis
The supporting system of the bottom-supporting cantilever scaffold in Fig. 1(b) can be
simplified to Fig. 4. And h means the vertical distance of the fixed connection point between
bottom -supporting beam and building structure to the cantilever main beam and building structure.
lbs represents the horizontal distance of the connection position between the bottom-supporting
beam and building structure to the fixed connection point between the cantilever main beam and
building structure.

Figure 4 Schematic diagram of the force of bottom-supporting cantilever system

Considering the relationships of angle coordination, displacement coordination in two

directions and force-balance between the connection of the bottom-supporting beam and cantilever
main beam, the axial force on the bottom-supporting beam is

C10C22C33  C10C23C32 +C12C23C30  C13C22C30

FN  (4)
C11C22C33  C11C23C32  C12C21C33 +C12C23C31 + C13C21C32  C13C22C31

And the shear force is

5
 C10C21C33  C10C23C31 +C11C23C30  C13C21C30
FV   (5)
C11C22C33  C11C23C32  C12C21C33 + C12C23C31 + C13C21C32  C13C22C31

The bending moment is

C10C21C32  C10C22C31 +C11C22C30  C12C21C30

M= (6)
C11C22C33  C11C23C32  C12C21C33 + C12C23C31 + C13C21C32  C13C22C31

The process variables C11 、 C12 、 C13 、 C10 、 C21 、 C22 、 C23 、 C31 、 C32 、 C33 、 C30 are as
follows.

h l 3
C11   bs cos (7)
E A 3EI

ldb3 l 3
C12  sin   bs sin  (8)
3E I  3EI

ldb 2 l 2
C13  sin   bs (9)
2 E I  2EI

Fn lni 2 Fl 2 ql 2
C10  (3lbs  lni )+ n no (3lbs  lno )+ bs (lbs 2 +6lb 2  4lblbs ) (10)
6 EI 6 EI 24EI

lbs l
C21   sin   bs sin  (11)

EA  EA

ldb3 l
C22  cos  bs cos (12)
3E I  EA

ldb 2
C23  cos (13)
2E I 

lbs 2
C31  cos  (14)
2 EI

ldb 2 l 2
C32   bs sin  (15)
2 E I  2 EI

ldb l
C33   bs (16)
E I  EI

Fn lni 2 Fn lno 2 qlbs 2

C30  + + (lbs  3lb lbs +3lb 2 ) (17)
2 EI 2 EI 6 EI

Where,  represents the angle between the axial direction and vertical direction of the
bottom-supporting beam, which satisfies tan   lbs h . ldb is the length of bottom-supporting
beam, E  means the elastic modulus of bottom-supporting beam, I  indicates the inertia moment
of bottom-supporting beam, A and A are the cross-sectional area of the cantilever main beam
and bottom-supporting beam, respectively.

6
 When obtaining the force of the node, the bending moment of the cantilever main beam can be
obtained by eq. (18).

1
 2 q(lb  x)   FN cos   FV sin   (lbs  x)+Fn (lni  x)  Fn (lno  x)  M 0  x  lni
2


 1
q(lb  x)2   FN cos   FV sin   (lbs  x)  Fn (lno  x)  M lni  x  lno
 2
M bmb =  (18)
 1
q(lb  x)2   FN cos   FV sin   (lbs  x)  M lno  x  lbs
 2
 1
 q(lb  x)2 lbs  x  lb
 2

And the shear force is

q(lb  x)   FN cos   FV sin    2 Fn 0  x  lni


 q(lb  x)   FN cos   FV sin    Fn lni  x  lno
Vbmb =  (19)
 q(lb  x)   FN cos   FV sin   lno  x  lbs
 q(lb  x) lbs  x  lb

The axial force is

 F sin   FV cos 0  x  lbs

Nbmb =  N (20)
 0 lbs  x  lb

The free end deflection is

 FN cos  FV sin   lbs 2 Mlbs Fl 2

wbmb =  (3lb  lbs )  (2lb  lbs )+ n ni (3lb  lni )
6 EI 2 EI 6 EI (21)
Fn lno 2 ql 4
+ (3lb  lno )+ b
6 EI 8EI

Where, x represents the horizontal distance between the internal force section point and the
fixed end of the cantilever main beam.
The bending moment of the bottom-supporting beam is

M bdb =FV (ldb  x)+M (22)

And the shear force is

Vbdb =  FV (23)

The axial force is

7
 Nbdb =  FN (24)

Where, x  is the horizontal distance between the internal force section point and the fixed
end of the bottom-supporting beam.
3.2.2 FEM Verification
Similarly, the I16 I-beam and I10 I-beam are used for the cantilever main beam and bottom-
supporting beams, respectively, with the 2-node linear beam elements adopted in the simulation. In
addition, the boundary conditions of fixed connection were used among the cantilever main beams,
bottom-supporting beams and building structures. The ideal elasto-plastic model was also selected
in the simulation with the value of elastic modulus 206 GPa, Poisson's ratio 0.30, yield stress 235
MPa, concentrated load Fn =20.00kN and self-weight load q =0.246kN / m . More parameters
can be seen in table 2.

Table 2 Parameters of bottom-supporting cantilever supporting system

Parameters Values（m） Parameters Values（m）

h 1.40 lb 1.40
lni 0.38 lno 1.18
lbs 1.30

Figure 5 shows the bending moments between cantilever main beam calculated by eq. (18) and
FEM, and the deflections by eq. (21) and FEM are 0.36 mm and 0.25 mm, respectively. According
to Fig. 5, even though the bending moment by the analytical method is slightly higher, the maximum
error is less than 10, which undoubtedly meet the requirements of engineering design.
8
7 Analytical Method
6 FEM
5
4
M(kN·m)

3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
x(m)

Figure 5 Comparison of the FEM and theoretical calculation results

3.3 Force analysis and verification of the pull-up cantilever supporting system
3.3.1 Force analysis
8
 The supporting system of the pull-up cantilever scaffold in Fig. 1(c) can be simplified to Fig.
6. h  represents the vertical distance of the articulated point between tie rod and building structure
to the fixed point between the cantilever main beam and building structure, and lppo is the
horizontal distance of connecting point between tie rod and building structure to the fixed point
between the cantilever main beam and building structure. In addition, lpro denotes the length of the
tie rod.

Figure 6 Schematic diagram of the force of pull-up cantilever supporting system

According to the vertical displacement coordination and force-balance condition at the

connecting position of the pull-up tie rod and cantilever main beam, the tension of the tie rod is

4 Fn lni 2 (3lppo  lni )+4 Fn lppo 2 (3lno  lppo )+qlppo 2 (lppo 2  6lb 2  4lb lppo )
Fpro = (25)
24 EIh
+8sin(o )lppo3
Epro Apro

With  o satisfies

h
tan(o )  (26)
lppo

Where, Epro and Apro represent the elastic modulus and the cross-section area of the tie rod,
respectively.
After obtaining the tension of the tie rod, when treating the tension as an external force, the
bending moment of the cantilever main beam is

9
 1
 2 q(lb  x)  Fn (lni +lno  2 x)+  Fprosin(o )(lppo  x) 0  x  lni
2


 1 q(l  x)2  F (l  x)+  F sin( )(l  x) lni  x  lppo
 b n no pro o ppo
M pmb  2 (27)
 1
q(lb  x)2  Fn (lno  x) lppo  x  lno
 2
 1
 q(lb  x)2 lno  x  lb
 2

However, if a horizontal distance x between one point and the fixed end of the cantilever
main girder is seen as a variable, when the derivative of eq. (27) is obtained, the shearing force of
the cantilever main girder can be

q(lb  x)  2 Fn +Fpro sin(o ) 0  x  lni

 q(l  x)  F +F sin( ) l  x  l

Vpmb  b n pro o ni ppo
(28)
  q (lb  x )  F n lppo  x  lno
 q(lb  x) lno  x  lb

The axial force of the cantilever main beam is

 lppo
 Fpro 0  x  lppo
N pmb  lpro (29)
 0 lppo  x  lb


And the maximum deflection of the cantilever main beam at the free end of the beam is

Fprosin(o )lppo 2 Fn lni 2 Fl 2 ql 4

wpmb   (3lb  lppo )+ (3lb  lni )+ n no (3lb  lno )+ b (30)
6EI 6EI 6EI 8EI

3.3.2 FEM Verification

In this section, the I16 I-beam and 2-node linear beam elements are used for the cantilever
main beams. In addition, the fixed connections are also adapted for the cantilever main beams and
building structure, while the connections between the pull-up tie rods and cantilever main beams
and between the pull-up tie rods and building structure are the articulated way. Moreover, the ideal
elasto-plastic model is selected for the cantilever main beams and pull-up tie rods, with the value of
elastic modulus 206 GPa, Poisson's ratio 0.30, yield stress 235 MPa, concentrated load
Fn =20.00kN and self-weight load q =0.246kN / m . The rest parameters can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3 Parameters of pull-up cantilever supporting system

Parameters Values（m） Parameters Values（m）

10
 h 3.00 lb 1.40

lni 0.38 lno 1.18

lppo 1.05 \ \

Figure 7 shows the bending moments between cantilever main beam calculated by eq. (27) and
FEM, and the deflections calculated by eq. (30) and FEM are 1.61 mm and 1.78 mm, respectively.
According to the results, the differences of the internal force and deformation obtained by the
analytical method and FEM are very small, which indicates the analytical formula has higher
calculation accuracy.

10
9 Analytical Method
8 FEM

7
6
M(kN·m)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
x(m)

Figure 7 Comparison of FEM and theoretical calculation results

3.4 Comparative analysis of the force on the three supporting systems

Because the main cantilever beam is a common component of the three supporting systems,
which is often used for bearing bending moment. As Fig. 8 shows, comparing with the fully
cantilever main beam, the bending moments of the bottom-supporting cantilever main beam and
pull-up cantilever main beam along the axial direction of the beam are more reasonable, whose
bearing capacities are well balanced along the axial direction. Besides, the bearing capacity of the
bottom-supporting cantilever main beam plays more rational than that in the pull-up cantilever main
beam. As a result, the existence of the bottom-supporting beam and pull-up tie rod effectively
improve the utilization rate of the material strength of the cantilever main beam. While this effect is
more obvious for the bottom-supporting beam since its stiffness is larger than the pull-up tie rod,
which means the restraining effect on the cantilever main beam is more obvious for the bottom-
supporting beam other than the pull-up tie rod.

11
 36
32 Fully cantilevered
Bottom-supporting cantilevered
28 Pull-up cantilevered
24

M(kN·m)
20
16
12
8
4
0
-4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
x(m)

Figure 8 Comparison of internal forces of cantilever main beams

under three supporting systems

According to the results, the deflections of free end of the cantilever main beam for the fully
cantilever, bottom-supporting and pull-up cantilever supporting systems are 17.86 mm, 0.36 mm,
and 1.61 mm, respectively, which means the existence of the bottom-supporting beam and pull-up
tie rod effectively reduced the deformation of the cantilever main beam, and the restricting effect of
the bottom-supporting beam on the main beam is stronger than the pull-up tie rod. Therefore,
regardless of the cost, the bottom-supporting cantilever bearing system is undoubtedly the best
choice.

4 Comparison of the benefits of the three supporting systems

Because the scaffold is mainly used for a platform for on-site construction, which does not
directly generate economic benefits. However, as the profit margin of the construction industry
continues to decline, it is hoped to end a project without prolonging the construction period and
complete building and disassembling the scaffold at the lowest cost.
Hence, in order to guide actual engineering practice, the designing of the cantilever scaffold at
economic benefits, social benefits and construction period are compared based on a real estate
project in Beijing, the corresponding cost is shown in table 4.

Table 4 Cost comparison of three supporting systems

Cost
Supporting system Calculation details
（RMB）

12
 I18 for the main beam and 20 mm
Pull-up cantilever 42617
diametral tie rod (round bar)

Fully cantilever 83454 I40b for the main beam

Bottom-supporting I12.6 for the main beam and I10 for the
46221
cantilever bottom-supporting beam

4.1 Comparison of the economic benefits

In order to compare the economic benefits of the three supporting systems, the main beams of
the fully cantilever supporting system, the main beams and bottom-supporting beams of the bottom-
supporting cantilever supporting system are selected to ensure the maximum principal stress and
deflection of the two systems are close.
The cost of the three systems is shown in Table 4, when the deflections and stress controlling
levels of the main beam are the same, the cost ranking from high to low is fully, bottom-supporting
and pull-up cantilever system. And the cost of the pull-up cantilever system only accounts for 51.07%
of the fully cantilever system, which is due to the main beam of the fully cantilever system partially
inserts to the building and the insert part is hard to bear load. As a result, the difference of the
utilization rate of the three systems along the length of the main beam are huge.

4.2 Comparison of the construction period

As shown in table 5, the construction period of the pull-up and bottom-supporting cantilever
systems account for 37.5% of the fully cantilever supporting systems, since both the connections of
pull-up and bottom-supporting systems mainly by bolts, and easy to be installed and removed. In
addition, the existence of the small holes in the building left by the two systems can be quickly
blocked through grouting. However, when dismantling the main beam of a fully cantilever
supporting system, it is inevitable to cut the U-shaped ring, which eventually leading to a large hole,
which requires a long time to be blocked by concrete or block plugging.

Table 5 Schedule comparison of three supporting systems

Supporting system Construction period（d） Calculation details

Small holes caused by installation and removal of

Pull-up cantilever 1.5 main beams and tie rods needed to be blocked

through grouting.

13
 Large holes caused by installation and removal of

Fully cantilever 4.0 main beams and tie rods needed to be blocked by

concrete or block plugging.

Small holes caused by installation and removal of

Bottom-supporting
1.5 main beams and tie rods needed to be blocked
cantilever
through grouting.

4.3 Comparison of the social benefits

Compared with the fully cantilever supporting system, the main beams of the pull-up cantilever
supporting system and bottom-supporting cantilever supporting system have the advantages in short
length, small cross-sectional area and light weight, which are beneficial for the construction workers
and the construction efficiency can be effectively enhanced.
In addition, the structural holes left by the fully cantilever supporting system are larger than
the holes due to the pull-up and bottom-supporting cantilever supporting system, which is difficult
to be blocked and easy to cause external wall leakage. As a result, the owners’ living experience are
greatly affected and the maintenance cost is also increased.

5 Conclusion
The theoretical analysis and FEM are used to compare the structure, force mechanism and
benefits of the three cantilever scaffolds, the conclusions are as follows:
(1) The formulas of the internal force and deflection about the three proposed scaffold
supporting systems have high accuracy, which can be used as a reference for specific designing
work.
(2) The bottom-supporting cantilever supporting system has the best uniformity of the internal
force distribution and deformation controlling of the main girder, followed by the pull-up cantilever
supporting system, and the fully cantilever supporting system lies worst.
(3) Compared with the fully cantilever supporting system, the pull-up cantilever supporting
system can effectively save 48.93% cost and 62.5% construction period, as well as has good social
benefits, which is recommended in engineering practice.

Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in figures of the current manuscript.

References

14
1. Kuo CC, Peng JL, Yen T, Chan SL. Experimental study of modular falsework system with
wooden shores under various path loads. Advances in Structural Engineering, 2008, 11(4): 369-
382, DOI: 10.1260/136943308785836844

2. Liu HB, Zhao QH, Wang XD, Zhou T, Wang D, Liu J, Chen ZH. Experimental and analytical
studies on the stability of structural steel tube and coupler scaffolds without X-bracing.
Engineering Structures, 2009, 32(4): 1003-1015, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.027

3. Beale RG. Scaffold research—A review. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2014, 98:
188-200, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.01.016

4. Zhao J. Design and application of cantilever bottom supported scaffold. Construction

technology, 1993, 05: 25-26, DOI: CNKI:SUN:SGJS.0.1993-05-016 (in Chinese)

5. Zhang ZW, Zhang GZ. Application of embedded anchor and diagonal bracing combined
cantilever scaffold. Residential house, 2020, 06: 67-68, DOI: CNKI:SUN:JUSH.0.2020-06-065
(in Chinese)

6. Derevyanko E, Shmelev G, Khaidarov L, Antonov A, Galimullin I. Creating a node connection

for scaffold and studying its stress-strain state by means of a full-scale test. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2020, 890(1):012-043, DOI: 10.1088/1757-
899X/890/1/012043

7. Jamiska GP, Bec J, Lipecki T, Robak A. Verification of the faade scaffold computer model.
Archives of Civil Engineering, 2018, 64(1): 41-53, DOI: 10.2478/ace-2018-0003

8. Liu SB. Research and application of design scheme of bottom supported cantilever steel
construction platform. Shandong University, 2020. DOI: 10.27272/d.cnki.gshdu.2020.004595
(in Chinese)

9. Zhao ZX, LV LJ, Wang Z, Zeng J, Liu JL. Construction technology of flower basket short leg
cantilever scaffold. Building Construction, 2021, 43 (03): 433-435 + 438, DOI:
10.14144/j.cnki.jzsg. 2021.03.030 (in Chinese)

10. Li SX. Application of steel tie rod cantilever scaffold in fabricated structure. Building
construction, 42 (07): 2020, 1194-1196, DOI: 10.14144/j.cnki.jzsg.2020.07.027 (in Chinese)

11. Na C, Wang Q, Han JY, Xiong JG. Application of tool type pull rod cantilever scaffold in high-
rise building construction. Building construction, 2020, 42 (03): 367-369, DOI:
10.14144/j.cnki.jzsg. 2020.03.024 (in Chinese)

15
12. Zheng GS, Wu Q, Zhang ZY. Design and construction of prefabricated structure flower basket
pull rod cantilever scaffold. Building construction, 2018, 40(07): 1186-1187 + 1207, DOI:
10.14144/j.cnki.jzsg.2018.07.046 (in Chinese)

13. Liu HB, Meng Y, Jia L, Chen ZH, Liu Q, Wen SL. Structural Behavior of Steel Tube and
Coupler Scaffolds with Stability Strengthening Details. International Journal of Steel Structures,
2018, 18(1): 79-95, DOI: 10.1007/s13296-018-0307-4

14. Chen ZH, Zhao ZW. Analysis of Door-type Modular Steel Scaffolds. Advanced Steel
Construction, 2016, 12(3), 316-327, DOI: 10.18057/IJASC.2016.12.3.6

15. Prabhakaran U, and Beale RG, Godley MHR. Analysis of scaffolds with connections containing
looseness. Computers and Structures, 2011, 89(21): 1944-1955, DOI: 10.4203/ccp.91.17

16. Chandrangsu T, Rasmussen K. Structural modelling of support scaffold systems. Journal of

Constructional Steel Research, 2011, 67(5): 866-875, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.12.007

17. Liu H, Yuan Z, Chen Z, Liu Q. Structural performance and design method of new mortise–
tenon full steel-tube scaffold. Advanced Steel Construction, 2018, 14(2): 291-307, DOI:
10.18057/IJASC.2018.4.2.9

18. Li J, Liu HB, Chen ZH, Liu Y, Wu YP. Experimental study on bearing capacity of reinforced
steel tubular scaffold under uniform loads. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019, (14): 1-20,
DOI: 10.1155/2019/4324528

19. Cimellaro GP, Domaneschi M. Stability analysis of different types of steel scaffolds.
Engineering Structures, 2017, 152: 535-548, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.091

20. Yue F, Li GQ, Yuan Y. Design methods of integral‐lift tubular steel scaffolds for high‐rise
building construction. Structural Design of Tall & Special Buildings, 2012, 21(1): 46-56, DOI:
10.1002/tal.635

21. Katsamakas AA, Papanikolaou VK, Thermou GE. A FEM-based model to study the behavior
of SRG-strengthened R/C beams. Composite Structures, 2021, 113796, DOI: 10.1016/j.
compstruct.2021.113796

22. Ma H, Zhao Y, Fan F, Xie P. Nonlinear stability of steel cooling towers with semirigid
connections. Thin-Walled Structures, 2020, 159(3): 107164, DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.107164

Acknowledgments.

16
The authors are grateful to funding received from the Project of China Construction 4th Engineering
Bureau under grant numbers CSCEC4B-2019-KT-16, CSCEC4B-2021-KTB-27, CSCEC4B-2021-
KTB-28 and CSCEC4B-2021-KTB-29.

Author contributions
The study was written by Dajiang Geng and designed and supervised by Ning Dai, data analyzed
by De Zhang, ideals and software provided by Xuesheng Jin and Minjian Long

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

17