ITP generator — formwork and falsework

The scope where the quality gate and the safety gate are the same signature — and where the ITP has to name whose it is.

Formwork sits awkwardly in most quality systems: it is temporary, so it is treated as somebody else’s document, and then the pour goes wrong for a reason that was inspectable. The plan this page writes treats it as what it is — permanent works in an intermediate state, with a designer, a check category and two permits that gate the concrete either side of it.

One rule underpins the whole scope and it is worth stating before anything else: if nobody can name the designer of an arrangement, that silence is the finding. A part-built cage, a wall before it is tied, a shutter braced off something convenient — all temporary works, all requiring a design and a check category set by the highest of three independent risk axes, not by how complicated the drawing looks.

It is free and there is no sign-up. Type the scope, read the whole plan on screen. Where the tool has not been given your specification, project-specific criteria come back marked TBC — EVIDENCE REQUIRED with the document that would close them named. That is the correct answer, not a limitation politely worded — an ITP that quietly fills a tolerance with a typical value is worse than one that leaves the box open, because somebody signs the first one.

What controls formwork and falsework

These are the documents an acceptance criterion on this scope has to agree with. A criterion that restates the activity and attaches a reference is doing half the job.

• BS 5975-1 — Management procedures for the control of temporary works — the TWC role and the design/check regime. Now two parts. Clause numbers quoted from the superseded single document do not resolve; check the successor clause before citing one in a signed ITP.
• BS 5975-2 — Falsework — design and implementation.
• BS EN 13670 — Execution of concrete structures — including striking and curing requirements.
• BS EN 12812 / BS EN 12813 — Falsework performance requirements and design; load-bearing towers of prefabricated components.
• The accepted temporary works design and its design brief — Everything the ITP verifies against. The single most important reference on this scope, and the one that must be at accepted status — not issued, not under review — before physical work.

The inspection sequence, and where the gates fall

Hold points belong where the evidence stops being recoverable, and the test is always the same question: what becomes invisible next? On this scope that puts 3 of the 12 steps below at a hold point — the rest are witness points, surveillance, review or recorded inspection depending on your contract and on who is watching.

1. [H] Temporary works design accepted, check category confirmed, TWC appointed — A documentary hold point, and a legitimate one. Nothing on this list can be verified without it.
2. Pre-assembly condition surveillance against the TW design and the operating manual
3. Permanent formwork checked for damage on arrival against its material approval
4. Installation to the TW design — lines, levels, plumb, bracing, foundations to the falsework
5. Release agent applied to a clean surface, with nothing touching the face that could cause voids
6. Cast-in items secured per the TW design; box-outs and recesses positioned
7. Joint filler — thickness, position, fixity
8. Cover and spacer dimension and grade checked
9. [H] Permit to load, before pouring — Signed by the temporary works coordinator or supervisor. This is the gate, and it is a named signature, not a tick.
10. Surveillance during the pour — rate of rise against the design, movement monitoring
11. [H] Permit to unload / striking against a strength criterion from the designer
12. Post-strike inspection of the concrete face and of the formwork condition for reuse

One rule that catches people and is not negotiable: hold points cascade upward. Where the client, the designer or a third party has identified an intervention as a hold point, it is a hold point in your column too. You cannot accept theirs and keep yours as a witness.

Acceptance criteria that survive a review

The acceptance-criteria column header in one real template is the whole test: what answer should we get if it is right? If the entry does not let a third party, months later, decide pass or fail from the record alone, it is not an acceptance criterion. These are from issued ITPs on this scope — not composed as illustrations:

• Release agent applied to a clean surface with nothing touching the face that could cause voids; formwork condition and release agent, cast-in items and joint filler verified before the reinforcement is enclosed.
• No more than 1.5 m of free chute; rate of rise as per temporary works design; concrete placement and vibration without displacing reinforcement.
• Permit to load issued before pouring, covering formwork and platforms to the temporary works design and early-age strength around anchor cones, signed by the temporary works coordinator.
• Striking against a strength criterion from the designer, confirmed by maturity monitoring, with the permit to unload signed by the temporary works supervisor or coordinator.
• Heap height and free-drop height onto horizontal surfaces limited by the falsework standard unless the extra loading is designed in and shown on the drawings — the specification defers the numeric limit to the standard rather than stating it.

Against which, the ones that get marked every time: as per design · as specified in the material approval form · as per manufacturer’s instruction · document accepted · within accepted tolerances · acceptable to use · visual inspection · see notes. They fail for one reason: they defer the criterion to a document the inspector does not have on the deck, and they give the person signing nothing to be wrong about.

What comes back TBC on this scope, and where it comes from

The generator does not have your specification, so it will not invent these. It marks them and names the document that would close them:

• The temporary works design reference and revision, at accepted status
• The check category, and who carried out the independent check
• Rate of rise, and the maximum pour height per lift
• The striking strength, from the designer
• Surface finish class and the trial panel it is judged against

Other scopes

• ITP generator — in-situ reinforced concrete
• ITP generator — earthworks and fill
• ITP generator — drainage
• ITP generator — precast erection
• ITP generator — waterproofing

Why the generated draft is a draft, and stays one

Starting permanent works without an accepted ITP is a critical non-conformance in its own right, and proceeding through a hold point gets an NCR raised against you. Before this output is issued it needs the project references and drawing revisions, the criteria above completed from your specification, the responsible parties set against your own contract, the check-sheet numbering aligned — inspection item 4.12 on the ITP has to be item 4.12 on the check-sheet — and a named author, reviewer and approver.

So it says DRAFT — FOR COMPETENT REVIEW on its own title, and should keep saying it until a competent person has been through it against the specification.