Ian

We have exactly the same layout in a number of our large warehouses and its never been an issue with our insurance guys or from the various external company’s that carry out our annual inspection, indeed a few year ago we were advised by the local authority to install more chipboard shelving but we successfully argued against it as it would prove too expensive, can you do the same ?
I would argue that as long as the chipboard is in good condition, is strong enough to take the weight required (we use metal supports in some cases) and is correctly located in the racking then there shouldn’t be an issue.
Let us know how you get on.

Lol

SEMA maybe a good start - Maybe worth getting hold of this.

Taken from their site -

It has been common practice for many years now in the storage and materials handling industry to use all types of chipboard as shelving. BS 5268: Part 2 'Structural Use of Timber' gives design recommendations for type C5 chipboard only.

SEMA therefore recommend the following method of arriving at shelving safe load data for the other (more common) types of chipboard in BS 5669: Part 2 'Specifications of Wood Chipboard'.

http://www.sema.org.uk/guides.asp

SI

Afternoon,

Thanks for all your responses.

I agree, Stuie, that the main issue with chipboard may be that loads (especially smaller pallets) are not resting on the beams and being held up by the chipboard alone. This reinforces my agreement that for pallet storage this is to be removed and metal bars used instead.

At ground level however, the chip board is of good condition (we have a reporting system) and is sufficient to hold the weight needed – strengthening bars are to be placed in areas holding heavier stock.

As a result I don’t see a sensible reason why these picking shelves should be removed? It’s interesting to note that there are SEMA guidelines for chipboard – thanks Mr. Flibble (don’t think I’ve ever said that before..!)

Stevie40, no the warehouse isn’t sprinklered and that may be a concern he has. Good point. I would argue though by removing 95% of the chipboard, leaving only one shelf at ground level could reduce any risk to a tolerable level.

Couldn’t I?...!

Ian

Hello Phillip,

I am a SARI (SEMA Approved Racking Inspector) working for SESS and I hope to help;

"1: Are chipboard decks against sema guidelines (I don't have a copy of these)"

-In short, no they are not.
Chipboard decking is a recognised accessory for pallet racking and shelving systems and is widely used throughout many warehouses with or without automatic fire suppression systems. The instruction that you should remove/replace your decking appears to me in my experience to be outside the remits of reasonably practicable and as you state requires a strong qualification behind its reasoning.

Not knowing the specifics of the your racking systems I can only generalise and state that low picking levels not services by an FLT are more than sufficient and should be a minimum of 18mm, Class C1 and have some manner of being secured into position on the beams.

As a rule,chipboard decking used to provide a UDL (Uniformly Distributed Load) for palletised goods should be a minimum of 22mm Class C1. Such boards that are inspected and remain in good condition (SEMA Defined deflection tolerances are applicable and I can you send you a copy or ask your Independent Racking Inspector).

It is worthy of note that the safe maximum working load of the beams would usually be exceeded before that of decking with a UDL that is without observable damage.

2: What are the hazards of using these as shelving for storing loose items - not pallets - at ground level?

- Direct hazards are usually down to the fact that the boards are not secured in place, are of inadequate strength or have degraded/damage over time or due to water ingress. To quote the SEMA Guide:

"Chipboard performance varies with the term of loading duration (measured in continuous static loads of up to three months). Basic strengths and stiffness are calculated from the characteristic values by means of a time reduction factor, in this case for a 50 year load duration. These factors apply to an ambient climate at 20oC with an average relative humidity of 85%"

In summary, and without seeing the area myself, I believe that the insurance inspector is making an assessment that is outside his/her competence.

Regards,

Gordon.