First, describe the work and worksite
A specialist restoration crew will install designed replacement mechanical ties through an existing ground-level masonry outer wythe into identified backing in an unoccupied work bay. Survey, any required stabilization and the actual substrate-testing basis are released before installation. This fictional learning example describes planned controls; it records no actual inspection or work authorization.
- The remedial design identifies wall construction, near and far substrates, tie system, locations, installation method and prescribed testing/acceptance criteria.
- Pilot drilling, driving and verification use the selected system’s actual tooling with task-specific dust and contact controls.
- Unsafe detached veneer, rebuilding, crack stitching, arbitrary proof-test loads and automatic removal of old ties are excluded.
Questions before work
- What survey and substrate tests release this existing wall for the proposed ties?
- How will the actual near and far materials and installation positions be verified?
- Who performs the specified acceptance tests and decides whether existing ties need separate treatment?
Build the analysis one step at a time
What will the worker do? How could someone be harmed? What prevents or reduces that exposure? Who checks the control, and when?
1. Release the surveyed wall and tie plan
Hazard: An inadequately restrained outer wythe or unknown backing can move or fail during intervention.
Control: Restoration lead checks the wall survey, material/service clearance, stabilization release and issued tie layout. Confirm the actual substrate-test basis and approved tie system; hold a detached or undocumented wall rather than using installation as an emergency support method.
Verification: Lead records survey and design applicability before drilling.
Why this belongs in the analysis: An existing closed cavity needs investigation beyond a visible brick face.
2. Prepare access and drilling controls
Hazard: Fragments, silica or a struck support can expose workers while preparing installation positions.
Control: Separate the ground-level work bay and protect any stabilization measures. Arrange the approved pilot-drilling and driving tools, task-specific dust controls and assessed protection, with safe reach and contained debris collection. Verify the planned positions without disturbing original ties.
Verification: Lead checks tools, dust controls and mapped positions before preparation.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The repair needs controlled access to both substrate layers through the closed facade.
3. Make and inspect pilot holes
Hazard: An unsuitable drilling method can break out the cavity face or miss the required backing.
Control: Use the selected remedial system’s actual drill mode, dimensions and location requirements. Stop for unexpected voids, weak mortar, obstructions or backing mismatch; refer changed conditions for technical disposition rather than enlarging a hole or switching to a more aggressive drill.
Verification: Installer records actual pilot-hole and substrate findings against the issued criteria.
Why this belongs in the analysis: The pilot hole affects whether the tie can engage the intended materials.
4. Install the specified mechanical ties
Hazard: Wrong tooling, tie length or incomplete engagement can leave apparent restraint without verified connection.
Control: Use the system-approved driving attachment and identified ties in the released sequence. Maintain safe hand and tool positions, achieve the specified engagement and recess, and record resistance or installation anomalies. Do not add an unapproved resin or substitute a general fixture anchor.
Verification: Installation lead checks tie identity and actual installation findings.
Why this belongs in the analysis: This is a connection between existing wythes, not an anchor for an added fixture.
5. Perform the prescribed verification
Hazard: An improvised test load or failed connection can damage masonry and misrepresent acceptance.
Control: Have assigned personnel perform the design’s specified verification or testing with suitable equipment and criteria. Separate the test reaction area, record actual results and keep failed or uncertain positions on hold for disposition; do not invent a universal pull-test threshold.
Verification: Designated reviewer compares recorded findings with the project’s acceptance requirements.
Why this belongs in the analysis: A tie disappearing into the facade is not evidence of adequate engagement.
6. Close and hand over the repair
Hazard: Premature removal of stabilization or unplanned extraction of old ties can expose an unresolved wall.
Control: Finish pilot openings by the approved method and collect waste with dust controls. Transfer the actual tie map, test findings and open actions for acceptance. Retain required stabilization; address old ties or support removal only under their separately released plan.
Verification: Receiving lead confirms acceptance status and continuing wall restrictions.
Why this belongs in the analysis: Adding replacement ties does not automatically resolve every original-wall defect.
What does a useful control look like?
| Needs improvement | More useful for this scenario |
|---|---|
| Work carefully and wear PPE. | Use the selected remedial system’s actual drill mode, dimensions and location requirements. Stop for unexpected voids, weak mortar, obstructions or backing mismatch; refer changed conditions for technical disposition rather than enlarging a hole or switching to a more aggressive drill. |
| Check that everything is ready. | Restoration lead checks the wall survey, material/service clearance, stabilization release and issued tie layout. Confirm the actual substrate-test basis and approved tie system; hold a detached or undocumented wall rather than using installation as an emergency support method. |
Decisions that change the analysis
Must all original wall ties be removed after new ties are installed?
No removal is authorized here. The survey and remedial design must determine whether original ties require isolation or another treatment and how it can be performed safely. New tie installation does not establish that decision by itself.
What must the crew record for actual use?
Identify the actual equipment and work boundaries, responsible people, applicable criteria, inspection findings and open actions. Resolve changes with affected crews and obtain required project authorization before work.
Agree when the crew will pause
- Wall layers, backing or material condition differs from the survey and testing basis.
- Pilot breakout, abnormal driving response or an unstable outer wythe.
- Prescribed test criteria, technical disposition or stabilization release is absent.
After a pause, correct the condition, reassess the work, and obtain required authorization before restarting. Keep unresolved actions visible.
Download the worked example and free template
No account required. The worked example contains planned controls. The blank template is for your own work; neither includes fabricated inspection results, signatures or approval.
Your editable working copy
Build and download your draft
Start blank or load the learning example. Replace its assumptions with your actual conditions and involve the people doing the work. Your entries stay in this browser tab; download a copy before leaving or refreshing.
1. Describe your work and site
2. Work through each task
Describe an observable step, how someone could be harmed, and the control that acts on that hazard. Identify who checks it and what evidence is needed.
3. Record changes, checks, and open actions
Walk the work area, review with the crew, and resolve missing controls. Follow the required approval process. This tool does not judge completeness, verify signatures or authorize work.
Open the downloaded file in a browser, then use Print → Save as PDF for a printable copy.
Training needs to confirm
- The actual remedial-tie design, drilling/driving tools, substrate verification and required testing/acceptance roles.
- Task-specific silica and powered-tool instruction, wall-stability monitoring and limits on old-tie or support intervention.
Confirm applicable qualifications, task instruction and actual training evidence for the people assigned. Related toolbox talks support toolbox talks; they do not establish competence.
Common questions
Can this example be used as a JSA?
Adapt its Task | Hazard | Control analysis to the employer’s format and actual conditions. The example is a teaching aid, not evidence that controls were checked.
What changes if the project requires an AHA?
Use the governing AHA format, risk method, supporting records and acceptance process. The published formwork AHA demonstrates that additional structure; changing a JHA title does not supply it.
Are these resources part of a paid course?
This walkthrough, browser draft builder and downloads are free public resources, separate from Academy course enrollment.
References and source note
- Helifix DryFix Mechanical remedial tying system
- Helifix Remedial tie drilling and substrate testing guide
- OSHA 1926.1153 Respirable crystalline silica
Original instructional scenario with planned controls. Primary references support hazard planning. Use actual equipment and product instructions, project design and employer requirements to establish field criteria. This example supplies no inspection findings or work authorization. Use actual equipment instructions and site requirements alongside these references. Reference review: October 9, 2026.