Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A new simplified procedure to estimate loads on slabs and shoring during the
construction of multistorey buildings
Pedro A. Caldern , Yezid A. Alvarado, Jose M. Adam
ICITECH, Departamento de Ingeniera de la Construccin, Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46071 Valencia, Spain

article info abstract

Article history: This paper presents a new simplified procedure for estimating loads on slabs and shoring during the
Received 10 October 2010 construction of multistorey buildings. The new procedure takes into account the actual stiffness of the
Received in revised form shoring and for the first time includes the hypothesis that the average deformation of the shores coincides
21 January 2011
with that of the slabs they support. The procedure was verified by an experimental study that consisted
Accepted 30 January 2011
Available online 9 March 2011
of the construction of a full-scale three-storey building using a shoringclearingstriking (SCS) process.
Further verification was provided by the results of a finite element model of the same building. The results
Keywords:
of the new process were then compared to those obtained from the proposals of other authors who had
Shoring also considered the real stiffness of the shoring.
Load distribution 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Clearing
Formwork
Multistorey buildings
Concrete construction
Partial striking

1. Introduction
During the construction of multistorey buildings it is often
necessary to place shores on slabs that still have not achieved
sufficient strength to bear the weight of the upper slab during its
construction phase. It thus becomes necessary to place shores on
several successive floors to ensure that the load is distributed over
several slabs to guarantee the integrity of the structure.
The integrity of the structure during construction is the most
important consideration in programming building times. A large
number of studies [14] agree that the most critical stages for the
safety of a structure is precisely when it is being built, as shown
by the fact that it is during this period that most building collapses
occur [2].
There is therefore a clear need to know how loads are
transmitted between shoring and slabs during the construction of a
building and to determine whether the slabs are capable of safely
bearing the loads to which they are subjected without excessive
deformation during the construction process.
Different authors have designed different theoretical models
to estimate load distribution between slabs and shoring during
the building process. Some consist of complex two- and three-
dimensional finite element (FE) models, such as those designed by
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 963877562; fax: +34 963877568.
E-mail address: pcaldero@cst.upv.es (P.A. Caldern).
0141-0296/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.01.027
Liu et al. [5], Stivaros and Halvorsen [6], Mossallam and Chen [7],
Moragues et al. [8], Daz [9] and Alvarado et al. [10]. However,
as these models require advanced software, their application is
limited in practice.
Other models have been developed with simpler methodologies
to determine load transmission during construction. Among
others, Grundy and Kabaila [11], Duan and Chen [12], and
Fang et al. [13] produced simpler methods of calculating load
distribution between slabs and shoring in multistorey buildings
under construction.
In 1963, Grundy and Kabaila [11] proposed a simplified method
that in most cases errs on the side of safety and is still being applied
today to calculate the loads on slabs and formwork. The main
feature of this method is that it considers shores as being of infinite
stiffness with respect to the flexibility of the concrete slabs. The
hypothesis of considering shores as infinitely stiff can lead to an
overestimation of the loads on the shores, as has been pointed out
by Liu et al. [5], Stivaros and Halvorsen [6], Mossallam and Chen [7],
Moragues et al. [8], Daz [9], Duan and Chen [12], Fang et al. [13],
Beeby [14] and Alvarado et al. [15].
Duan and Chen [12] designed a procedure which they called
the improved simplified method, which assumes the following
assumptions:
The slabs are considered to have elastic behaviour with stiffness
that varies during the construction.
Shores are modelled as elastic elements with finite stiffness.
The effects of shrinkage and creep are ignored.
1566 P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575

In general, it can be said that none of these simplified methods

Nomenclature defines a procedure that calculates the slab stiffness considered in
calculating load distribution that takes into account the different
A Cross section area of shores
slab boundary conditions. It should also be pointed out that such
E Elasticity modulus of slab concrete
methods were developed to calculate load transmission in shoring
Esh Elasticity modulus of shoring material
H Shore length and striking (SS) and shoringreshoringstriking (SRS) processes.
I Moment of inertia Only Alvarado et al. [15] used Grundy and Kabailas simplified
J Last slab cast methods [11] and an adaptation of Duan and Chens method [12] to
Kj Average deformation of slab under a unitary load calculate load transmission in a shoring, clearing (partial striking)
(vertical displacement) and striking process (SCS). In this case, clearing consisted of
Ksh Shore deformation under a unitary load (vertical removing more than 50% of shores within a few days of pouring the
displacement) concrete. The effects of this operation on the building process have
L Distance between columns been experimentally and numerically studied by Alvarado [16].
M0 Isostatic moment of span In the numerical study on the SCS process carried out by
q Load fraction of the equivalent frame strips Alvarado et al. [10] it was shown that a large part of the load
Q Self-weight of last slab cast is supported by the slabs after the clearing operation. This study
Qj Load increment on slabs consisted of the creation of a FE model that closely fitted the
Qj Average load increment on slabs loads on shores and slabs obtained from the measurements of
Sexp Average load on shores, experimental model the experimental study. However, their model is highly complex
SFang Load on shores, Fang et al.s simplified method [13] and requires the simulation of the complete structure with FEM
SFEM Average load on shores, FEM software, which puts it out of reach of most professionals in this
Sism Load on shores, Duan and Chens simplified method area.
[12] In view of the above described problem, this paper presents a
Sj Load increment on shores new procedure based on a simplified and practical method that
Smax,exp Maximum load on shores, experimental model calculates the load transmission between shores and slabs for the
Smax,FEM Maximum load on shores, FEM
most frequently used construction procedures in the shoring of
Snsp Maximum load on shores, new simplified method successive storeys.
SCS Shoring, clearing and striking process
SS Shoring and striking process
SRS Shoring, reshoring and striking process 2. Assumptions considered in the new simplified procedure
Load rates between two consecutive floors
Average slab deformation (vertical displacement)
s Average deformation of each equivalent frame strip The fundamental condition in a simplified model to estimate
(vertical displacement) load transmission between slabs and shoring in an SCS process
x Average deformation of slab in direction x (vertical is to consider shores as elements with elastic behaviour and
displacement) finite stiffness, since the clearing operation consists of reducing
y Average deformation of slab in direction y (vertical the stiffness of the set of shores that support the concrete slabs.
displacement) If this hypothesis is assumed, the loads on the shores are not
overestimated, as in Grundy and Kabailas simplified method [11],
which considers the shores to be infinitely stiff.
The load on the shores is modelled as being evenly distributed The assumptions considered in the new simplified method are
over the slab area.
the following:
The model is incremental and considers accumulated loads and
displacements.
a. The variation of the slab concrete modulus of elasticity with
The foundations are assumed to be of infinite stiffness.
time is taken into account.
Based on these assumptions, a formulation is then designed on
b. The foundations are infinitely stiff.
the relationship between slab stiffness and shore stiffness. Using
this method, Duan and Chen [12] found that Grundy and Kabailas c. The model is incremental and considers the cumulative loads
simplified method [11] underestimated the load on the slabs while and displacements during different stages of construction.
overestimating the load on the shores. d. Shores are elastic elements with finite stiffness.
Fang et al. [13] proposed a new method based on the same e. The loads transmitted from shores to slabs are uniformly
assumptions as Duan and Chen [12] and included a redistribution
distributed.
of loads on recently poured slabs, based on the assumption that
during the concrete curing process the stiffness of the structural f. Average slab deformation coincides with the average deforma-
concrete elements varied significantly, so that it became necessary tion of the supporting shores.
to redistribute the loads on the structure, especially in recently cast g. Different slab boundary conditions are considered (internal,
slabs. end and corner spans, etc.) and deformability is estimated by
Fang et al. [13] conclude that the estimates based on Duan and the Scanlon and Murray method [17].
Chens method [12] are similar to theirs in most cases. However,
h. Application of the method to SS, SRS and SCS processes are
they found differences in the cycles of three or more consecutively
shored slabs. included.
Beeby [14] developed a modification of Grundy and Kabailas i. Creep and shrinkage effects are not considered.
proposed method [11] which was based on assuming that the
shores behaved with finite stiffness while the slabs showed an The (f) and (g) assumptions are the most important novel items
elastic behaviour that depended on the time. in the new simplified process.
 P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575 1567

a b c

Fig. 1. Operation of (a) casting of last slab (b) clearing of last slab (c) striking of first slab.

3. New simplified procedure Q2 K1 Ksh

21 = = + (8)
Q1 K2 K2
3.1. Formulation
Q3 K2 Ksh 1
32 = = + 1+ (9)
In a form similar to that used by Duan and Chen [12], Fig. 1 Q2 K3 K3 21
shows the structural simulation of the casting, clearing and striking
processes, in Q which is the self-weight of the newly-poured slab Q4 K3 Ksh 1 1
43 = = + 1+ + (10)
(n). Q3 K4 K4 32 21 32
The load increments on shores Sj produced by the load
Qn Kn1 Ksh 1
increments on slabs Qj during pouring and clearing are as follows: nn1 = = + 1+
Qn1 Kn Kn
S1 = Q1 (1) n1n2
1
S2 = Q1 + Q2 (2) + + . (11)
n1n2 n2n3
Sj = Q1 + Q2 + + Qj (3)
Sn = Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + + Qn . (4) The load increment in a new casting or clearing phase is
distributed among lower slabs connected by shores, from which:
Assuming that the loads transmitted to the shores are uniformly
n
distributed, average slab deformation coincides with the average
deformation of the shores under the slabs. In this way, applying Qj = Q . (12)
j =1
displacement compatibility for the average deformation of slabs
located at j and j 1, we have: The load increments on slabs caused by pouring or clearing can
thus be calculated from the following expressions:
j = j1 + sh,j1 (5)
Q
where j and j1 are the average deformation of slabs j and j 1 Q1 = (13)
1 + 21 + 21 32 + 21 32 43 + + 21 32 n1n2
respectively, and sh,j1 is average deformation of shores located
at level j 1. Qj jj1 Qj1 . (14)
Transforming deformations into forces and expressing shore The striking operation is equivalent to the application of an
loads as functions of average load increments produced in a slab equivalent downward force of the same magnitude as the forces
(Qj ), we have: transmitted by the removed shores (see Fig. 1(c)). The formulas
applied for striking are therefore similar to those for pouring and
Kj Qj = Kj1 Qj1 + Ksh,j1 (Q1 + Q2 + + Qj1 ) (6)
clearing, bearing in mind that the direction of load transmission is
where factors K are defined as deformations of the structural now reversed.
element subjected to the unitary load from either a slab or a shore.
To calculate K the factor in shores (Ksh ) the following expression is 3.2. Calculating the factor Kj of slabs
used:
The factor Kj is defined as slab deformation by the action of
Ksh = H /Esh A (7)
a unitary load. The deformation in slabs can be estimated by
where H is shore length, A is the cross-section area of all shores different methods according to the desired degree of complexity
and Esh is the elasticity modulus of the shore material. Calculation and accuracy. The most commonly used of these methods are
of the shore factor K is described in Section 3.2. based on the theory of elastic plates, equivalent frame method
The load ratios between two consecutive shores can be defined and FE method, the last two being the most popular (see [18]).
from Eq. (6): In our case, since we were using a simplified method to calculate
1568 P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575
Fig. 2. Structural discretisation, equivalent frame method.
load transmission between slabs and shores, we opted for the
equivalent frame method, since it is easy to apply and does not
need special FEM software for its execution.
The simplified calculation of vertical displacements in slabs
by the equivalent frame method was introduced by Scanlon and
Murray [17]. Its application first involves the calculation of the
bending moment diagrams of the middle and column strips of
the each of the slab areas (see ACI 318-89 [19]). When the
bending moments have been obtained, vertical displacements are
calculated assuming that the middle and column strips are beams.
The vertical displacement is then computed in the normal way for
these elements (see Fig. 2).
Since the load on each strip is considered to be uniformly
distributed, it can thus be obtained by conditions of static
equilibrium from the expression:
q L2 (M1 + M2 )
= + M3 = M0 (15)
8 2
where q is the load fraction assigned to the analysed strip (middle
or column strips), L is the distance between columns and M0 is the
isostatic moment in the inter-column span. Average displacement
for each strip (s ) is calculated from the elastic beam equation in
Fig. 3, from which the following expression is obtained:
q L4 (M1 + M2 ) L2
s = (16)
120 E I 24 E I
where I the moment of inertia of the considered strip and E is the
time-dependent elasticity modulus of the concrete. The evolution
of the slab concrete elasticity modulus is estimated from the
maturity technique. The application of the maturity technique is
described in detail in [16] and is similar to that employed by Waller
et al. [20] and Adam et al. [21].
Average vertical displacements in directions x and y would be
given by the displacement of the column strip plus displacement
of the middle strip, as shown below:
sc1 + sc2
y = + sm1 (17)
2
sc3 + sc4
x = + sm2 . (18)
2 shores were used as a reference, with the aim of measuring the
The average vertical displacement in directions x and y is taken
as the slab displacement. The factor Kj is thus determined as slab
displacement due to the effect of a unitary load.
3.3. Application of the new simplified procedure
Fig. 3 shows a summarized flow diagram of the new simplified
procedure, which can be applied to any pouring, clearing or striking
procedure. Fig. 4 gives an example flow diagram for its application
to a clearing operation in two consecutively shored storeys.
When the load increments on slabs and shores have been
determined, they are added to the increments recorded in the
previous stages.
4. Verification of the new simplified procedure
Alvarado et al. [15] carried out an experimental study that
consisted of the construction of a full-scale three-storey building
in which the loads on the shores were measured during the
different building phases. The same authors [10] subsequently
validated and calibrated an FE model of the building in a simulation
of the construction process involved in the experiment. The
measurements from the experiment and the FE simulation results
obtained by Alvarado et al. [10] can therefore be considered
as useful tools for the application and verification of the new
simplified procedure described in the preceding section.
4.1. Summary of the experimental and numerical study
The experimental building comprises three 0.25 m thick RC
floor slabs, with a 6.00 m clear span between columns. The
slabs were supported on rectangular section columns, cantilevered
1.80 m. The height between floors was 2.75 m. Figs. 513 show
a view of the experimental model. Due to soil conditions, the
foundation of the building was a 0.40 m thick reinforced concrete
slab, with a ground plan of 10.20 m and 9.40 m. The concrete used
for construction of all elements in the building had a characteristic
compressive strength of 25 MPa.
The construction process is illustrated in Figs. 513. The
building process was based on keeping two consecutive storeys
shored. In addition, a load similar to the self-weight of a further slab
level was applied to slab 3 to simulate three consecutively shored
storeys.
A total of 80 shores were instrumented. 3 strain gauges were
placed on each at an angle of 120 and height of 1.25 m. From
the base of the shore. The average deformation value of the three
gauges was used to establish the load that each of shores would
be subjected to during the building of the structure. Three of the
effect of ambient temperature on the shores themselves, the strain
gauges and the data acquisition equipment. These shores did not
form a part of the building support system.
A detailed analysis of the measurements can be found in [16,
15]. Periodical measurements were used to verify the simplified
procedure. These are used to distinguish the effects of building
operations (concrete pouring, clearing and striking) from those
caused by variations in atmospheric conditions (moisture and
temperature). Table gives the data obtained from periodical
measurements of each building operation.
 P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575 1569

Fig. 3. Summary of new simplified method.

Table 1 Figs. 513 show the simulated construction process. The assump-
Periodical readings of loads during different construction stages. tions adopted for the FE modelling were identical to those of the
Step Stage of construction Level Sexp (KN/m2 ) Smax,exp (KN/m2 ) simplified procedure and were as follows:
1 Casting level 1 1 5.46 6.77
2 Clearing level 1 1 3.07 4.79
Linear elastic behaviour is assumed for the reinforced concrete
3 Casting level 2 2 5.60 7.56 slabs and allowance is made for variations in stiffness with time.
1 4.48 7.21 Columns are simulated with linear elastic behaviour and
4 Clearing level 2 2 2.91 4.59 variations in their stiffness with time are considered.
1 3.86 5.60
5 Striking level 1 2 1.57 2.94 Steel shores are assumed to be elastic with finite stiffness and
6 Casting level 3 3 5.50 7.76 are supported at each end.
2 3.07 4.67 Formwork boards are considered as elements with linear elastic
7 Clearing level 3 3 3.12 6.40
behaviour and finite stiffness.
2 2.78 3.20
8 Load in level 3 3 4.33 9.88 Straining pieces are simulated as elements with linear elastic
2 3.38 5.09 behaviour and finite stiffness.
9 Striking level 2 3 3.67 7.87
Foundations are considered as infinitely stiff. This hypothesis
is adopted after establishing that the first-floor shoring stands
directly on the foundation slab.
Alvarado et al. [10] designed an FE model to simulate the The effects of concrete creep and shrinkage are not consid-
construction of the building involved in the experimental study. ered, nor are changes in temperature on the different structural
1570 P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575

Fig. 4. Application of new simplified method.

Table 2 Table 3 shows the comparison of the average shoring load

FEM results of loads during different construction stages. values obtained from the experimental model (Sexp ) and from the
Step Stage of construction Level SFEM (KN/m2 ) Smax,FEM (KN/m2 ) simplified procedure (Snsp ). It can be seen that there is a good
1 Casting level 1 1 5.52 6.01 fit between the experimental measurements and the results of
2 Clearing level 1 1 3.41 5.40 Sexp
the simplified procedure, with an overall ratio of 0.94 and a
3 Casting level 2 2 5.80 6.01 Snsp
1 6.60 10.58 standard deviation of 0.25. The most significant differences occur
4 Clearing level 2 2 2.90 4.58 in phases 3 and 4 and are due to the differences found by Alvarado
1 5.33 8.87
5 Striking level 1 2 1.39 1.64
et al. [15] owing to an error made by the building workers when
6 Casting level 3 3 5.80 6.01 removing the shores from slab 1, as described in [10]. This error
2 3.04 3.78 caused a redistribution of the loads on shoring that could not be
7 Clearing level 3 3 2.77 4.12 included in the simplified procedure.
2 2.19 2.37
In the same way, Table 4 shows the comparison of the average
8 Load in level 3 3 5.37 7.92
2 3.36 5.11 load on shores obtained from the FE model (SFEM ) and the
9 Striking level 2 3 4.23 5.91 simplified process (Snsp ). Here it can be seen that there is a good
SFEM
fit between both sets of results. The average ratio of all the
Snsp
elements, since load increments are analysed at each construc- construction phases is 0.96 with a standard deviation of 0.14.
tion stage, each of which is of comparatively short duration.
The characteristics of the FE model are given in detail in [16,10]. 5. Comparison of the new simplified procedure with Duan and
Table 2 gives the results obtained from this model for each building Chen [12] and Fang et al. [13]
operation.
One of the basic requirements of a simplified method if it is
to be able to simulate the clearing operation is to consider the
4.2. Verification
real stiffness of the shores, since clearing causes a reduction of
In order to verify the proposed procedure a comparison was this value. The most commonly used simplified methodologies that
made between the experimental measurements and the results of fulfil this condition are (Alvarado [16]):
the new simplified method and also between the FEM results and Duan and Chens simplified method [12].
those of the new simplified procedure. The simplified method of Fang et al. [13].
P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575 1571

Fig. 5. Construction process Step 1.

Fig. 6. Construction process Step 2.

t = 7 days
Casting of level 2

Fig. 7. Construction process Step 3.

Fig. 8. Construction process Step 4.

1572 P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575

t = 14 days
Striking of level 1

Fig. 9. Construction process Step 5.

t = 17 days
Casting level 3

Fig. 10. Construction process Step 6.

Fig. 11. Construction process Step 7.

The first of these methods [12], known as the improved
simplified method, considers the following assumptions:
The slabs are considered to have elastic behaviour and
variations in their stiffness with time are considered.
Shores are simulated as elastic elements with finite stiffness.
The effects of shrinkage and creep are not included.
The loads on shoring are considered to be evenly distributed
over the slabs.
Deformation of the shores located at the centre of the slab is
equal to the average deformation of all the shores on the same
level.
The model is incremental, i.e. it considers cumulative loads and
displacements.
The foundations are considered to be infinitely stiff.
Table 5 shows the results obtained from the improved simplified
method [12] for the experimental building and compares them
 P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575 1573

Fig. 12. Construction process Step 8.

Fig. 13. Construction process Step 9.

Table 3
Comparison between experimental results and those of the new simplified procedure.
Sexp
Step Stage of construction Level Sexp (KN/m2 ) Snsp (KN/m2 )
Snsp

1 Casting level 1 1 5.64 5.64 1.00

2 Clearing level 1 1 3.07 4.23 0.73
3 Casting level 2 2 5.60 5.64 1.00
1 4.48 8.36 0.54
4 Clearing level 2 2 2.91 3.48 0.84
1 3.86 6.47 0.60
5 Striking level 1 2 1.57 1.02 1.54
6 Casting level 3 3 5.50 5.64 0.98
2 3.07 3.12 0.98
7 Clearing level 3 3 3.12 3.08 1.01
2 2.78 2.02 1.37
8 Load in level 3 3 4.33 5.75 0.75
2 3.38 3.38 1.00
9 Striking level 2 3 3.67 4.34 0.85
Mean 0.94
Standard deviation 0.25

with the periodical measurements of the experimental study
carried out by Alvarado et al. [10] and with the results from the
same authors FE model.
Fang et al.s simplified model [13] is based on the same
assumptions as Duan and Chen [12] but assumes that the stiffness
of the structural elements varies significantly throughout the
curing process, so that the forces on the structure are redistributed,
especially just after casting.
Table 6 shows the results obtained by applying Fang et al.s sim-
plified method [13] to Alvarado et al.s experimental building [10].
1574 P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575

Table 4
Comparison between FEM results and those of the new simplified procedure.

SFEM (KN/m2 ) Snsp (KN/m2 )

SFEM
Step Stage of construction Level
Ssp

1 Casting level 1 1 5.52 5.64 0.98

2 Clearing level 1 1 3.41 4.23 0.81
3 Casting level 2 2 5.80 5.64 1.02
1 6.60 8.36 0.79
4 Clearing level 2 2 2.90 3.48 0.83
1 5.33 6.47 0.82
5 Striking level 1 2 1.39 1.02 1.36
6 Casting level 3 3 5.80 5.64 1.03
2 3.04 3.12 0.97
7 Clearing level 3 3 2.77 3.08 0.90
2 2.19 2.02 1.08
8 Load in level 3 3 5.37 5.75 0.93
2 3.36 3.38 0.99
9 Striking level 2 3 4.23 4.34 0.97
Mean 0.96
Standard deviation 0.14

Table 5
Comparison between improved simplified method (Duan and Chen [12]) results and experimental and FEM results.
Sexp
Sism (KN/m2 ) Sexp (KN/m2 ) SFEM (KN/m2 )
SFEM
Step Stage of construction Level Sism sism

1 Casting level 1 1 5.64 5.64 1.00 5.52 0.98

2 Clearing level 1 1 4.51 3.07 0.68 3.41 0.76
3 Casting level 2 2 5.64 5.60 0.99 5.80 1.03
1 8.91 4.48 0.50 6.60 0.74
4 Clearing level 2 2 4.40 2.91 0.66 2.90 0.66
1 7.90 3.86 0.49 5.33 0.68
5 Striking level 1 2 0.79 1.57 1.99 1.39 1.76
6 Casting level 3 3 5.64 5.50 0.98 5.80 1.03
2 3.33 3.07 0.92 3.04 0.91
7 Clearing level 3 3 3.27 3.12 0.95 2.77 0.85
2 2.26 2.78 1.23 2.19 0.97
8 Load in level 3 3 6.49 4.33 0.67 5.37 0.83
2 3.67 3.38 0.92 3.36 0.92
9 Striking level 2 3 4.79 3.67 0.77 4.23 0.88
Mean 0.91 0.93
Standard deviation 0.36 0.26

Table 6
Comparison between the Fang et al. [13] method results and experimental and FEM results.
Sexp
SFang (KN/m2 ) Sexp (KN/m2 ) SFEM (KN/m2 )
SFEM
Step Stage of construction Level SFang SFang

1 Casting level 1 1 5.64 5.64 1.00 5.52 0.98

2 Clearing level 1 1 4.62 3.07 0.66 3.41 0.74
3 Casting level 2 2 5.64 5.60 0.99 5.80 1.03
1 8.97 4.48 0.50 6.60 0.74
4 Clearing level 2 2 3.84 2.91 0.76 2.90 0.76
1 7.50 3.86 0.51 5.33 0.71
5 Striking level 1 2 0.68 1.57 2.32 1.39 2.05
6 Casting level 3 3 5.64 5.50 0.98 5.80 1.03
2 3.21 3.07 0.95 3.04 0.95
7 Clearing level 3 3 3.27 3.12 0.95 2.77 0.85
2 2.14 2.78 1.30 2.19 1.02
8 Load in level 3 3 6.43 4.33 0.67 5.37 0.84
2 3.55 3.38 0.95 3.36 0.95
9 Striking level 2 3 4.96 3.67 0.74 4.23 0.85
Mean 0.95 0.96
Standard deviation 0.43 0.32

The results are then compared to the periodical measurements of 6. Conclusions

the experimental study carried out by Alvarado et al. [10] and to
the results of the FE model by the same authors.
The estimations obtained by Duan and Chens simplified
method [12] and Fang et al.s simplified method [13] mostly
overestimate the loads on the shores due to considering that the
average deformation of all the shoring supporting a slab coincides
with that of a shore located at the centre of a span. The new
simplified procedure described in Section 3 presents a higher
degree of fit for the building studied by Alvarado [16] than the two
other simplified methods.
This paper describes a new simplified procedure for esti-
mating load transmission between slabs and shores during the
construction of reinforced concrete buildings cast in situ. The pro-
cedure was verified by periodical measurements on shores during
the construction of a full-scale experimental model (see [10]) and
from the results of a FE model developed by the same authors.
In general, the new simplified procedure shows a good fit with
the experimental measurements. The ratio between the average
load on shores obtained from the experimental model (Sexp ) and
 P.A. Caldern et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 15651575
the average load on shores from the new simplified procedure
(Snsp ) being 0.94 with a standard deviation of 0.25. The new
simplified procedure also shows a good fit with the results of the
FE model, where the ratio between the average load on shores
obtained from the FE model (SFEM ) and that obtained from the new
simplified procedure (Snsp ) is 0.96 with a standard deviation of
0.14.
In the comparison between the simplified methods regarding
the method of modelling the clearing operation, it was observed
that the results obtained from the proposed new simplified
procedure show the best fit with the results obtained from the
experimental and numerical models used as reference.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like express their gratitude to the Spanish
Ministry for Science and Technology for funding the project as well
as to the company Encofrados J. ALSINA.
References
[1] Eldukair ZA, Ayyub BM. Analysis of recent US structural and construction
failures. J Perform Constr Facil 1991;5(1):5773.
[2] Kaminetzky D, Stivaros P. Early-age concrete: construction loads, behavior,
and failures. Concr Int 1994;16(1):5862.
[3] Feld J, Carper K. Construction failure. John Wiley and Sons; 1997.
[4] Epaarachchi DC, Stewart MG, Rosowsky DV. Structural reliability of multistory
buildings during construction. ACI Struct J 2002;128(2):20513.
[5] Liu XL, Chen WF, Bowman MD. Construction load analysis for concrete
structures. J Struct Eng 1985;111(5):101936.
[6] Stivaros PC, Halvorsen GT. Shoring/reshoring operations for multistory
buildings. ACI Struct J 1990;87(5):58996.
[7] Mossallam KH, Chen WF. Determining shoring loads for reinforced concrete
construction. ACI Struct J 1991;88(3):34050.
1575
[8] Moragues JJ, Catal J, Pellicer E. An analysis of concrete framed structures
during the construction process. Concr Int 1996;18(11):448.
[9] Diaz J. Criterios tcnicos para el descimbrado de estructuras de hormign. Tesis
Doctoral Universidad Politcnica de Madrid 2008.
[10] Alvarado Y, Caldern PA, Gasch I, Adam JM. A numerical study into the
evolution of loads on shores and slabs during construction of multi-storey
buildings. Comparison of partial striking with other techniques. Eng Struct
2010;32(10):3093102.
[11] Grundy P, Kabaila A. Construction loads on slabs with shored formwork in
multistory buildings. ACI J Proc 1963;60(12):172938.
[12] Duan MZ, Chen WF. Improved simplified method for slab and shore load
analysis during construction. Project report CE-STR-95-24. West Lafayette
(Ind).
[13] Fang DP, Zhu HY, Geng CD, Liu XL. On-site measurements of structural
characteristics of reinforced concrete buildings during construction. ACI Struct
J 2001;98(2):15763.
[14] Beeby AW. The forces in backprops during construction of flat slab structures.
Struct Build 2001;146(3):30717.
[15] Alvarado YA, Caldern PA, Adam JM, Pay IJ, Pellicer T, Pallares FJ, et al. An
experimental study into the evolution of loads on shores and slabs during
construction of multistory buildings using partial striking. Eng Struct 2009;
31(9):213240.
[16] Alvarado YA. Estudio experimental y numrico de la construccin de forjados
hormigonados in situ mediante procesos de cimbrado, clareado y descimbrado
de plantas consecutivas. Ph.D. thesis. Universidad Politcnica de Valencia
2009. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/7285 [in Spanish].
[17] Scanlon A, Murray DB. Practical calculation of two-way slab deflection.
Concrete international. Design and construction. American Concrete Institute
Detroit. 1982.
[18] Garca L, Calavera J. Evaluation of the application of the equivalent frame
method to the calculation of instantaneous and long-time deflections in two-
way slabs. In: INTEMAC. 1997.
[19] ACI. Building code requirement for reinforced concrete structures (ACI 318-
89). Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 1989.
[20] Waller V, dAloa L, Cussigh F, Lecrux S. Using the maturity method in concrete
cracking control at early ages. Cem Concr Compos 2004;26:58999.
[21] Adam JM, Pallars FJ, Caldern PA, Pay IJ. A study of the conditions of use
of a new safety system for the building industry. Eng Struct 2007;29(8):
16901697.