The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Automatic
A case productivity model for climbing system
automatic climbing system
Tarek Zayed
Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and
33
Elsayed Mohamed
SNC Lavalin Inc, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Abstract
Purpose Tight schedules in high-rise building construction force project managers to use the formwork
even in a bad weather condition. Insufficient craning, which is typically the bottleneck in construction
activities, and lack of space in confined sites make it hard to install the formwork on the ground. The
Automatic Climbing System (ACS), a type of jump forms, solves these problems enabling the formwork to
climb in various weather and height conditions. The aim of this paper is to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach Current research focusses on the ACS, its application, and
productivity assessment. Productivity and construction data are collected from a specialized company
in such type of forms. A bracket productivity model has been developed to estimate floor construction
cycle time and productivity.
Findings Results show that average productivity is four days/floor. The developed model is
validated, which shows robust results 97.80 percent.
Research limitations/implications The implementation of the developed models are limited to
only two projects. However, the developed models and framework is sound for future improvement.
Practical implications The developed methodology and model play essential roles in decision-
making process.
Originality/value The developed methodology and model are beneficial to researchers,
practitioners, and planners of construction projects. It provides practitioners with charts that assist in
scheduling and managing resources for jump form application. In addition, it provides researchers
with a floor cycle time model and framework of implementing jump forms to high-rise buildings.
Keywords Buildings, Case studies, Productivity rate
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Formwork development has paralleled the growth of concrete construction throughout
the twentieth century (Hanna, 1999). As advancements were made in concrete construction,
formwork designers and builders were required to provide solutions for these technological
improvements through innovative formwork design and improved reusable formwork
systems. With advancements in high-rise construction, the need for safe, efficient, and
reusable vertical formwork systems has arisen. Therefore, special attention is placed on
the design and development of vertical formwork systems in order to cut down the cost of
high-rise construction.
Typical vertical formwork systems utilized in construction include conventional
formwork, ganged forms, jump forms, slip forms, and automatic climbing (self-raising) Engineering, Construction and
forms (Sharifi et al., 2005; Zayed et al., 2008). These systems can be classified into two Architectural Management
Vol. 21 No. 1, 2014
main categories, namely, crane-dependent systems and crane-independent systems. pp. 33-50
Gang and jump forms are classified under crane-dependent systems. Slip form and r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
self-raising formwork are classified as crane-independent systems in which formwork DOI 10.1108/ECAM-02-2012-0015
ECAM panels are moved vertically with the help of jacks that are operated hydraulically,
21,1 electrically, or pneumatically (Hanna, 1999).
Jump forms are vertical forms that have been used for the construction of exterior
building walls, building columns, dam faces, cooling towers, bridge piers, and elevator
shafts (Hanna, 1999). They are lifted from one floor to the next floor with the help of
a crane. Jump forms have many advantages; such as significant reduction of crane time
34 and productivity increase. They allow contractors to complete a floor every two to four
days, depending on the size of the floor and the height of the wall. On the other hand,
they have some limitations (Hanna, 1999): high wind speeds, especially at high
altitudes and in coastal areas, interfere with crane operation during flying of formwork
to the upper level; and a minimum clearance is required between the formworks and
the adjacent buildings during the flying operation. The ACS of formworks is basically
an improvement to the jump form system whereas the dependence on crane for lifting
forms from one floor to the next level is eliminated through the use of jacks (Slip form)
and the climbing rails. In the last decade, self-raising forms have become more popular
in construction involving repetitive vertical forming.
Literature search shows that jump forms do not receive sufficient attention from
researchers, particularly, the productivity of ACS. Therefore, current research will
focus on designing a high-rise construction productivity model using ACS based on the
number of brackets (hydraulic jacks). The developed model will be implemented to
a case study to prove the intended concept by this research. Productivity assessment
of ACS is crucial to develop project schedules, plans, and budget.

Background
Jaafari et al. (1989) reported that there are many formwork methods that can
be used to construct a high-rise building core, such as slip form, climb form, jump
form, super-shafter, and the conventional forming method. Several research works
are performed in the area of formwork selection and design, such as Hanna et al.
(1992), Kamarthi et al. (1992), etc. Most of these works focussed only on the
formwork selection and cost, particularly conventional formworks (Tam et al., 2005;
Hanna et al., 1992; Kamarthi et al., 1992; Elbeltagi et al., 2011; Ratary, 1980). A study
focussed on exploring the influence of recurring building floor configurations on
formwork labor productivity (Jarkas and Horner, 2011). The findings indicated that
there was no potential context for the learning curve theory to be used as a useful
tool to quantify productivity improvement of formwork installation. Therefore,
based on literature, it is clear that previous research focussed primarily on
traditional/conventional formwork study whereas new and innovative formwork
types, such as ACS, did not receive much attention from researchers. The authors are
presenting in this paper the available literature on the ACS technique as well as
its limitations and advantages. The following sections depict such information
and literature.
It has been shown that for building cores of o15 stories high, none of the
alternative methods can compete with the conventional formwork method. Sharifi et al.
(2005) and Zayed et al. (2008) further stated that for tall structures (430 stories), the
alternative methods could potentially reduce the costs by up to 30-40 percent. In
addition, Sharifi et al. (2005, 2006) developed a high-rise core and silo construction
productivity models for slip forms using simulation in order to determine the best
slipping (jacking) rate as well as the required resource combination. Sharifi et al. (2005)
concluded that slip forming might cost somewhat more than other methods, but would
shorten the total construction schedule by at least three months. Mohamed and Automatic
Zayed (2007) developed a high-rise construction productivity model for ACS based on climbing system
formwork surface area.
The ACS is a hydraulically operated self-climbing formwork system used for the
construction of tall concrete structures, such as building core walls and bridge pylons.
Tall concrete structures have historically been formed with crane lifted formwork often
referred to as jump forms. These systems require a worker to ride the formwork as it 35
is raised to its next position in order to insert reties through the previously cast lift to
secure the formwork. This procedure requires extensive crane time and is too slow,
unsafe, and unproductive for tall structures where the concrete walls are typically
on the critical path (Ameel, 2002). In 1974, slip form method was used to construct the
concrete shaft of CN tower in Toronto, with 345 m height, within eight months
(Sharifi et al., 2005, 2006; Zayed et al., 2008). Slip forming is a technique used to build
high-rise structures quickly, in which the wet concrete is extruded, rather than retained
in formworks until it has hardened (Anon, 1978, 1987). Self-climbing formwork system
was also used to construct bridge pylons (Ameel, 2002).
The advantages of ACS are as follows (Kamarthi et al., 1992; Hanna, 1999; Elbeltagi
et al., 2011; Jarkas and Horner, 2011; Tam et al., 2005):
(1) The ACS is crane-independent; therefore the system climbs at any time and
weather. It allows the crane to be used elsewhere on the job site, thus possibly
increasing overall productivity.
(2) Construction speed reduces the overall project cost.
(3) The labor force needed for stripping, raising, and positioning formworks is
greatly reduced.
(4) The ACS has many characteristics that make it more flexible such as (Hanna, 1999).
. formworks may be designed for almost any plan, shape, and structure size;
. they can be easily adjusted during construction to accommodate changes in
wall thickness;
. they can be reused approximately 50 times or more; and
. the formwork system is pre-assembled; therefore, make up area is not
necessary which is good for confined sites such as piers.
(5) The ACS is safer where raising formworks is completely controlled by workers
at the formwork, instead of crane operators and crane attendants who are a
distance away. The accident frequency rate for the jump form is 0.7 compared
with a national average of 1.6 for construction activities (Anon, 2002).
The limitations of ACS are as follows (Kamarthi et al., 1992; Hanna, 1999; Elbeltagi
et al., 2011; Jarkas and Horner, 2011; Tam et al., 2005):
(1) the initial cost of the ACS is larger than other formwork systems;
(2) the ACS is economically used only for structures 20 stories or higher; and
(3) changes in wall size and/or location during construction are expensive and
impact schedule.
The ACS technology was used in the construction of four concrete cores in Canary
Wharf, UK (11-42 floors; Flavahan, 2001). Elliott (2003) mentioned that the advantages
ECAM of using the ACS at Canary Wharf were: more stable concrete core could be achieved;
21,1 reduction of reinforcement could be performed with jump forming than with slip
forming; and the increased placing heights reduced the number of laps. The jump form
height is typically 4.2 m compared to 1.2 m for slip forming (the height of the formwork
panel). Because productivity of the ACS was not discussed in literature, current
research focusses on designing a high-rise core construction productivity model for the
36 ACS in order to determine floor cycle time, project duration, and cost.
Installation of the ACS is carried out in two phases as explained in the following
sections (Kamarthi et al., 1992; PERI GmbH, 2006; Ameel, 2002).

Phase I: installation (Figure 1)

First step: the first lift is done using traditional formwork system. Anchors for
climbing shoes are cast into the lift at the top level.
Second step: formwork is removed and climbing shoes are installed. The ACS system
including the climbing scaffold is mounted with the help of a crane. Shutter formworks
are fixed on one side and leading anchor is positioned. Then, reinforcement is fixed.
Third step: formworks are closed and concrete is placed. After concrete has gained
enough strength, formwork is removed and cleaned.
Fourth step: climbing shoes are installed. Climbing rail is inserted into the shoes
and the system is raised hydraulically. Finishing platform is fixed. This completes
the installation phase.
Phase II: climbing sequence (Figure 2)
Fifth step: shutter formworks are fixed on one side and leading anchor is positioned.
Then, reinforcement is fixed.
Sixth step: formworks are closed and concrete is placed. After concrete has gained
enough strength, formwork is removed using the carriages on the brackets or platform.

Figure 1.
Installation sequence
 Automatic
climbing system

37

Figure 2.
Climbing sequence

Seventh step: the leading climbing shoes are installed to the anchors in the previous
lift. The hydraulic climbing mechanism then raises the climbing rails, and then it is
switched from climbing the rails to climbing the unit.
Eighth step: with the unit in its new location, the formworks are closed on one
side, leading anchors are positioned, and rebar is installed from the work platform.
The formwork is closed using carriages. Then, concrete placed in order to complete the
construction cycle.

ACS productivity model development

As mentioned above, the climbing sequence of activities can be divided into eight
activities, where the time required for each task are illustrated in each activity and
consequently the floor total cycle time can be determined. Durations of various ACS
activities are determined as follows:
Activity (1): place the shutter formworks on one side: this activity includes pushing,
leveling, and locking each bracket to its position (exterior brackets only). X1, total
man-hours (min), is represented in the following equation:

X1 Y1  EN min 1

where EN is the exterior number of brackets and Y1 is the man-hours (min/bracket;

from Table I).
ECAM Activity (2): place and secure leading anchor: this activity includes place and
21,1 secure leading anchors on both sides of formwork (interior and exterior brackets).
Total man-hours is represented by the following equation:

X2 Y2 TN min 2

38 where TN is the total number of brackets (interior and exterior) and Y2 is the
man-hours (min/bracket; from Table I).
Activity (3): fix reinforcement: total man-hour for this activity (X3) is determined
using the following equation:

X3 V  S  60=R min 3

where V is the concrete volume/floor (m3), S is the weight of steel/concrete cubic meter
(S 35.38 kg/m3), R production rate of the steel rebar crew (R 93.75 kg/h) (RS
Means Co (2006)).
Activity (4): close formwork: total man-hour for this activity (X4) is determined
using the following equation:

X4 Y4  IN min 4

where IN is the interior number of brackets and Y4 is the man-hours (min/bracket;

from Table I).
Activity (5): pour concrete: total duration for activity (X5) is calculated using
Equation (5), based on concrete pumping method as shown in Figure 3 (adapted from
Singh et al., 2004), as follows:

V V  60
X5 h i min 5
Q WP  25
HP 0:25  h  n

where V is the concrete volume (m3), Q is the concrete output (m3/h), WP is the pump
working power (kW), P is the pump pressure (bar), Hp is the pump horizontal pressure,
h is the floor height (m), n is the number of placed concrete floors.
Activity (6): strike, clean, oil formworks and clean platforms: total man-hours for
this activity (X6) is calculated using the following equation:

X6 Y6  TN min 6

Floor height (m)

Bracket man-hours (min) 3.50 m 4.00 m 4.50 m 5.00 m Labor man-hour (min/m2)

Y1 100-103 115-118 130-133 144-147 1.84

Y2 9-10 11-12 12-13 14-15 0.42
Table I. Y4 28-30 32-34 36-38 40-42 0.73
Required man-hours for Y6 114-122 131-139 148-156 163-171 5.05
each bracket (Activities 1, Y7 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 0.47
2, 4, 6, 7, and 8) in minutes Y8 41-43 47-49 51-53 57-59 1.78
 Automatic
climbing system

Max Q = 71.28 m3/hr

39

Min Q = 30.72 m3/hr

Max P = 66.13 bar

Min P = 28.50 bar

Figure 3.
Concrete pumping
selection
Source: Adapted from Singh et al. (2004)

where TN is the total number of brackets (interior and exterior) and Y6 is the
man-hours (min/bracket), from Table I.
Activity (7): attach climbing shoes: total man-hour for this activity (X7) is determined
using the following equation:

X7 Y7  TN min 7

where TN is the total number of brackets (interior and exterior) and Y7 is the man-
hours (min/bracket), from Table I.
Activity (8): climb rail and platform: total man-hour for this activity (X8) is
determined using the following equation:
X8 Y8  TN min 8
Therefore, based upon the aforementioned eight steps, the total man-hours for one
floor can be determined as shown in the following equation:
X
m
Xtj Xij 9
i1

where Xtj is the total cycle time for floor #j; i is the activity number m, and j is the floor
number n. Floor cycle time formula is shown in the following equation:

Xij X1j X2j X3j X4j X5j X6j X7j X8j min 10
ECAM Then, Equation (10) can be written as shown in the following equations:
21,1 Vj S60 V 60
Xij X1j X2j X4j h i
R WP25
11
HP 0:25hn

X6j X7j X8j

40
X
n
Xt Xtj min 12
j1

Then, productivity of jump form can be represented using the following equation:

productivity number of floors=Xt floor=min 13

Data collection and case study

Data are collected from PERI Formwork & Scaffolding Company. Two case study
projects are identified, one in London, UK (project A) and one in Omaha, USA (project
B), for high-rise buildings. The system in use is ACS, which is a hydraulically operated
self-climbing formwork system that has three standard configurations as shown in
Figures 4 and 5:
(1) The ACS-R (Regular): is used on the exterior of a core wall of high-rise building
that allows the reinforcing steel to be inserted in cages (Figures 4 and 5).
(2) The ACS-P (Platform): is utilized for the interior cells of a core wall that
provides large work area for equipment and material storage. Concrete placing
boom sits on the platform and is lifted with the system (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4.
Canary wharf,
London, UK
 Automatic
climbing system

41

Figure 5.
First national center,
Omaha, USA

(3) The ACS-G (Gallows) arrangement, the formwork is suspended above the
surrounding structural slab (Figure 2), which allows the core or shear walls to
be placed with the slab. The climbing rails are inside the core while the rest of
formwork is suspended above the slab.

Productivity data of the two case study projects are shown in Table II. The concrete
surface area is 1,900 and 800 m2 and the volume is 400 and 320 m3 for both projects
A and B, respectively. The number of floors is 38 and 45 for both projects and the
floor heights are 3.65 and 4.11 m, respectively. Wall thickness is variable in project
A between 0.25 and 0.50 m where it is 0.8 m in project B. Table II also shows
the construction duration for the eight main activities. The total cycle time of
each floor in man-hours is 29,200 min and 16,040 min for projects A and B,
respectively (Table III).

Implementation of the developed ACS productivity model to case study

projects
Case study project A London, UK
The total cycle time for each activity is calculated based on the developed productivity
model and its application to both case study projects. In Canary Wharf, London, UK
(project A), the calculation can be summarized as follows:
Activity (1): The total cycle for Activity (1) from Equation (1) and Table I is
X1 107.5 min (from Table I, maximum value in the range (103) plus the interpolation
for the extra 0.15 m (3.653.50) in the floor height). The number of exterior brackets
(EN) 32, Figure 4. By applying Equation (1), then, X1 107.5  32 3,440 min.
The calculated value of X1 represents 98.3 percent of the actual collected value that
was 3,500 min.
ECAM
General information Description
21,1
Project building Canary Wharf, First National
London, Center, Omaha, USA
UK (project A) (project B)
System in use ACS-R and ACS-P ACS-R and ACS-P
42 Concrete surface area 1,900 m2 800 m2
Concrete volume 400 m3 320 m3
Number of floors 38 floors 45 floors
Floor height 3.65 m 4.11 m
Wall thickness 0.25-0.50 m 0.80 m
Time per floor 4 days (3 crews 6 days (2 crews
of 4 labors each) of 4 labors each)
No. Activity description Collected Collected
man-hours (min) man-hours (min)
1 Place shutter from one side 3,500 1,470
2 Place leading anchor 800 336
3 Fix reinforcement 9,120 6,000
4 Close formworks 1,400 588
5 Place concrete 5,760 3,200
Table II. 6 Strike, clean and oil form 9,600 4,040
Productivity data of the 7 Attach climbing shoe 900 338
two case study projects 8 Climb rail and formworks 3,400 1,428
PERI-ACS Total cycle time 34,480 17,400

Duration (London, UK) Duration (Omaha, USA)

(3 crews of 4 labors) (2 crews of 4 labors)
Activity Total Min/12 h/12 Day/12 Total Min/8 h/8 Day/8
No. description (min) labors labors labors (min) labors labors labors

1 Place exterior 3,440 287 5.7 1st, 2nd 1,464 183 3.66 2nd, 3rd
shutter form
2 Place leading 805.6 67 1.3 348 43.5 0.87
anchor
3 Fix reinforcement 9,057 755 15.1 6,612 750 16.53 3rd, 4th,
5th
4 Close formworks 1,373 114 2.3 595 74.4 1.49 5th, 6th
5 Place concrete 5,760 480 9.6 3rd 3,312 414 8.28
6 Strike, clean 9,660 805 16.1 3rd, 4th 4,147 518.4 10.37 1st, 2nd
and oil forms
7 Attach climbing 882 74 1.5 4th, 5th 350 43.75 0.88 2nd
shoes
8 Climb rail and 3,382 282 5.6 1,528 191 3.82
platform
Table III. Total cycle 34,480 2,423 57.27 4.77 18,356 1,530 45.89 5.74
Floor cycle time and time /floor
duration of activities 5 days (12 h/day) 6 days (8 h/day)
Activity (2): from Table I and Equation (2), X2 10.60 min (Table I)  TN (TN total Automatic
number of brackets 32 44 76, Figure 5) 805.60 min. The calculated value of climbing system
X2 represents 99.30 percent of the actual collected value that was 800 min.
Activity (3): wall thickness 0.50 m (2000 ), Weight of steel for both sides is 15.92
kg/m2 (2.36 lb/ft2), which gives 36 kg/m3. The output of crew (four labors) is 3,000
kg/day (RS Means Co, 2006). Then, productivity is 3,000 kg/day/(4 labor  8
h/day) 94 kg/h. Therefore, the output of fixing steel (h) (volume of concrete 43
(m 3 )  36 kg/m 3 )/94 kg/h. Then, X3 V  S  60/R 400 m 3  35.38 kg/m 3 
60/93.75 kg/h 9057.28 min (151.2 h). The calculated value of X3 represents 99.31
percent of the actual collected value that was 9,120 min.
Activity (4): X4 31.20 min (Table I)  44 (IN interior number of brackets 44;
Figure 5) 1372.8 min. The calculated value of X4 represents 98.06 percent of the
actual collected value that was 1,400 min.
Activity (5): X5 Equation (5):

V 60 400m3 60

X5    48 min
WP25 90kW 25
HP 0:25hn 25bar 0:253:65m21

where WP 90 kW and n 21st floor (average floor).

Activity (6): X6 127.1 min (Table I)  76 (TN 76, Figure 5) 9659.6 min. The
calculated value of X6 represents 99.38 percent of the actual collected value that was
9,600 min.
Activity (7): X7 11.60 min (Table I)  76 (TN) 881.60 min. The calculated value of
X7 represents 97.96 percent of the actual collected value that was 900 min.
Activity (8): X8 44.5 min (Table I)  76 (TN) 3382 min. The calculated value of X8
represents 99.47 percent of the actual collected value that was 3,400 min.
Then, assuming the productive time is 50 min/h, the total cycle time per floor
is 4.04 days using three crews of four labors. Based upon the results presented in
Table IV, the validity percent of the developed model is 4.04/4.06 99.59 percent,
which shows robust results.

Canary Wharf, London, UK First National Center, Omaha, USA

Estimated Collected Estimated Collected
productivity productivity Validity productivity productivity Validity
Activity (man-hour) (man-hour) (%) (man-hour) (man-hour) (%)

X1 5.7 5.8 98.29 3.66 3.7 100.41

X2 1.3 1.3 100.75 0.87 0.8 96.55
X3 15.1 15.2 99.31 16.53 15.0 90.74
X4 2.3 2.3 98.07 1.49 1.5 98.82
X5 0.8 0.8 100.00 8.28 8.0 96.62
X6 16.1 16.0 100.63 10.37 10.1 97.42
X7 1.5 1.5 98.00 0.88 0.8 96.57
X8 5.6 5.7 99.47 3.82 3.6 93.46
48.47 h/12 48.67 h/12 45.89 h/8 43.50 h/8 Table IV.
Total labor 4.04 labor 4.06 labor 5.74 labor 5.44 Results of productivity
cycle time days (12 h/day) days (12 h/day) 99.59 days (8 h/day) days (8 h/day) 94.79 model and its validity
ECAM Case study project B Omaha, USA
21,1 Similarly, in the First National Center, Omaha, USA (project B), the total cycle time for
each activity is calculated based on the developed productivity model. The calculation
can be summarized using the productivity rates given in Table I as follows:
Activity (1): Place exterior shutter formwork: T1 800 m2 (total area of
formwork)  1.84 min/m2 (productivity rate given in Table I) 1,470 min for two
44 crews of four labor each. Duration 1,470 min/(8 labor) 183 min (3 h). This will be
repeated for the rest of activities (2, 4, 6, 7, and 8).
Activity (3): wall thickness 0.45 m (1800 ), weight of steel for both sides is 15.92
kg/m2 (2.36 lb/ft2), which gives 36 kg/m3. The output of crew (four labors) is 3,000 kg/day
(RS Means Co, 2006). Then, productivity is 3,000 kg/(4 labor  8 h/day) 94 kg/h.
Therefore, the output of fixing steel/h volume of concrete m3 36kg=m3 / 94kg=h.
Then, the duration of Activity (3) concrete volume (320 m3)  0.38 h/m3 122 h,
assuming two crews of four labors per crew. Then, T3 122 h/8 labor 15 h. It is
assumed that loading steel is done concurrently with the other activities. In addition,
floor height
and craning time to load steel on platform was not considered because it is outside
the scope of current paper, which is only jump forms.
Activity (5): pour concrete: assume that the average output of concrete is 40 m3/h, then:
320m3=floor
T5 8 h=floor
40m3 =h
Total duration of floor is determined as follows: Activity (6) (strike and clean
formwork) 8.4 h is done in the first day; Activity (7) (attach climbing shoes) 0.78 h;
and Activity (8) (climb rail and platform) 2.9 h are done in the second day. Activity (1)
(shutter formwork) 3.0 h and Activity (2) (place and secure leading anchor) 0.70 h
are done in the second day where Activity (3) (fix reinforcement) 15 h is done in
the third and fourth days. Activity (4) (close forms) 1.20 h and Activity (5) (pour
concrete) 8 h are done in the fifth day. Then, assuming the productive time is
50 min/h, the total cycle time per floor is 5.74 days using two crews of four labors.
Based upon the results presented in Table IV, the validity percent of the developed
model is 5.44/5.74 94.79 percent, which shows robust results.

Sensitivity analysis of productivity model parameters

It is observed that duration of activities is similar across floors except concrete pumping
time because it is a function of height. Figure 6 shows the output of pump vs the height
according to Equation (5). It shows that floor height is directly related to concrete
output. The maximum productivity approaches 78.53 m3/h at the lowest floors where it
approaches 37.70 m3/h at the highest floors. Sensitivity analysis has been made to
various floor heights of project A as shown in Table V to depict the optimization of the
required resources and the number of working h/day in order to accomplish the floor
cycle in four days. For example, in order to accomplish a floor that has 3.50 m of height,
formwork surface area 1,820 m2 and concrete volume of 383 m3, that would necessitate
three crews of four labors to work 12 h/day. While, a floor that has 4.00 m of height,
formwork surface area of 2,080 m2 and concrete volume of 438 m3, would necessitate
three crews of four labors to work 14 h/day. The number of workers required to
accomplish a floor in a mandatory duration is developed based on the total formwork
surface area and its corresponding concrete volume as shown in Figures 7 and 8.
 Concrete Output Vs Floors Number Automatic
80.00
Max concrete output = 78.53 m3/h
climbing system
Min concrete output = 37.70 m3/h
Concrete Output (m3/h)

70.00

60.00
45
50.00

40.00

Figure 6.
30.00
Concrete output (m3/h)
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 vs floor number
Floors Number

Formwork area 1,820 m2 2,080 m2 2,602 m2

Floor height 3.50 4.00 5.00
Concrete volume 383 m3 438 m3 548 m3
Number of crews 3 of 4 labors 3 of 4 labors 3 of 4 labors
Working h/day 12 h/day 14 h/day 16 h/day

Duration Duration Duration

No. Activity description Min h Day Min h Day Min h Day
1 Place exterior shutter form 3,353 4.7 0.4 3,831 5.3 0.4 4,793 6.7 0.4
2 Place leading anchor 766 1.1 0.1 876 1.2 0.1 1,096 1.5 0.1
3 Fix reinforcement 8,732 12.1 1.0 9,986 13.9 1.0 12,494 17.4 1.1
4 Close formworks 1,341 1.9 0.2 1,532 2.1 0.2 1,917 2.7 0.2
5 Place concrete 460 7.7 0.6 526 8.8 0.6 658 11.0 0.7
6 Strike, clean and oil forms 9,196 12.8 1.1 10,509 14.6 1.0 13,147 18.3 1.1 Table V.
7 Attach climbing shoes 862 1.2 0.1 985 1.4 0.1 1,232 1.7 0.1 Sensitivity analysis of
8 Climb rail and platform 3,257 4.5 0.4 3,722 5.2 0.4 4,656 6.5 0.4 various floor heights
Total 45.9 3.8 52.4 3.7 65.6 4.1 to floor cycle time

Figure 7 shows the optimal number of crews (crew of four labors) and its
corresponding floor cycle time considering the working h/day is 12 h. It shows that
a floor with formwork of 1,900 m2 needs two crews of four labors to be accomplished in
5.7 days (12 working h/day), while it needs 4.0 days with three crew of four labors
(12 working h/day), or else 3,20 days with four crews of four labors (12 working h/day).
Also, Figure 8 shows the optimal number of working h/day to accomplish a floor
in a specific cycle time. It shows that a floor with formwork of 1,900 m2 needs eight
working h/day to be accomplished in 6.0 days (three crews of four labors), while it
needs 12 working h/day to be accomplished in 4.0 days (three crews of four labors),
or else 16 working h/day to be accomplished in 3.20 days (three crews of four
labors). The number of workers required to accomplish a floor in a mandatory duration
is developed based on the total formwork surface area and its corresponding concrete
volume as shown in Figures 9 and 10.
Figure 9 shows the relation between number of labor per crew and floor cycle time.
It shows that the jump form with eight labors (two crews, four labors per crew)
ECAM Formwork surface area Vs Floor cycle time

21,1 2 crews of 4 labors 3 crews of 4 labors 4 crews of 4 labors

7.0

Floor cycle time Day (12 hours a day)

6.0

46 5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0
Figure 7.
Floor cycle time (day) vs 0.0
number of crews for
900 1,100 1,300 1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100
12 working h/day
Formwork surface area (m2)

Formwork surface area Vs Floor cycle time

8 working hours a day 12 working hours a day 16 working hours a day

Floor cycle time Day (3 crews a day)

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0
Figure 8.
Floor cycle time (day) vs 1.0
number of working h/day
for three crews of 0.0
900 1,100 1,300 1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100
four labors
Formwork surface area (m2)

produces one floor per 5.74 days. It is observed that the lower the crew number, the
higher the floor cycle time will be. However, Figure 10 shows the relation between floor
cycle time and jump formwork surface area. In one hand, it shows that the higher the
surface area, the higher the floor cycle time will be. On the other hand, the higher the
number of crews, the lower the floor cycle time will be. For a formwork of 800 m2
surface area, the floor cycle time is almost five days using two crews of four labors each
where it is almost ten days using one crew. In addition, for a formwork of 1,000 m2
surface area, the floor cycle time is 3.0 days using two crews of four labors each where
it is 1.70 days using four crews. Based upon the above discussion, the developed
productivity model shows robust results in assessing the jump form productivity and
predicting the floor cycle time. It is sensitive to most of the assessment variables.
 Number of labors Vs Floor Cycle Time Automatic
25.0
climbing system
20.0
Floor Cycle Time (Days)

15.0
47
10.0

5.0

Figure 9.
0.0 Floor cycle time vs
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
number of labors
Number of labors

Floor Cycle Time Vs Formwork Surface Area

One Crew Two Crews Three Crews
14.0

12.0
Floor Cycle Time (Days)

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0
Figure 10.
0.0
Floor cycle time vs
Formwork surface area
600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
and crew number
Formwork Suface Area (sqm)

Production, m2/h, is also increasing with the floor height increase, which shows
the sensitivity of the developed productivity model to various floor heights as shown in
Figure 11. For example, for floor number 20, the production rate will be 2.82 m2/h for
a floor height of 3.50 m where it is 2.89 m2/h for a floor height of 4.11 m. It is also
observed that the higher the floor number, the lesser the production rate in m2/h.
Figure 12 shows the model sensitivity to wall thickness, whereas the wall thickness is
inversely related to the production rates. For example, for floor number 20, the
production rate will be 4.14 m2/h for a wall thickness of 0.25 m where it is 3.41 m2/h
for a wall thickness of 0.50 m.
ECAM Productivity rate per floor vs Floor height
2.95
21,1

Production rate per floor (sqm/h)

2.90

48 2.85

2.80

2.75

2.70
Figure 11. 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Productivity rate (m2/h) vs Floor number
floor height
h=3.5m h=4.11m h=5.0m

Productivity rate per floor vs wall thickness

5.0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 36 40 44
Productivity rate (sqm/h)

4.0

3.0

2.0
Figure 12.
Floor number
Productivity rate (m2/h) vs
wall thickness
th = 0.25 th = 0.5m th = 0.8m

Conclusion
A productivity model has been developed to assess activities cycle time, floor cycle
time, and productivity for jump forms (i.e. ACS). Productivity and construction data
are collected from a specialized company in such type of forms. The developed model
has been implemented to two case study projects to prove its concept where it shows
robust results of 99.59 percent (project A) and 94.79 percent (project B) validity percent.
Sensitivity analysis has also been performed to assess the sensitivity of model outputs
to inputs where the model shows high sensitivity. It is noticed that the floor height is
directly related to floor cycle time where the larger the floor height the longer cycle time
will be. In addition, the floor cycle time is directly related to floor surface area, number Automatic
of labor crews and number working hours; however, it is inversely related to number climbing system
of labors. It is also noticed that production rate (m2/h) is inversely related to wall
thickness and floor height. In addition, the optimal number of required labors, utilized
to accomplish a certain formwork surface area in a specific duration, is identified using
several charts. The developed productivity model in the present research is essential to
practitioners and researchers because it provides practitioners with a planning and 49
scheduling tool for their jump form operation. It can further be used in bid estimating
and project planning processes. On the other hand, current study provides researchers
with a floor cycle time model that is flexible enough to modify and add more features in
order to enhance its capabilities. The developed productivity model shows robust
results in assessing the jump form productivity and predicting floor cycle time.
It is sensitive to most of the assessment variables.

References
Ameel, T. (2002), Automatic self climbing formwork, construction innovation forum,
available at: www.cif.org/Nom2002/Nom08_02.pdf (accessed September 30, 2006).
Anon (1978), Key to courthouse puzzle, Engineering News Record, Vol. 200 No. 21, pp. 26-27.
Anon (1987), Concrete, Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 85-86.
Anon (2002), Jump form system wins construct award, Concrete, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 14-15.
Elbeltagi, E., Hosny, O., Elhakeem, A., Abd-Elrazek, M. and Abdullah, A. (2011), Selection of
slab formwork system using fuzzy logic, Journal of Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 659-670.
Elliott, B. (2003), Jump forming at Canary Wharf, Concrete, Vol. 37 No. 5, p. 16.
Flavahan, T. (2001), High-rise concrete construction at Canary Wharf , Concrete, Vol. 5 No. 35,
pp. 18-20.
Hanna, A.S. (1999), Concrete Formwork Systems, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
Hanna, A., Willenbrock, J. and Sanvido, V. (1992), Knowledge acquisition and development for
formwork selection system, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 179-198.
Jaafari, A., Kew, Y. and Yeoh, C. (1989), Alternative methods for construction of vertically-formed
concrete structures, Institution of Engineers, Australia, Civil Engineering Transactions CE,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 54-62.
Jarkas, A. and Horner, M. (2011), Revisiting the applicability of learning curve theory to
formwork labour productivity, Journal of Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 483-493.
Kamarthi, S., Sanvido, V. and Kumara, S. (1992), Neuroformneural network system for
vertical formwork selection, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 178-199.
Mohamed, E. and Zayed, T. (2007), Automatic Climbing System Productivity Model, ASCE
Construction Research Congress, Grand Bahamas Island, 6-8 May.
PERI GmbH (2006), Practical solutions for the job site, available at: www.peri.de/en/pub/
aktuelles/start.cfm (accessed October 2006).
Ratary, R. (1980), Handbook of Temporary Structures in Construction, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
RS Means Co (2006), RS Means Building Construction Cost Data, RS Means Co, Kingston, MA.
Sharifi, M., Baciu, S. and Zayed, T. (2005), Concrete Slip-Forming Productivity Analysis,
The 7th International Conf. on Multi-Purpose High Rise Towers, Dubai, December 10-11.
ECAM Sharifi, M., Baciu, S. and Zayed, T. (2006), Slip-Form Productivity Analysis for Concrete Silos,
1st International Construction Specialty Conference, Calgary, AB, May 23-26.
21,1
Singh, B., Singh, S.P. and Singh, B. (2004), Some issues related to concrete pumping, Indian
Concrete Journal, Vol. 9 No. 78, pp. 41-44.
Tam, C., Tong, T., Lau, T. and Chan, K. (2005), Selection of vertical formwork system
by probabilistic neural networks models, Journal of Construction Management and
50 Economics, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 245-254.
Zayed, T., Sharifi, M., Baciu, S. and Amer, M. (2008), Slip-form application to concrete
structures, J. of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 134 No. 3,
pp. 157-168.

Corresponding author
Dr Tarek Zayed can be contacted at: zayed@bcee.concordia.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.