Concrete Institute of Australia

CONCRETE INSTITUTE
of AUSTRALIA

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
Z36

Formwork Handbook
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

Z36

Formwork Handbook
Z36

Cover.indd 1 30/08/2016 12:11 pm

 RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

Z36
Formwork
Handbook

i
Formwork Handbook

00 – Prelims.indd i 12/09/2016 8:14 am

 Concrete Institute of Australia is a national Concrete Institute of Australia
membership-based not-for-profit organisation formed to National Office
provide a forum for exchange of information between its Suite 401, Level 4
members and others. Since the information contained 53 Walker Street
in its publications is intended for general guidance only North Sydney NSW 2060 Australia
and in no way replaces the services of professional
PO Box 1227
consultants on particular projects, no legal liability
North Sydney NSW 2059 Australia
for negligence or otherwise can be accepted by the
Institute for the information contained in this publication. PHONE: +61 2 9955 1744
FACSIMILE: +61 2 9966 1871
No part of this publication may be reproduced
EMAIL: admin@concreteinstitute.com.au
in whole or in part, or stored in a retrieval system, or
WEBSITE: www.concreteinstitute.com.au
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, For contact information on Institute Branches
without written permission of the publisher. This book and networks in Queensland, New South Wales,
is sold subject to the condition that it shall not be lent, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western
resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the Australia visit the web site at:
publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover www.concreteinstitute.com.au
other than that in which it is published. This condition All Concrete Institute of Australia publications,
being imposed on any subsequent purchasers. including this Handbook, are made possible through
For information regarding permission, write to: the continuing support received from our Platinum
The Chief Executive Officer Company Members.
Concrete Institute of Australia http://www.concreteinstitute.com.au/
PO Box 1227 Company-Members/Platinum-Members
North Sydney NSW 2059 Australia (correct as of 1 September 2016)
Email: admin@concreteinstitute.com.au
Wagstaff Piling

Ramsetreid

Produced by Engineers Media for

Concrete Institute of Australia ACN 000 715 453
Z36 First published 2016
ISBN 978-0-9941738-3-6

ii
Formwork Handbook

00 – Prelims.indd ii 12/09/2016 8:14 am

 Disclaimer
While every effort has been made and all reasonable care taken to ensure the accuracy of the material contained
herein, the author(s) shall not be held to be liable or responsible in any way whatsoever and expressly disclaims any
liability or responsibility for any loss or damage costs or expenses howsoever incurred by an individual including,
but without in any way limiting, any loss or damage costs or expenses incurred as a result of or in connection with
the reliance, whether whole or partial by any person upon any part of the contents of this material.

Warning
This publication should not be used without the services of a competent professional person with expert knowledge
in the field, and under no circumstances should this publication be relied upon to replace any or all of the
knowledge and expertise of such a person.

iii
Formwork Handbook

00 – Prelims.indd iii 12/09/2016 8:14 am

 Recommended Practice by Formwork Committee
This Recommended Practice is the first edition and has been developed by the Formwork Committee of the
Concrete Institute of Australia with contribution from the below listed:
■ Stephen A Ferguson
■ Douglas W Crawford

iv
Formwork Handbook

00 – Prelims.indd iv 12/09/2016 8:14 am


Preface
The motivation for creating this Handbook
comes from a strong belief that the health and safety of
construction workers should not be put at greater risk
from structural failure than other workers. Unfortunately,
in Australia and elsewhere, this is not the case. In
practice, the frequency of structural failure and the
general risk of death is much higher during construction
than, later, during the service life of the completed
permanent structure.
In the past, a higher frequency of structural
failure may have been tolerated because of an
underlying tacit attitude in the design and construction
industry that temporary structures, such as formwork,
are less important than permanent structures and
therefore greater risks are acceptable. However, this is
no longer the case.
Investigations into the causes of construction
failure agree procedural inadequacies enable
flaws in the design and/or construction to go
undetected. Examples of procedural inadequacies
include: communication difficulties and confusion of
responsibilities among participants; inadequate briefing
of designers; the lack of design drawings; inadequate
checking of designs (particularly those containing novel
features); unapproved modifications of the initial design;
or failure to inspect work prior to loading. Although this
research was carried out 30 to 40 years ago, formwork
collapse and failure continues to occur all too often and
the findings are just as applicable today as then.
Implicitly, the higher frequency of structural
failure also casts doubt on the competence of those
involved in the design and construction of formwork and
falsework. This premise is supported by researchers
who interviewed those responsible for the design and
construction of the majority of falsework in the UK. The
researchers found that:
(a) At all levels of the industry there is a lack of
understanding of the fundamentals and basic
principles involved in achieving the stability of
falsework;
(b) The contracting sector does not appreciate
00 – Prelims.indd v
the implications of the assumptions made by
suppliers who design the majority of falsework
systems; and
(c) There is a lack of checking and a worrying lack
of design expertise.
In 2002, the Standing Committee on Structural
Safety (SCOSS) in the UK warned that there is a need
to carefully consider the means by which falsework
is currently procured, designed, constructed and
supervised. Furthermore, that judging from the
evidence, it is only a matter of time before a serious
event occurs. As recently as 2010, SCOSS reported
that these concerns remain pertinent.
There is no evidence in the literature that “the
issues identified in the UK apply to Australia”. However,
the frequency of formwork and falsework collapse over
recent years support this view.
To address the shortcomings identified, SCOSS
recommended compiling courses that include elements
on procurement, statutory responsibility and managing
the supply chain, as well as the technical issues
associated with design.
To this end, this text may help by providing
guidance on procedures, requirements and methods for
the design and construction of formwork and falsework
to comply with Australian Standards and Work Health
and Safety Regulations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the contribution
and thank: the staff at Syntect Consulting Engineers
(Simon Johnson, David Webster and Nicholas Ho) for
all their help in putting this Handbook together; Harry
Backes and John Woodside for their comments; and
Ian Gilbert for his help with Chapters 9 and 10. I also
wish to acknowledge the contribution and counsel of
my co-author Douglas Crawford (Chairman of Australian
Standards Committee BD-043 responsible for AS 3610)
and the work of all BD-043 committee members.
Special thanks must go to Eur Ing Peter F. Pallet
who kept me up-to-date with changes happening to
the Euro and British Standards, and freely shared his
expert knowledge and the wealth of information he has
published.
Stephen Ferguson
v
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 8:14 am
 2.6 Formwork checker
Contents 2.7 Formwork contractor
2.8 Formwork supervisor
1 Introduction 2.9 Formwork inspector
1.1 Formwork and falsework 2.9.1 Approval to load formwork
1.2 Formwork importance 2.9.2 Approval to remove formwork
1.3 Formwork design requirements 2.10 Obligation and competence
1.4 Scope
3 General design requirements
1.5 Application
1.6 Glossary 3.1 Introduction
1.7 Notation 3.2 Stability, strength and serviceability
3.2.1 Limit states design
2 Safe formwork design and construction 3.2.2 Stability (limit states)
2.1 Introduction 3.2.3 Strength (limit states)
2.1.1 Participants 3.2.4 Serviceability (limit states)
2.1.2 Scope 3.2.4.1 Serviceability limits for formwork
2.2 Project designer deformations
2.2.1 Project documentation 3.2.4.2 Serviceability limits for
2.2.1.1 Location and magnitude of multiple-use equipment
design service loads 3.2.5 Working load limit (WLL)
2.2.1.2 Sequence and timing of 3.3 Structural integrity
concrete placement 3.3.1 Robustness
2.2.1.3 Limitations on the magnitude 3.3.2 Preventing progressive collapse
and locations of construction 3.4 Design working life
loads
3.5 Australian Standards
2.2.1.4 Loads from the effects of pre-
3.5.1 Australian formwork standards:
tensioning or post-tensioning
a brief history
2.2.1.5 Limitations on the use of the
3.5.2 Other Australian Standards
permanent or existing structure
relevant to formwork
for formwork restraint
3.6 Economy
2.2.1.6 Minimum stripping times and
procedures 4 Actions and action combinations
2.2.1.7 Method of multistorey shoring
4.1 Introduction
2.2.1.8 Requirements for composite
4.2 Actions
construction or permanent form
4.2.1 Permanent actions (G)
systems
4.2.1.1 Vertical actions from weight of
2.2.1.9 Information about the
formwork (Gf)
foundation
2.3 Construction contractor 4.2.1.2 Vertical actions from weight of
concrete (Gc)
2.3.1 Construction documentation
4.2.2 Concrete pressure (Pc)
2.3.2 Formwork coordinator
4.2.3 Vertical and horizontal variable actions
2.3.2.1 Formwork design brief
(Qv and Qh)
2.4 Formwork supplier
4.2.3.1 Vertical actions from workmen,
2.4.1 Work Health and Safety concrete mounding and
2.4.2 AS 3610:1995 and AS 3610.1:2010 equipment (Qw)
2.5 Formwork designer 4.2.3.2 Vertical actions from stacked
2.5.1 Hazard identification, elimination or materials and equipment (Qm)
control 4.2.3.3 Horizontal actions from
2.5.1.1 Risk control measures construction activity (Qah)
2.5.2 Practical requirements 4.2.3.4 Vertical and horizontal actions
2.5.3 Formwork documentation on guardrails (Qgv and Qgh)
2.5.3.1 General requirements 4.2.3.5 Other vertical and horizontal
2.5.3.2 Specific requirements of AS actions (Qxv and Qxh)
3610.1:2010 4.2.4 Environment actions (wind, snow, water
2.5.3.3 Proprietary documentation and earthquakes)
2.5.3.4 Safety report 4.2.4.1 Wind (Ws and Wu)
2.5.3.5 Multistorey shoring 4.2.4.2 Snow (Ss and Su)

vi
Formwork Handbook

00 – Prelims.indd vi 12/09/2016 8:14 am

 4.2.4.3 Serviceability and ultimate water
(Ss and Su)
4.2.4.4 Earthquake (Eu)
4.2.5 Accidental actions (Av and Ah)
4.2.5.1 Vertical impact (Av)
4.2.5.2 Horizontal impact (Ah)
4.2.6 Notional actions (N1, N2 and N3)
4.2.6.1 Notional horizontal forces for
initial out-of-plumb erection (N1)
4.2.6.2 Notional forces for braces that
reduce the effective length of
compression members (N2)
4.2.6.3 Notional forces to ensure a
minimum level of structural
integrity (N3)
4.3 Action combinations
4.3.1 Action combinations for serviceability
limit states
4.3.1.1 Surface finish quality and
dimensional control
4.3.1.2 Elastic behaviour in multiple-use
formwork
4.3.2 Action combinations for ultimate limit
states – strength and stability
4.3.2.1 Action combinations for stability
limit states
4.3.2.2 Action combinations for strength
limit states
4.3.2.3 Strength load factor for
“primary” members
4.3.2.4 Duration of load factor for use
with AS 1720.1
5 Concrete pressure
5.1 Introduction
5.2 CIRIA Report No 108
5.2.1 Factors influencing concrete pressure
5.2.2 Plan shape and area of cast section
5.2.3 Concrete rate of rise
5.2.4 Constituent concrete materials
5.2.5 Concrete temperature
5.2.6 Vertical form height
5.2.7 Other factors
5.2.7.1 Method of vibration
5.2.7.2 Formwork permeability
5.2.7.3 Underwater concreting
5.3 Rate of rise
5.3.1 Minimum rate of rise for full depth
hydrostatic pressure
5.3.2 Proposed method of concrete
placement
5.3.3 Proposed sequence of concrete
placement
5.3.4 Duration of concrete placement
5.3.5 Formwork and reinforcement
arrangement
5.3.6 Economy
5.3.7 Limitations on formwork
strength or serviceability
00 – Prelims.indd vii
5.4 Statics of concrete pressure
5.4.1 Vertical side formwork
5.4.2 Inclined side or sloping soffit formwork
5.4.2.1 Hydrostatic concrete pressure
5.4.2.2 Concrete pressure limited
by setting
6 Side formwork
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Form ties
6.2.1 Types of form ties
6.2.2 Form tie capacity
6.2.2.1 Comment on the design rules
for tension members resisting
concrete pressure
6.2.2.2 Recommendations on the
design of tension members
resisting concrete pressure
6.2.3 Serviceability limit states
6.2.4 Form tie identification
6.2.5 Precautions when using form ties
6.3 Double sided wall formwork
6.3.1 Balanced concrete pressure
6.3.2 Limit states design of wall form
face and framing members
6.3.3 Unbalanced concrete pressure
6.4 Single sided wall formwork
6.5 Bracing
6.5.1 Bracing for alignment
6.5.2 Bracing for stability
6.5.2.1 Robustness
6.5.2.2 Imposed actions
6.5.2.3 Accidental actions
6.5.3 Bracing anchors
7 Soffit formwork
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Load path for vertical loads
through soffit formwork
7.3 Loading patterns
7.3.1 Stage 1 – Prior to concrete placement
7.3.2 Stage 2 – During concrete placement
7.3.2.1 Stability limit states
7.3.2.2 Strength limit states
7.3.3 Stage 3 – After concrete placement
7.4 Analysis of soffit form members
7.4.1 Point loads vs UDL
7.4.2 Lateral buckling of beams
7.4.3 Simply supported beams
7.5 Sloping soffit formwork
7.5.1 Vertical falsework
7.5.2 Stability limit states – Sliding
7.5.3 Stability limit states – Overturning
7.5.4 Out of vertical falsework
7.6 Unbalanced concrete pressure – Discontinuous
soffit formwork
vii
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 8:14 am
 8 Falsework
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Falsework design actions
8.2.1 Stage 1 – Prior to concrete placement
8.2.2 Stage 2 – During concrete placement
8.2.3 Stage 3 – After concrete placement
8.3 Factors Influencing falsework behaviour,
stability and strength
8.3.1 Falsework restraint
8.3.1.1 Free standing
8.3.1.2 Top restraint
8.3.1.3 Intermediate restraint
8.3.1.4 Requirements for formwork to
be considered top restrained
8.3.2 Falsework:Sway or fully braced frames
8.3.3 Falsework bracing
8.3.3.1 Problems with existing design
criteria for falsework bracing
8.3.3.2 Concept of effective length
8.3.3.3 Minimum axial stiffness and
forces in braces that reduce the
effective length shores
8.3.3.4 Brace connection behaviour
8.3.3.5 Brace axial stiffness
8.3.3.6 Plan bracing (diagonal bracing
in the horizontal plane)
8.3.4 Falsework base plates and screw jacks
8.3.4.1 Eccentricity
8.3.4.2 Detrimental effect of eccentric
loads or reactions
8.3.4.3 Minimum eccentricity
8.3.4.4 Rotational stiffness
8.3.5 Spigot connections
8.3.5.1 Eccentricity
8.3.5.2 Angular change at joints
8.3.5.3 Structural model
8.3.6 Out-of-straight compression members
8.3.7 Differential settlement
and axial shortening
8.3.7.1 Differential settlement
8.3.7.2 Different axial shortening
8.3.8 Knee buckling
8.4 Analysing falsework structures
8.4.1 Structural models
8.4.2 Calculating falsework member capacity
8.4.2.1 End eccentricity and member
out-of-straightness
8.4.2.2 Example
8.4.3 Falsework member column
effective length
8.4.3.1 Estimates of column effective
length in sway frames
8.4.4 Falsework frame buckling
9 Stripping criteria
9.1 Introduction
viii
Formwork Handbook
00 – Prelims.indd viii
9.2 Methods for stripping horizontal forms
9.2.1 Single-stage stripping
9.2.2 Two-stage stripping
9.3 Minimum stripping times
9.3.1 Development of concrete
strength with age
9.3.2 Minimum stripping times
for vertical forms
9.3.3 Minimum stripping times for horizontal
forms and removal of shores
9.4 Calculating the minimum early-age
strength for stripping
9.4.1 Stripping the forms only
9.4.2 Stripping formwork supports under
reinforced concrete
9.4.3 Stripping formwork supports under
prestressed concrete
9.5 Assessment of concrete strength at early age
9.5.1 AS 3600
9.5.2 Other methods of assessing early-age
compressive strength
10 Multistorey shoring
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 Significance of multistorey
shoring design
10.1.2 Current design guidance in Australian
Standards
10.1.2.1 AS 3600:2009
10.1.2.2 AS 3610:1995
10.1.3 Guidance provided in the literature
10.1.3.1 Problems with past practice
10.1.3.2 Recent guidance predicting
load distribution
10.1.4 Guidance provided herein
10.2 Factors influencing the design
of multistorey shoring
10.2.1 Method and sequence of
stripping and shoring
10.2.1.1 Reshoring
10.2.1.2 Undisturbed shoring
10.2.2 Flexural stiffness of each floor at time
of loading
10.2.2.1 Effective second
moment of area
10.2.2.2 Concrete modulus
of elasticity
10.2.2.3 Span and support
conditions
10.2.3 Effective axial stiffness of shores
10.2.3.1 Single shore
10.2.3.2 Multiple shores
10.2.4 Preload in multistorey shores
10.2.5 Construction loads
10.2.5.1 Imposed construction load
10.2.6 In-service design floor load
10.2.7 Floor construction cycle time
12/09/2016 8:14 am
 10.2.8 Other factors Figure 4.1 Formwork and falsework design actions
10.2.8.1 Concrete creep Figure 4.2 Typical construction activity during concrete
10.2.8.2 Ambient temperature placement (Stage 2)
change
Figure 4.3 Stacked materials (Stage 1)
10.3 Methods for calculation load
distribution in multistorey shoring Figure 4.4 Stacked materials and equipment
10.3.1 Relative stiffness method (Stage 3)
10.3.1.1 One level of multistorey Figure 4.5 Horizontal actions from construction activity
shores on formwork of a 20 m x 10 m concrete slab
10.3.1.2 Two levels of multistorey
Figure 4.6 Impact from moving crane load
shores
10.3.1.3 Three levels of multistorey Figure 4.7 Impact from moving crane load
shores Figure 4.8 Impact from moving vehicle
10.3.1.4 Four levels of multistorey
Figure 4.9 Notional loads required to take account of
shores
initial out-of-plumb erection
10.3.2 Slab shore interaction method
10.3.3 Finite element analysis Figure 4.10 Notional forces to ensure braces have the
minimum brace strength andμ stiffness
10.4 Analysis methods for reshores
vs undisturbed shores Figure 4.11 Notional horizontal actions to ensure minimum
10.4.1 General levels of structural integrity
10.4.1.1 Floor numbering Figure 5.1 Comparison between measured and
10.4.2 Reshoring calculated pressures
10.4.3 Undisturbed shoring Figure 5.2 Concrete pressure envelope
10.5 Special situations to consider
Figure 5.3 Influence of rate of rise on concrete pressure
10.5.1 Unloaded multistorey shores
in walls
10.5.2 Onset of cracking
10.5.3 Foundations – settlement Figure 5.4 Influence of rate of rise on concrete pressure
10.5.4 Props not directly over each other in columns
10.5.5 Shores at the centre of the slab carry Figure 5.5 Influence of coefficient C2 on concrete
more load than those closer to the pressure in walls
supports Figure 5.6 Influence of concrete temperature on concrete
10.6 Acceptance criteria for early-age loading pressure in walls
10.6.1 Uncertainty
Figure 5.7 Measuring vertical form height of concrete
10.6.2 Serviceability limit states
discharge height
10.6.3 Ultimate limit states
10.6.4 Acceptable overload Figure 5.8 Influence of vertical form height on concrete
pressure in walls
11 Concrete finishes: Identification of defects
Figure 5.9 Concrete placed in layers
11.1 Introduction
Figure 5.10 Vertical construction joints introduced to
11.2 Blowholes reduce the area of concrete to be placed
11.3 Face steps
Figure 5.11 Concrete placed to full height over a shorter
11.4 Honeycombing
distance to avoid cold joints
11.5 Debris contamination
11.6 Other common defects Figure 5.12 Lateral concrete pressure distribution on
vertical formwork
Figures Figure 5.13 Hydrostatic concrete pressure distribution on
Figure 1.1 Soffit formwork includes soffit forms and an inclined soffit or lower surface
supporting falsework Figure 5.14 Vector components of hydrostatic concrete
Figure 1.2 Wall formwork pressure distribution on an inclined soffit

Figure 1.3 Falsework Figure 5.15 Hydrostatic concrete pressure distribution on

an inclined top or upper surface
Figure 3.1 Probability distributions for design action
effects and design resistance Figure 5.16 Vector components of hydrostatic concrete
pressure distribution on an inclined top or
Figure 3.2 Cumulative deflections upper surface
Figure 3.3 Measuring surface undulations Figure 5.17 Incorrect concrete pressure distribution
Figure 3.4 Impact damage but not failure (limited by setting) on an inclined soffit or
lower surface

ix
Formwork Handbook

00 – Prelims.indd ix 12/09/2016 8:14 am

 Figure 5.18 Component concrete pressure distribution Figure 7.13 Examples of discontinuous soffit formwork
limited by setting on an inclined soffit or lower where horizontal forces from lateral concrete
surface pressure are transferred to the falsework
Figure 5.19 Correct concrete pressure distribution limited Figure 7.14 Examples of horizontal forces being
by setting on an inclined soffit or lower transferred to falsework , when concrete
surface is cast on formwork adjacent to but not
connected to an existing structure
Figure 5.20 Concrete pressure distribution limited by
setting on an inclined top or upper form Figure 8.1 Unrestrained or freestanding falsework
Figure 5.21 Component concrete pressure distribution Figure 8.2 Top restrained falsework
limited by setting on an inclined top or upper
Figure 8.3 Intermediate restraint
form
Figure 8.4 Designation for the load paths required to
Figure 6.1 Wall formwork with secondary horizontal
provide full lateral and rotational restraint
walers and primary vertical soldiers
Figure 8.5 Differing levels of top restraint provided by
Figure 6.2 Wall formwork with secondary vertical studs
surrounding walls
and primary horizontal walers
Figure 8.6 Differing levels of top restraint provided by
Figure 6.3 Load distribution through side formwork
columns
Figure 6.4 Double sided wall formwork
Figure 8.7 Freestanding falsework with sway and fully
(bracing not shown)
braced members
Figure 6.5 Single sided wall formwork
Figure 8.8 Freestanding falsework with
Figure 6.6 Common types of form ties multiple column bracing
Figure 6.7 Form ties balance concrete pressure on Figure 8.9 Freestanding falsework
double sided formwork with fully braced members
Figure 6.8 Form ties balance concrete pressure on Figure 8.10 Top restrained and fully braced falsework
double-sided inclined formwork
Figure 8.11 Effective length factors for members with
Figure 6.9 Out of balance effects when opposing side idealised end restraints
forms are not parallel
Figure 8.12 Braced column with an initial out-of-
Figure 6.10 Out-of-balance effects on inclined and tapered straightness imperfection o
wall formwork
Figure 8.13 A series of parallel out-of-straight columns
Figure 6.11 Action effects on single sided formwork restrained by a line of bracing
Figure 6.12 Imposed and notional actions on side Figure 8.14 Brace stiffness multiplier for a series of
formwork parallel 48.3CHS4.0 columns 3 metres long
and restrained by a line of bracing at mid
Figure 6.13 Bracing for accidental impact
point
Figure 7.1 Simple suspended slab formwork
Figure 8.15 Single column braced at multiple points along
Figure 7.2 Load distribution through soffit formwork its length
(when viewed from underneath)
Figure 8.16 Typical horizontal brace (ledger) to column
Figure 7.3 Line or point loads that arise from stacked (standard or shore) connection
materials during Stage I
Figure 8.17 Hysteresis loops for horizontal brace to
Figure 7.4 Adverse partial loading of multiple span column connection
bearer
Figure 8.18 Scaffold tube double coupler
Figure 7.5 Importance of direction of pour
Figure 8.19 Scaffold tube swivel coupler
Figure 7.6 Point loads from secondary beams (joists)
Figure 8.20 An example of eccentric end
acting on the primary beam (bearer)
connection of a diagonal brace
Figure 7.7 Narrow timber beams required lateral restraint
Figure 8.21 Examples of eccentric loading
Figure 7.8 Coefficients for beam action effects
Figure 8.22 Examples of irregular or variable stiffness
Figure 7.9 Concrete and formwork held at rest on a bearing surfaces
sloping soffit by friction
Figure 8.23 Example of eccentric reaction
Figure 7.10 Action effects on sloping soffit formwork
Figure 8.24 Column strength curves for eccentrically
Figure 7.11 Destabilising and stabilising action effects on loaded shore in “new” condition
joists running across the slope
Figure 8.25 Illustrations of eccentricities of actions and
Figure 7.12 Concrete held at rest on a sloping soffit by reactions
friction, with out-of-vertical falsework

x
Formwork Handbook

00 – Prelims.indd x 12/09/2016 8:14 am

 Figure 8.26 Effects of eccentric actions can be more Figure 10.4 Multistorey shoring with one floor of formwork
severe in one direction and two floors of reshores
Figure 8.27 Falsework failure at a spigot Figure 10.5 Multistorey shoring with three floors of
joint during testing “undisturbed” formwork
Figure 8.28 Examples of good and bad practice in loading Figure 10.6 Idealised model of one floor of formwork and
connections in compression members two floors of multistorey shoring
Figure 8.29 Eccentricities arise at spigot joints Figure 10.7 One level of formwork and three levels of
reshores all on a 5 x 7 grid
Figure 8.30 Angular imperfections at joints
Figure 10.8 As per Figure 10.7 except the lower two floors
Figure 8.31 Spigot structural model
of reshores are on a 5 x 4 grid
Figure 8.32 Initially out-of-straight slender
Figure 10.9 Different multistorey shoring load situations
compression members
Figure 10.10 One level of multistorey shoring
Figure 8.33 Column strength curves for shores complying
with the different out-of-straightness Figure 10.11 Two levels of multistorey shoring
tolerances permitted in AS 4100 and AS
Figure 10.12 Three levels of multistorey shoring
3610:1995
Figure 10.13 Four levels of multistorey shoring
Figure 8.34 Differential settlement due to the presence of
concrete foundations Figure 10.14 The layout of formwork shores and multistorey
shores differ from floor to floor
Figure 8.35 Load distribution due to beam flexural
stiffness Figure 10.15 Slab deflections under staged construction
loads from multistorey shoring
Figure 8.36 Load redistribution due to differential axial
shortening Figure 10.16 Idealised model with both the top and
intermediate floor loadings
Figure 8.37 Euler buckling and knee buckling
Figure 10.17 Idealised model of stripping the lowest level of
Figure 8.38 Knee buckling of formwork frames with
“undisturbed” multistorey shoring
extended screw jacks
Figure 11.1 Acceptable blowholes
Figure 8.39 Non-uniform deformation of timber loaded at
right angles to the grain Figure 11.2 Face step reduced by grinding
Figure 8.40 Models for Euler and knee buckling Figure 11.3 Acceptable quality repair of face steps
Figure 8.41 An eccentrically loaded pin-ended strut Figure 11.4 Acceptable quality repair of face steps
Figure 8.42 Effective length of members in top restrained Figure 11.5 Measuring face steps
frames with central pinned bracing Figure 11.6 Honeycombing along the bottom
Figure 8.43 Effective length of members in top restrained edge of a concrete beam
frames with pinned bracing at the base Figure 11.7 Poor compaction with board finish
Figure 8.44 Effective length of members in free standing Figure 11.8 Debris left when formwork not cleaned
frames with central pinned bracing
Figure 11.9 Rust stains left on the forms
Figure 8.45 Effective length of members in free standing
frames with pinned bracing at the base Figure 11.10 Concrete surface damaged after removal of
the forms
Figure 8.46 Effective length of members in free standing
frames with pinned bracing Figure 11.11 Concrete surface contaminated after removal
of the forms
Figure 9.1 Single-stage stripping
Figure 11.12 Concrete surface stains
Figure 9.2 Two-stage stripping leaving undisturbed
shores Figure 11.13 Dirty faces of wall forms result on
objectionable appearance
Figure 9.3 Two-stage stripping by backpropping
Figure 11.14 Poor formwork sealing results in objectionable
Figure 9.4 Typical development of concrete strength with appearance
age
Figure 9.5 Typical compressive strength development of Tables
Portland cement Table 2.1 Key participants and their roles or
responsibilities
Figure 10.1 Example of multistorey shoring with one floor
of formwork and three floors of shores Table 2.2 Appropriate levels of obligation and
competence for different levels of risk
Figure 10.2 Indicative discrepancy in load distribution
Table 3.1 Acceptable form face deformations and
Figure 10.3 Example of “thinning” multistorey shoring
surface undulations

xi
Formwork Handbook

00 – Prelims.indd xi 12/09/2016 8:14 am

 Table 3.2 Acceptable surface undulations expressed as Table 9.4 Minimum times for stripping of forms between
span to deflection ratios undisturbed shores
Table 3.3 Recommended serviceability limits for Table 9.5 Minimum times before removal of supports
formwork member deflection not supporting structures above
Table 3.4 Applicable Standards for various materials Table 10.1 Loads in multistorey shoring taking account of
used in formwork shore axial stiffness and layout
Table 4.1 Stages of formwork construction Table 10.2 Axial stiffness of each level of shores relative
to the 28-day slab flexural stiffness
Table 4.2 Annual probabilities of exceedence for
ultimate limit states events
Appendices
Table 4.3 Ultimate limit states regional
wind speeds, m/s
A Formwork importance
Table 4.4 Duration of load factor (k1) for strength A.1 Level of risk
Table 5.1 Values of coefficient C2
B Coefficients of static friction
Table 5.2 Factors affecting concrete pressure B.1 Introduction
Table 8.1 Values for the factor in Equation 8.8
C Recommended reading
Table 9.1 Early-age mean strengths for normal-class C.1 Introduction
concrete
Table A.1 Level of risk for formwork in different
Table 9.2 Minimum compressive strength of concrete
situations
for stripping vertical forms
Table B.1 Nominal design coefficient of static friction μ
Table 9.3 Minimum strength and curing requirements
for use in limit states design
for concrete

xii
Formwork Handbook

00 – Prelims.indd xii 12/09/2016 8:14 am

 1 Soffit forms for slabs and beams are supported
Introduction
1.1 FORMWORK AND FALSEWORK
During construction, formwork supports and
acts as a mould for wet concrete. Formwork is often
referred to as “temporary works” although, some
formwork or part thereof, may remain part of the
permanent structure.
The term “formwork” describes both the forms
directly in contact with concrete and a supporting
structure of braces and form ties, and where
appropriate falsework. Part of the formwork may also
act as a temporary platform or scaffold; i.e. provide
access, a working platform or an area of formwork
designated for loading or storing materials, plant and
equipment.
Figure 1.1: Soffit formwork includes soffit forms and supporting falsework
01 - Intro.indd 1:1
by falsework, see Figure 1.1.
Side forms for concrete walls, columns, slabs,
beams and foundations are supported by bracing and
often form ties in tension are used to balance concrete
pressure, see Figure 1.2.
The term “falsework” refers to temporary
structures used to support not only formwork, but also
parts of the permanent structure until they become self-
supporting, see Figure 1.3.
1.2 FORMWORK IMPORTANCE
Formwork is important because it has a
major impact on the quality, cost and time to build
concrete structures. In addition, its sound design
and construction is essential to ensure safety during
construction.
A high-quality off-form concrete surface finish,
especially where colour control is specified, can only
1:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 9:08 am
 Figure 1.2: Wall formwork

the schedule to construct any concrete structure.

Formwork is a heavily-loaded structure whose
reliable performance is critical to safety.
The level of effort and rigour applied to formwork
design and construction should reflect the importance
of formwork, specifically the risk and consequence of
failure.

1.3 FORMWORK DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

In Australia, requirements for the design and
construction of formwork are set out in AS 3610:1995
Formwork for concrete (SA 1995), including Amendment
No 1 (January 2003), and AS 3610.1:2010 Formwork
for concrete Part 1: Documentation and surface finish
(SA 2010). AS 3610.1:2010 supersedes only part of AS
3610:1995, specifically: only Sections 2 and 3, Clause
4.7 and Section 5 of AS 3610:1995. Until AS 3610.2
Figure 1.3: Falsework
is published (which appears unlikely to occur in the
near future), the requirements for formwork design and
be achieved with extreme care, careful planning and
testing set out in AS 3610:1995 Sections 4 (except for
design, as well as a high level of workmanship. The
Clause 4.7) and Appendix A still apply.
quality of formwork is also important in achieving
Since they first appeared in AS 3610:1990, only
durable concrete and nearly all formwork must be
minor amendments have been made to the requirements
dimensionally correct within relatively small tolerances.
for design and testing set out in AS 3610:1995. Some
Formwork is the major cost component of in-situ
requirements are now out-of-date.
concrete and labour is the major cost component of
The purpose of this Handbook is to provide
formwork. The cost of formwork labour alone will often
up-to-date guidance on formwork design that fulfils the
exceed the sum of all other concrete cost components;
requirements of AS 3610.1:2010 and AS 3610:1995. The
i.e. formwork material, reinforcement supply and fixing,
Handbook expands on the content of the Standards
as well as concrete supply and placing.
that pertain to formwork design and documentation and
Formwork is nearly always on the critical path of

1:2
Formwork Handbook

01 - Intro.indd 1:2 12/09/2016 9:08 am

 also provides background information.
The design methods set out in the Handbook
comply with the requirements and methods, as well
as, where possible, the notation set out in the latest
Australian material and design Standards. In addition,
the design guidance herein follows the limit states
design philosophy and general principles set out in
ISO 2394:1998, General principles on reliability for
structures (ISO 1998) and AS 1170.0:2002 Structural
design actions Part 0: General principles (SA 2002).
Much of the information presented is sourced
from the recommendations and information provided in
the literature, authoritative references and other national
Standards. Where necessary, the information has been
adapted to comply with Australian Standards and
practice.
1.4 SCOPE
The primary focus of the Handbook is to
provide guidance in areas of formwork design critical
to safety. Accordingly, the scope of the Handbook has
been limited to addressing: design and construction
procedures; general design requirements; design
actions, combinations and their application to side and
soffit formwork; falsework design; and stripping and
multistorey shoring.
Information is also provided on identifying
defects in the surface finish of formed concrete.
In addition to updating the content provided in
Section 4 of AS 3610:1995, the Handbook introduces
concepts not covered in the Standards and information
on the application, specifically:
■ Chapter 2 focuses on addressing shortcomings
in procedural adequacies, which researchers
agree lead to failure and collapse. The Chapter
introduces the concept of a “formwork
coordinator” who is responsible to manage and
coordinate formwork design and construction.
Another important aspect covered is the
preparation of a formwork brief that sets out
the requirements of the formwork design.
The Chapter also sets out the roles and
responsibilities of, as well as the documentation
required from, all those involved, including:
the project designer, construction contractor,
formwork supplier, formwork designer, formwork
checker, formwork contractor, formwork
supervisor and formwork inspector.
01 - Intro.indd 1:3
■ Chapter 3 sets out general formwork design
requirements that must be satisfied. In particular,
the Chapter sets out the basic requirements to
satisfy serviceability, stability and strength limit
states, as well as the need to provide minimum
levels of structural integrity. Complicated
requirements in AS 3610.1:2010 pertaining to
acceptable surface deformations are translated
into easy to use formwork member span-
deflection ratios to satisfy serviceability limit
states.
■ Chapter 4 covers actions and action
combinations. The Chapter includes practical
changes to the magnitude and application
of loads for concrete mounding and stacked
materials. It also introduces the concept of
notional loads, specifically: to address the
effects of permitted initial out-of-straightness;
to take account of the forces and minimum
stiffness required in braces that reduce the
effective length of compression members; and
to provide for a minimum level of structural
integrity. Chapter 4 introduces the concept of
different levels of risk for formwork and how
these can be used to determine the magnitude
of environmental actions.
Chapter 4 also specifies action combinations
for limit states design that are consistent with
AS 1170.0 and in a new format that lists vertical
and horizontal action combinations separately.
This is intended to avoid confusion, assist in
identifying critical combinations and emphasise
the importance of horizontal loads, which are
too often underestimated or neglected. The
magnitude of the global load factor for primary
members introduced in Amendment No 1 to AS
3610:1995 (SA 2003) has been re-calibrated to
the new action combinations.
■ Chapter 5 covers concrete pressure calculated
using the formula in CIRIA Report No 108, which
was adopted in AS 3610:1995. The values for
the coefficient for the effect of concrete cement
and admixtures (C2) have been updated to
include for silica fume and self-compacting
concrete. The Chapter includes an extensive
discussion on the factors that influence concrete
pressure.
Chapter 5 also provides guidance on the statics
1:3
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 9:08 am
 of concrete pressure and methods of simplifying
concrete pressure distributions for inclined side
or sloping soffit or top formwork.
■ Chapter 6 provides a basic introduction to
design of side formwork and bracing side
formwork, for both single and double-sided
forms. It also provides guidance on identifying
situations where the concrete pressure is out-of-
balance and requires careful attention to bracing
details and load paths.
■ Chapter 7 provides a basic introduction to the
design of soffit formwork, in particular: loads,
loading patterns, issues associated with sloping
soffit formwork, unbalanced concrete pressure
and discontinuous soffit formwork.
■ Chapter 8 presents and discusses the
fundamental aspects related to the design of
formwork falsework, namely: falsework design
actions; falsework restraint; the difference
between sway and fully braced frames;
requirements for falsework bracing; and the
influence of effective brace axial stiffness,
connection behaviour, eccentricity, member
out-straightness, differential settlement and axial
shortening.
Chapter 8 also provides guidance on analysing
falsework, as well as on estimating member
effective lengths, calculating member capacity
and frame buckling.
■ Chapter 9 provides guidance on the stripping
criteria for vertical and horizontal formwork.
The Chapter also introduces different methods
of stripping horizontal formwork and presents
methods for calculating the minimum early-age
concrete strength for stripping.
■ Chapter 10 discusses the guidance provided
in the literature, past practice and factors
influencing the design of multistorey shoring.
Three methods for calculating load distribution
in multistorey shoring are presented. Different
methods for analysing reshores and undisturbed
shores are explained and the Chapter focuses
attention on special situations to consider.
Guidance on acceptance criteria for early-age
loading of concrete slabs is also provided.
■ Chapter 11 presents a series of photographs
of concrete surface finish defects commonly
encountered and provides commentary on the
1:4
Formwork Handbook
01 - Intro.indd 1:4
cause and possible repair.
■ Appendix A provides guidance on assessing
formwork importance based on consequence of
failure.
■ Appendix B provides a table of coefficients
of static friction for a range of commonly
encountered materials for using in limit states
design.
■ Appendix C provides a list of recommended
reading for those seeking to increase their
knowledge of formwork design.
The Handbook is not intended to be a stand-
alone reference. It provides information fundamental
to formwork design and construction of commonly
encountered concrete elements. To obtain a
broad understanding about formwork design and
construction, the reader’s attention is drawn to the cited
literature referenced at the end of each Chapter and the
recommended reading referenced in Appendix C. For
specialist information relating to particular proprietary
equipment and products, readers should consult the
supplier proprietary documentation, method statements
and safety reports. Readers should also be familiar with
the requirements of relevant Work Health and Safety
Regulations and Codes of Practice that pertain to
formwork design and construction.
1.5 APPLICATION
The Handbook is intended to be a useful
reference for practising and student engineers,
project designers, construction contractors, formwork
contractors, formwork designers, formwork suppliers,
formwork checkers and formwork inspectors.
Despite focusing on formwork, many of the
concepts presented herein equally apply, and could be
adapted, to the design of other temporary structures,
including: falsework for other than formwork and
scaffolding.
1.6 GLOSSARY
Action
Load.
Action effect
Deformation, shear force, bending moment, axial force
or torsion in a member, component or connection
under load.
12/09/2016 9:08 am
 Backprops (backpropping)
Shores installed under a suspended slab or beam, as
part of the formwork stripping process, in a manner
that transfers the load in the formwork shores being
removed to the backprops without any additional stress
in the suspended slab or beam.
Braces (bracing)
Horizontal and diagonal components required to align,
support and stabilise formwork and falsework.
Construction documentation
Documents that set out details of the overall
construction: method, schedule, equipment and
logistics.
Falsework
A temporary structure used to support construction
loads (e.g. soffit forms or parts of the permanent
structure until they are self-supporting).
Form (soffit, side, sloping or top)
Part of the formwork directly in contact with the
concrete, which typically consists of a form face
and supporting framework of beams, which may be
prefabricated as a single component (e.g. form panel)
or comprise an assembly of a form face sheet (e.g.
plywood or steel), grillage of secondary and primary
beams.
Form tie
Tension member used to balance the concrete pressure
on opposing forms.
Formwork
Formwork is a structure, usually temporary, erected
to support and mould cast-in-situ concrete until it
becomes self-supporting. It consists of forms and,
where appropriate, form braces, form ties and falsework
(SA 2010).
Formwork design documentation
Documents (e.g. calculations, drawings, sketches,
specifications, brochures, risk assessment, method
statements and instructions) that set out details of
the formwork, including design details, components,
arrangements, safe work methods and safety hazards.
Gangform
A large prefabricated form or form assembly used and
handled as a single form (i.e. not dismantled after each
use), usually built for forming walls.
Importance level
A structural category used to ensure the level of
reliability is appropriate to the level of risk.
01 - Intro.indd 1:5
Level of risk
A framework for categorising risk based on the
consequence of failure.
Multistorey shoring
Undisturbed shores or reshores that support floors, as
well as permit the transfer and sharing of construction
loads between the floors they connect, during the
construction of multistorey structures.
Permanent forms
Part of the permanent structure that acts as formwork.
Project documentation
Documents (e.g. drawings, specifications and
associated documents) that set out information required
to construct the project.
Proprietary documentation
Documents (e.g. brochures, catalogues, drawings and
specifications) that set out information required for
proprietary equipment.
Proprietary equipment
Multiple-use or mass produced construction
components, equipment and plant available for sale or
hire (e.g. prefabricated or manufactured formwork and
falsework components, cranes, hoists and concrete
pumps).
Reshores
Shores installed under a self-supporting suspended
slab or beam; i.e. after removing all the formwork.
Screw jacks (‘U’ head and base)
Threaded falsework components that connect to the
top and bottom of shores. They provide a bearing
surface and height adjustment and permit formwork
stripping.
Shores (props, supports or standards)
Falsework components, usually vertical but may be
inclined, that act as columns (or struts).
Soffit formwork (soffit forms)
Formwork or forms for the underside of concrete
elements; e.g. slabs, beams, and stairs.
Soleboards (soleplates)
Falsework components used as “temporary footings”
to spread the load from shores and reduce the bearing
pressure on the foundation material.
Tableform
A formwork assembly used and handled as a single
form (i.e. not dismantled after each use), usually built for
forming suspended slabs and beams.
1:5
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 9:08 am
 Undisturbed shores E = Young’s modulus of elasticity
Formwork shores left in place and untouched under a (see Section 8.3.3.2)
suspended slab or beam. E = action effects (see Section 3.2.1)
Ecj = mean modulus of elasticity of the concrete
1.7 NOTATION at the relevant age (see Section 10.2.2)
Ed = design action effect (see Section 3.2.3 and
To avoid confusion, the notation adopted herein
4.3.2)
often varies from that used in the source document.
A = member cross-sectional area (see Section
Ed,dst = design action effect from destabilising
actions (see Sections 3.2.2 and 4.3.2)
8.3.3.5)
Ac = plan area of the concrete element to be
Ed,stb = design action effect from stabilising actions
(see Section 3.2.2 and 4.3.2)
cast (see Section 5.3)
Af = bearing area of the forms or other material
Edh = design action effect from the combined
horizontal actions (see Section 4.3.2.2)
(see Section 10.2.3.1)
Ah = accidental horizontal actions (see Section
Edh,dst = design action effect from destabilising
horizontal actions (see Section 4.3.2.1)
4.2.5.2)
An = net area of the cross-section (see Sections
Edv = design action effect from the combined
vertical actions (see Section 4.3.2.2)
3.2.4.2 and 8.4.2.1)
As = cross-sectional area of the shore (see
Edv,dst = design action effect from destabilising
vertical actions (see Section 4.3.2.1)
Section 10.2.3.1)
Ast = cross-sectional area of longitudinal tensile
Ef = modulus of elasticity of the forms or other
material (see Section 10.2.3.1)
steel reinforcement (see Section 10.2.2.1)
Av = accidental vertical actions (see Section
En = nominal action effect (see Section 3.2.1)
Es = modulus of elasticity of the shore material
4.2.5.1)
(see Section 10.2.3.1)
a = surface undulation reading
Esh = serviceability action effect from horizontal
(see Section 3.2.4.1)
actions (see Section 4.3.1.1)
an = brace stiffness multiplier given in Figure 8.14
Es.max = maximum action effect satisfying
(see Section 8.3.3.3)
serviceability limit states (see Section 3.2.5)
b = surface undulation reading (see Section
Esv = serviceability action effect from vertical
3.2.4.1)
actions (see Section 4.3.1.1)
b = width of a joist (see Section 7.5.3)
C1 = coefficient for the effect of size and shape
Eu = earthquake actions (see Section 4.2.4.4)
e = largest end eccentricity of the load or
of formwork (see Section 5.2.1)
reaction on a member (see Section 8.4.2.1)
C2 = coefficient for the effect of concrete cement
e’ = fixed eccentricity of the load or reaction on
and admixtures (see Section 5.2.1)
a member (see Section 8.3.4.3)
C3 = coefficient for the effect of concrete
e” = expected eccentricity of the load or reaction
temperature (see Section 5.2.1)
on a member (see Section 8.3.4.3)
cm = factor for unequal end bending moments
Fp = resultant force from concrete pressure
(see Section 8.4.2)
(see Section 5.4.1)
d1id = internal diameter of the outer member (see
f ’c = characteristic compressive (cylinder)
Section 8.3.5.2)
strength of concrete at 28 days
d2od = external diameter of the inner member (see
(see Section 9.4.1)
Section 8.3.5.2)
d = depth of a joist (see Section 7.5.3)
f ’ ce = early-age characteristic compressive
strength of concrete (see Section 9.4.1)
dc = overall depth of the concrete section (see
f ’cf = characteristic flexural tensile strength of the
Section 9.3.2)
concrete, in MPa (see Section 9.4.1)
df = diameter of bolt or pin (see Section 3.2.4.2)
dl = thickness of the concrete layer
fcm = mean grade strength of all results for the
grade (see Sections 9.4.1 and 9.5.1)
(see Section 5.3.3)

1:6
Formwork Handbook

01 - Intro.indd 1:6 12/09/2016 9:08 am

 fcmi = mean in situ compressive strength of
concrete at the relevant age
(see Section 10.2.2.2)
fy = yield stress used in design
(see Sections 3.2.4.2 and 8.4.2.1)
Gc = weight of concrete (see Section 4.2.1.2)
Gf = weight of formwork (see Section 4.2.1.1)
Gser = permanent actions for services, partitions,
ceilings, floor treatments etc
(see Section 9.4.2)
g = gravity (see Section 5.2)
h = depth below the top of the concrete
(see Section 5.2)
hc = depth of concrete pour (see Section 5.2)
hf = vertical form height (see Section 5.2)
hh = maximum depth of hydrostatic pressure
(see Section 5.2)
hp = height of centre of pressure above the
bottom of the form (see Section 5.4.1)
I = second moment of area of the cross
section (see Section 8.3.3.2)
I = second moment of area of the uncracked
concrete section about the centroidal axis
(see Section 10.2.2.1)
Icr = second moment of area of a cracked
section with the reinforcement transformed
to an equivalent area of concrete
(see Section 10.2.2.1)
Ief = effective second moment of area of the
concrete section (see Section 10.2.2)
K12 = relative stiffness term for slab 1 to 2
(see Section 10.3.1)
K 23 = relative stiffness term for slab 2 to 3
(see Section 10.3.1)
K34 = relative stiffness term for slab 3 to 4
(see Section 10.3.1)
K45 = relative stiffness term for slab 4 to 5
(see Section 10.3.1)
k = brace minimum axial stiffness
(see Section 8.3.3.2)
k1 = duration of load factor for timber
(see Section 4.3.2.4)
kc = assessment factor determined from the
number of controlled grade samples
(see Section 9.5.1)
ke = member effective length factor (see
Sections 8.3.3.2 and 8.4.3)
kn = minimum axial stiffness of a brace number
n (see Section 8.3.3.3)
01 - Intro.indd 1:7
LSD = limit states divisor (see Section 3.2.5)
l = the span between formwork shores (see
Section 9.3.2)
l = member length (see Sections 8.3.3.2
and 8.4.2)
l = straight edge length as a span (see Section
3.2.4.1)
l2lap = length the inner member laps inside the
outer member (see Section 8.3.5.2)
lc = concrete slab span (see Section 10.2.2)
lf = thickness of the form or other material (see
Section 10.2.3.1)
ls = length of the shore (see Section 10.2.3.1)
M = maximum bending moment of a beam (see
Section 7.4.3)
Mcr = bending moment causing cracking of the
section (see Section 10.2.2.1)
Md = design bending moment
(see Sections 8.4.2 and 9.4.1)
Mds = maximum bending moment at the section
(see Section 10.2.2.1)
Md,dst = design moment from forces causing
overturning (see Section 3.2.2)
Md,stb = design moment from forces that have a
stabilising effect (see Section 3.2.2)
Mn = nominal moment capacity
(see Section 3.2.2)
Ms = nominal section moment capacity
(see Section 8.4.2)
Muo = ultimate strength in bending, without axial
force, at a cross-section (see Section 9.4.1)
m = number of spans (see Section 8.3.3.3)
N1 = notional horizontal action for initial out-of-
plumb erection (see Section 4.2.6.1)
N2 = notional horizontal action for braces (see
Section 4.2.6.2)
N3 = notional horizontal action to ensure a
minimum level of structural integrity
(see Section 4.2.6.3)
Nbs = design ply bearing force at serviceability
limit states (see Section 3.2.4.2)
Nc = nominal member axial compression
capacity (see Section 8.4.2)
Nc(kel) = Nc as a function of the member effective
length (see Section 8.4.2)
Nc(l) = Nc as a function of the member length
(see Section 8.4.2)
Nd = design axial compression force in a
member (see Section 8.4.2)
1:7
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 9:08 am
 Nomb = elastic flexural buckling load of a braced
member (see Section 8.3.3.2)
Nomb(kel) = Nomb as a function of a member
effective length (see Section 8.3.3.2)
Nomb(l) = Nomb as a function of a member length
(see Section 8.3.3.2)
Np = axial load in a multistorey shore
(see Section 10.3.2)
Ns = design axial force at serviceability limit
states (see Section 3.2.4.2)
Ns = nominal section axial compression
capacity (see Section 8.4.2)
n = number of connected parallel columns
(see Section 8.3.3.3)
Pch = horizontal concrete pressure acting
on a vertical surface or the horizontal
component from concrete pressure
acting on an inclined surface
(see Section 4.3.1.1)
Pcv = vertical concrete pressure acting on
a horizontal surface or the vertical
component from concrete pressure
acting on an inclined surface
(see Section 4.3.1.1)
Pcx’ = component of concrete pressure limited
by setting normal to an inclined form
(see Section 5.4.2.2)
Pcy’ = component of concrete pressure limited
by setting in the plane of an inclined
form (see Section 5.4.2.2)
pF = probability of failure (see Section 3.2.1)
Qah = horizontal action from construction
activity (see Section 4.2.3)
Q gh = horizontal action on guardrails
(see Section 4.2.3)
Q gv = vertical action on guardrails
(see Section 4.2.3)
Qh = combined effect of horizontal variable
actions (see Section 4.2.3)
Qm = vertical action from stacked materials
and equipment (see Section 4.2.3)
Qser = occupancy live load (see Section 9.4.2)
Qv = combined effect of vertical variable
actions (see Section 4.2.3)
Qw = vertical actions from workmen and
equipment (see Section 4.2.3)
Qxh = other horizontal actions
(see Section 4.2.3)
1:8
Formwork Handbook
01 - Intro.indd 1:8
Qxv = other vertical actions (see Section 4.2.3)
R = maximum reaction (see Section 7.4.3)
R = resistance (see Section 3.2.1)
Rc = vertical rate of concrete rise
(see Section 5.2)
Rd = design resistance or capacity (φRn)
(see Sections 3.2.2 and 7.5.2)
Rh = minimum rate of rise for full height
hydrostatic pressure (see Section 5.3.1)
Rn = nominal resistance (see Section 3.2.1)
S = member axial stiffness (see Section 8.3.3.5)
Sc = elastic flexural stiffness of a concrete slab
(see Section 10.2.2)
Sf = axial stiffness of any formwork or packing
(see Section 10.2.3.1)
Sp = effective axial stiffness of a single formwork
or multistorey shore (see Section 10.2.3.1)
Ss = axial stiffness of a shore
(see Section 10.2.3.1)
Ss = serviceability limit states snow and water
actions (see Sections 4.2.4.2 and 4.2.4.3)
Su = ultimate limit states snow and water actions
(see Sections 4.2.4.2 and 4.2.4.3)
Sx = plastic section modulus
(see Section 8.4.2.1)
s = standard deviation for the grade being
assessed (see Section 9.5.1)
T = average ambient temperature
(see Section 9.3.2)
T = floor cycle time in days (see Sections 10.1.3
and 10.2)
Tc = concrete temperature at placement (see
Section 5.2)
tc = setting time of the concrete (see Section
5.3.3)
tp = thickness of ply (see Section 3.2.4.2)
V = maximum shear force (see Section 7.4.3)
Vc = rate of concrete delivery (see Section 5.3)
W = unfactored construction load on the slab
(see Section 9.4.2)
W1 = construction load imposed on the top slab
to be shared by multistorey shoring (see
Section 10.2.3)
Wc = share of W1 transferred to each respective
concrete slab by the multistorey shores (see
Section 10.2.2)
Wd = design construction load on the slab (see
Section 9.4.2)
12/09/2016 9:08 am
 WLL = working load limit (see Section 3.2.5)
Wp = share of W1 carried by each respective
level of multistorey shoring (see Section
10.3.1.1)
Ws = serviceability limit states wind actions (see
Section 4.2.4.1)
Wser = unfactored design service load (see Section
9.4.2)
Wsh = horizontal serviceability limit states wind
action (see Section 4.3.1.2)
Wsv = vertical serviceability wind action
(see Section 4.3.1.2)
Wu = ultimate limit states wind action
(see Section 4.2.4.1)
Wult = strength limit states design service load
(see Section 9.4.2)
Wuh = horizontal ultimate limit states wind action
(see Section 4.3.2.1)
Wuv = vertical ultimate limit states wind action (see
Section 4.3.2.1)
w = uniformly distributed load (see Section 7.4.3)
Z = section modulus of the uncracked section
(see Section 9.4.1)
α = concrete pressure reduction factor
(see Section 5.4)
α = coefficient for simply supported beams (see
Section 7.4.3)
α = numerical factor which depends on the
number of spans (see Section 8.3.3.3)
β = reduction factor to take account of joint
behaviour (see Section 8.3.3.5)
βm = ratio of the smaller to the larger end
bending moments (see Section 8.4.2)
γ = partial load factor (see Section 3.2.1)
γd = strength load factor for primary members
(see Section 4.3.2.3)
γp = serviceability load factor for concrete
pressure (see Section 4.3.1.1)
δ = member deflection (see Sections 7.4.3 and
8.3.6)
δA = deflection of the slab supported by the
multistorey shore at the point where the
shore is located (see Section 10.3.2)
δB = deflection of the slab supporting the
multistorey shore at the point where the
shore is located (see Section 10.3.2)
δl = limiting value of the serviceability parameter
(see Section 3.2.4)
01 - Intro.indd 1:9
δo = initial member out-of-straightness
(see Section 8.3.6)
δs = design serviceability parameter (see Section
3.2.4)
η = section parameter (see Section 8.4.2.1)
λc = elastic buckling load factor of the whole
frame for fully braced falsework (see
Section 8.4.4)
λm = lowest buckling load factor for all
compression members for fully braced
falsework (see Section 8.4.4)
λms = elastic buckling load factors for each storey
for falsework that can sway (see Section
8.4.4)
μ = coefficient of static friction (see Sections
7.5.2 and B.1)
ξ = factor for the slab continuity and support
conditions (see Section 10.2.2)
ρ = wet density of concrete (see Section 5.2)
ΣWc = accumulated share of unfactored
multistorey construction loads (see Section
10.6.2)
φ = capacity reduction factor (see Sections
3.2.1, 3.2.4.2, 8.4.2, 9.4.1 and B.1)
φo = angular change at joints (see Section
8.3.5.2)
φp = capacity reduction factor for shore axial
stiffness (see Section 10.2.3.1)
REFERENCES
ISO (1998). ISO 2394:1998 General principles
on reliability for structures. Geneve, International
Organization for Standardization.
SA (1995). AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2002). AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural
design actions Part 0: General principles. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2003). Amendment No. 1 to AS 3610:1995
Formwork for concrete. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2010). AS 3610:2010 Formwork for concrete
Part 1: Documentation and surface finish. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
1:9
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 9:08 am
 2 (ii) To identify, assess and, where practicable,
Safe Formwork Design &
Construction (Procedures, roles,
responsibilities and requirements)
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Lessons learnt from past failures are often
useful to focus attention on what is important when
considering the procedures, roles, responsibilities and
requirements of those involved in formwork design and
construction. In this regard, studies into the cause of
construction failures agree “procedural inadequacies
enable flaws in the design and/or construction to go
undetected, which lead to failure and collapse” (Bragg
1975; Hadipriono and Wang 1986).
The types of procedural inadequacies
identified include: confusion of responsibilities among
participants; communication difficulties; inadequate
briefing of designers; the lack of design drawings
or inadequate drawings; inadequate checking of
designs (particularly those containing novel features);
unapproved modifications of the initial design; or failure
to inspect work prior to loading.
Although structural failure and catastrophic
collapse may pose one the greatest risks, other risks
and hazards also demand attention, such as: falling
from heights, strains from manual handling, crushing
by moving plant and equipment, injuries from falling
objects, trip and slip hazards, etc.
“Safe formwork design and construction”
is a simple process that involves consultation,
communication, and coordination among participants
to:
1. Specify project and construction requirements;
2. Prepare a formwork design brief;
3. Design and document the formwork;
4. Review, validate, check and certify the formwork
design;
5. Coordinate and supervise the formwork
construction; and
6. Inspect and certify the formwork construction.
The purpose of this process is many fold, including:
(a) Prior to construction:
(i) To enable selection of an appropriate
formwork system;
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:1
eliminate risk in the formwork design;
(iii) To identify, communicate, and make
recommendations on minimising risks
that have not been eliminated and remain
inherent in the formwork design;
(iv) To confirm the design fulfils the
requirements set out in the design brief;
and
(v) To identify and eliminate flaws in the
formwork design.
(b) During construction:
(i) To communicate the design details for
procurement and construction;
(ii) To identify, assess, and eliminate or,
otherwise, minimise new risks in the
formwork design;
(iii) To assess and eliminate or, otherwise,
minimise previously identified risks in the
formwork design; and
(iv) To identify and eliminate flaws in
construction.
2.1.1 Participants
It is useful to first define the terminology used
herein to describe the key participants in this process
and their responsibilities, see Table 2.1.
These definitions are intended to be generic and
are not intended to reflect any particular contractual
arrangement.
A participant may be an individual person or
organisation, or may refer to multiple persons and/
or organisations. For example, depending on the
context: the term “project designer” may refer to the
project architect or the project structural engineer; the
term “formwork designer” may refer to geotechnical
engineers or formwork engineers, where both
participate in and contribute to the formwork design; or
formwork components may be sourced from more than
one formwork supplier.
A person or organisation may participate in
more than one way. For example: an organisation may
manufacture and supply formwork components; the
organisation constructing the formwork may have also
designed the formwork; or the organisation responsible
for the architectural and structural design of the project
may also be responsible for the project construction.
Some projects may not involve all participants.
2:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 Table 2.1: Key participants and their roles or responsibilities
Participant Role or responsibility
Project designer Architectural and structural design of the project under construction
Construction contractor Construction of the project
Formwork coordinator Coordination of the formwork design and construction
Formwork manufacturer Manufacture of formwork material or components
Formwork supplier Supply of formwork material and components
Formwork designer Design of the formwork
Formwork checker Check and certification of the formwork design
Formwork contractor Construction of the formwork
Formwork supervisor Supervision of the formwork construction
Formwork inspector Inspection and certification of the formwork construction
Other trades Those with access to the formwork construction; e.g. steel fixers,
concrete finishers, etc.

For example: situations where formwork is not
fabricated off-site.
2.1.2 Scope
This Chapter sets out the procedures, roles,
responsibilities and requirements consistent with safe
formwork design and construction for each participant,
namely: project designer (see Section 2.2), construction
contractor and formwork coordinator (see Section 2.3),
formwork supplier (see Section 2.4), formwork designer
(see Section 2.5), formwork checker (see Section
2.6), formwork contractor (see Section 2.7), formwork
supervisor (see Section 2.8); and formwork inspector
(see Section 2.9).
Section 2.10 provides guidance on obligation
and competency for those involved in design, checking
and inspecting formwork.
2.2 PROJECT DESIGNER
The project designer has an obligation to
be aware of and ensure the design is achievable
using current construction practice, methods and
workmanship (SA 1996).
Work Health and Safety Regulations (SWA 2011)
also place obligations on project designers to ensure,
so far as is reasonably practicable, that the structure is
designed to be without risks to the health and safety of
persons who:
■ At a workplace, construct the structure;
■ At a workplace, carry out any reasonably
foreseeable activity in relation to the
manufacture, assembly, use, demolition and
disposal of the structure; and
■ At or in the vicinity of a workplace are exposed
to the structure or whose health and safety may
be affected by an activity related to the structure.
To fulfil these obligations, the project designer
must communicate, consult, and work together with
those involved in the construction about potential risks
and solutions.
The project designer must provide information
in relation to the formwork, which AS 3610.1:2010 (SA
2010) calls “project documentation”, that:
(a) Specifies the requirements associated with
the design and construction of the concrete
structure and its elements (SA 2010); and
(b) Provides information in relation to hazards and
risks at or in the vicinity of the construction
site, including specifying the hazards relating to
the design of the structure that create a risk to
the health and safety of those carrying out the
construction work.
Where the project documentation is incomplete
or unclear, the project designer must respond in writing
to requests from the construction contractor for missing
information or clarification.
2.2.1 Project documentation
The project documentation must communicate
specific requirements associated with the design
and construction of the concrete structure and its
elements; including, where appropriate, instructions and
information relating to concrete surface finish.
Guidance is provided in AS 3610.1:2010 that the

2:2
Formwork Handbook

02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:2 12/09/2016 7:13 am

 project documentation must:
(a) Show dimensioned drawings of general
arrangements, plans, elevations, sections and
all necessary details of the concrete structure,
elements, special features, pre-camber,
penetrations and mandatory joints to be formed,
as well as locate and detail cast-in items; and
(b) Specify details relating to surface finish and
tolerances, and where relevant: colour control,
tonal scale, test panels, surface treatment,
critical face of elements, location of any special
measuring points, and repairs.
In addition, the project designer must identify
and communicate any situations or loading conditions,
which might arise during construction that are:
hazardous; adversely affect the stability, strength, or
serviceability of the partially complete structure (SA
2002). Guidance is also provided in AS/NZS 1170.0
– Supplement 1:2002 (SA 2002) that special loading
conditions and unusual load paths, which arise
during construction, may need special investigation.
For example, investigate construction loads due to
the stacking of materials or the use of equipment, or
induced by floor-to-floor propping. The BCA (ABCB
2013) also requires the magnitudes of actions from
construction activity to be determined.
AS 3610.1:2010 echoes these requirements by
requiring the project designer to specify in the project
documentation:
(a) The location and magnitude of the design
service loads;
(b) The sequence and timing of concrete placement
(if critical);
(c) Any limitations on the magnitude and locations
of constructions loads (e.g. stacked materials);
(d) Loads from the effects of prestress or post-
tensioning;
(e) Limitations on the use of the permanent or
the existing structure for the restraint of the
formwork;
(f) Minimum stripping times and procedures, or the
criteria for determining minimum stripping times;
(g) The method of multistorey shoring (e.g.
undisturbed or reshoring), the minimum number
of levels, layout and load distribution among
the supports relative to the type of formwork,
timing and sequence of its use, the anticipated
time between construction of subsequent floors
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:3
and the expected ambient temperature during
construction of the permanent structure;
(h) Information about, and any special requirements
for, propping or concreting any composite
construction or permanent form systems; and
(i) Information about the foundation that is relevant
to the design of the formwork.
2.2.1.1 Location and magnitude of
design service loads
Knowledge of the design service loads will
allow the formwork designer and checker to be aware
of situations where the capacity of the permanent
structure may be exceeded during construction and
where direction from the project designer is required.
2.2.1.2 Sequence and timing of
concrete placement
The sequence and timing of concrete placement
may be critical. For example:
■ The minimum period between pouring
successive floors in multistorey buildings;
■ The maximum freestanding height of walls above
the uppermost slab; and
■ If columns can be poured at the same time as
the slabs they support.
2.2.1.3 Limitations on the magnitude
and locations of constructions loads
Where no limitations on the magnitude and
location of stacked materials are specified in the project
documentation, the formwork designer is permitted to
design for a construction live load of 1.0 kPa and an
additional construction live load from stacked materials
of up to 4.0 kPa (SA 1995).
Specifying limitations on the magnitude and
locations of construction loads will reduce the risk of
overload.
2.2.1.4 Loads from the effects of pre-tensioning
or post-tensioning
The effect of stressing may cause an upward
camber, lifting the member, transferring the weight
of the member off the formwork beneath and
redistributing the weight to other parts of the formwork
or structure. Formwork or parts of the structure may
be overloaded if the formwork designer is unaware of
such effects.
2:3
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 Stressing may also compress forms and make
them difficult to strip.
2.2.1.5 Limitations on the use of the permanent or
existing structure for formwork restraint
It is common practice for formwork designers to
assume the permanent structure (newly cast columns
and walls) stabilises the formwork system by providing
lateral restraint in the plane of the formwork soffit.
However, this clearly contradicts the guidance provided
in the Commentary to AS 3610.1:1995 (SA 1996),
specifically that:
(a) If no limitations on the use of the permanent
or existing structure for the restraint of
the formwork are specified in the project
documentation, the formwork designer cannot
assume that the permanent structure is capable
of restraining the formwork assembly and either
the formwork designer shall:
(i) Assume that the permanent structure
cannot be used; or
(ii) Obtain written permission from the project
designer; and
(b) The project designer must check the capacity of
the permanent or existing structure to resist the
applied loads and restrain the formwork.
2.2.1.6 Minimum stripping times and procedures
Stripping affects the surface finish quality,
durability and structural reliability of the concrete work.
Premature stripping may cause physical damage to the
surface finish, contribute to non-uniformity of colour and
impede hydration. Structurally, early stripping may lead
to cracking, increased long term deformations, overload
and possibly collapse.
For practical and economic reasons, stripping
times need to be as short as possible, see Chapter 9.
2.2.1.7 Method of multistorey shoring
The project designer is responsible for
specifying the minimum number of floors of formwork
and multistorey shores, and the load distribution
between the floors relative to the type of formwork,
timing and sequence of construction (SA 2010).
However, this can only be determined and specified
after the construction contractor has informed the
project designer of the details of the proposed
construction method, schedule, formwork details and
2:4
Formwork Handbook
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:4
shore layout, see Chapter 10.
After the project designer has specified the load
distribution between the floors, the formwork designer
is responsible for ensuring the formwork and the shores
themselves are not overloaded (SA 1996). Project
designer approval for any changes to the proposed
formwork shores and layout must be obtained.
2.2.1.8 Requirements for composite construction
or permanent form systems
Information and details of composite
construction or permanent formwork that serves a
structural or architectural function should be specified.
In particular, details of the support and alignment
of composite construction or permanent formwork
should be provided.
Formed concrete tolerances specified in AS
3610.1:2010 do not apply to composite construction
or permanent formwork and the permitted tolerances
should be given in the project documentation.
2.2.1.9 Information about the foundation that is
relevant to the design of the formwork
Where information on the bearing capacity and
settlement characteristics of foundation material are
known, upon request it should be made available to the
formwork designer. Similarly, the formwork designer
should be informed if ground slabs were not designed
or are unable to support the load from formwork shores
or multistorey shoring. Particularly as the latter may be
transferring the full weight of all the slabs above, see
Clause 10.1.2.2.
2.3 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
The construction contractor has an obligation
to identify and manage the risks associated with the
construction, including formwork (SA 2002). Managing
those risks involves consulting, coordinating and
sharing information with all those involved with the
formwork.
To that end, the construction contractor should:
(a) Document a construction plan and work
methods (construction documentation) that
eliminate or, otherwise, control the risks; and
(b) Appoint a formwork coordinator to coordinate,
consult with, communicate with and be the first
point of contact for all participants involved in the
formwork.
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 2.3.1 Construction documentation
The construction documentation should set out
specific requirements and details of the construction
method, schedule, equipment and logistics that affect
the formwork, as well as the requirements of other
trades (e.g. those involved in fixing reinforcement;
installing and stressing post-tensioning; concrete
supply, placement and delivery; installation of plumbing
and electrical, etc.) and anyone else needing access to
the formwork.
The construction documentation may include a
concept of the formwork (system) required.
Guidance is provided in AS 3610.1:2010 that
the construction documentation must include, where
applicable:
(a) Details of any planned changes to the project
documentation;
(b) Construction method, sequence and schedule;
(c) Relevant details of the plant and equipment to
be used in the construction;
(d) Details of the interface between the formwork
and other construction equipment and activities;
(e) Information on construction activities and
constraints that affect the formwork;
(f) Information on construction loads the formwork
must support and any re-distribution of loads;
(g) Requirements of access, egress and edge
protection that affect the formwork;
(h) Documentation for equipment, material and
components to be incorporated in the formwork;
(i) Plans for transporting, handling, moving and
reuse of the formwork;
(j) Method and rate of concrete delivery, placement
sequence, discharge heights and rate of rise;
and
(k) Information on the concrete ingredients or
admixtures that have a retarding affect on the
concrete setting and finish, including, but not
limited to:
(i) Retarding setting of the concrete;
(ii) Causing excessive blow holes
on the concrete surface; and
(iii) Affecting colour control.
In addition, the construction documentation
should include details of hazard identification,
assessment and risk control measures, as well as safe
work method statements that affect the formwork.
Importantly, the construction documentation
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:5
should identify any situations or loading conditions
that might arise during construction and that are:
hazardous; adversely affect the stability, strength, or
serviceability of the partially complete structure; or must
be taken into account in the formwork design. Such
situations or conditions might arise due to the particular
chosen construction method, sequence, equipment or
schedule.
2.3.2 Formwork coordinator
The formwork coordinator should possess the
ability and authority to ensure the proper execution of
all procedures and that the roles, responsibilities and
requirements of those involved are communicated,
clearly understood and fulfilled.
Accordingly, in choosing a formwork coordinator
account should be taken of the following:
(a) The formwork coordinator should be competent,
and possess qualifications and experience
appropriate for the project;
(b) The formwork coordinator should be familiar
with the requirements of the formwork designer,
the project designer, construction contractor,
formwork contractor and other trades;
(c) The formwork coordinator should have up-to-
date knowledge of the requirements of relevant
authorities, Australian Standards, Codes
of Practice, and Work Health and Safety
Regulations;
(d) On large construction sites, coordinating the
formwork may be a full-time position; and
(e) Potential conflicts and additional risks that might
arise; e.g. where a person is responsible for
both coordinating the formwork and general
construction progress.
The formwork coordinator has a key role in
safe formwork design and construction. They must
coordinate, consult, communicate with and be the
first point of contact for all participants involved in the
formwork design and construction. Specifically, the
formwork coordinator must take the following steps:
1. Meet with and ensure that each participant
understands their role and responsibilities;
2. Prepare the formwork design brief;
3. Ensure the formwork is designed and the design
documented;
4. Where more than person or organisation
contributes to the formwork design, appoint
2:5
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 someone to act as the overall formwork
designer, particularly in regard to the interface
between designs and their compatibility, as well
as overall stability and robustness.
5. Distribute the relevant design information to all
participants involved in the construction;
6. Ensure the requirements of the formwork design
are understood by all participants involved in the
construction;
7. Formally review and validate that the design
satisfies the design requirements;
8. Ensure the formwork design is checked and
certified;
9. Communicate any feedback and required
changes to the formwork designer. Where
changes are required to the design, repeat steps
5 to 8;
10. Ensure the formwork material and components
supplied and/or fabricated are all inspected and
certified that they comply with the design;
11. Ensure all stages of the construction are
monitored to ensure the formwork is handled,
assembled, erected, fixed, stripped, stored and
dismantled in accordance with the design;
12. Prior to concrete placement, ensure the
formwork is inspected and certified that it
complies with the design; and
13. After concrete placement, ensure the formwork
is not removed prematurely.
2.3.2.1 Formwork design brief
Prior to commencing the formwork design, the
formwork designer must be properly briefed. To do this
the formwork coordinator must prepare and document
a formwork design brief.
The purpose of the formwork design brief is
to set out all the information and data relevant to the
formwork design, as well as all the general and specific
requirements that the formwork must satisfy during its
working life.
Simply specifying “The formwork must comply
with AS 3610 Formwork for concrete” is inadequate.
For example: the design loads given in AS 3610:1995
(SA 1995) may not be sufficient for formwork of
unusual construction or subject to unusual or more
adverse loads (e.g. slipform, climbform, and jumpform),
eccentricity for formwork supports higher than 8 m is
not considered, no guidance is provided on the use or
2:6
Formwork Handbook
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:6
design of reshoring multistorey structures, guidance
for calculating the lateral concrete pressure is limited
to cement types and admixtures used in the 1980s,
guidance on minimum stripping times is conditional and
based on out-of-date concrete data, etc.
General formwork requirements
General requirements that the formwork must
satisfy can be found in the relevant Work Health and
Safety Regulations, Australian Standards, Codes
of Practice, project specifications and/or contract
conditions.
Formwork must be safe, must be fit for its
purpose and must consistently perform as intended
throughout its design working life. As a minimum, the
formwork design brief should require:
1. Hazards to be identified and eliminated, or if
not reasonably practicable, the risk of injury
controlled;
2. The formwork satisfy stability, strength and
serviceability limit states; and
3. Formwork to possess structural integrity;
i.e. possess a minimum level of connectivity
and robustness, as well as resist progressive
collapse.
These minimum requirements should form the
basis of any formwork design brief.
Chapter 3 provides an overview and guidance
on these minimum general design requirements that
formwork must satisfy.
Specific formwork requirements
To determine the specific requirements the
formwork must satisfy, it will be necessary to carefully
consider all matters that might affect the formwork.
Much of this information can be found in the project,
construction and proprietary documentation. If, in the
first instance, the information available in the project and
construction documentation is incomplete or unclear, it
will be necessary to request the missing information or
seek clarification from the relevant parties.
It will also be necessary for the formwork
coordinator to meet with:
(a) The project designer;
(b) The construction contractor;
(c) The formwork contractor;
(d) The formwork and proprietary equipment
suppliers, where known;
(e) Site health and safety representatives; and
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 (f) Related trades (e.g. reinforcement fixer, concrete
supplier, concreter, electrician, plumber, etc).
The purpose of the meeting(s) is to ensure that,
in a timely manner, the requirements and responsibilities
of each party are communicated, discussed,
understood, agreed and documented in the brief.
Documentation is essential to assist communication
and minimise misunderstanding.
A draft of the formwork design brief should
be circulated to the project designer, construction
contractor, site health and safety representatives,
related trades, formwork contractor, and formwork
designer for review and comment. The formwork
coordinator should take account of all comments and
amend the draft formwork design brief accordingly.
It is important the final formwork design brief is
prepared in sufficient time for all subsequent activities;
i.e. with time to design and document the formwork,
check the formwork design, construct the formwork
and inspect the formwork construction.
The completed formwork design brief should
be provided to the project designer, construction
contractor, formwork contractor and formwork designer.
Where information or formwork requirements are
unclear or confusing, the formwork designer should
request clarification and, if necessary, meet with the
formwork coordinator and relevant parties to ensure
there is no misunderstanding. Again the formwork
design brief should be amended and reissued.
Without a clear understanding of all the
requirements the formwork must satisfy, commencing
the formwork design may be unwise. Should
the resulting formwork design not satisfy all the
requirements, redesign may be necessary.
Project, construction and proprietary
documentation
In particular, the design brief must include
detailed information of all the requirements relating to:
(a) The production of the concrete elements;
(b) The construction plan, method, logistics,
equipment and schedule;
(c) Related trades and other users of the formwork;
(d) If known, preferred formwork systems, methods
or equipment; and
1 Registration of prefabricated formwork is not required if the design was started before 1 January 2012 and completed prior to 1 January 2014;
otherwise, unregistered prefabricated formwork must not be supplied. This requirement may not apply in all States.
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:7
(e) Existing stock to be incorporated in the design,
including quantities available and condition.
Details of and the requirements for the
production of the concrete elements should be set out
in the project documentation.
The requirements and details of the overall
construction method, schedule, equipment and logistics
should be set out in the construction documentation,
which should also include the requirements of related
trades that affect the formwork.
Specific details of the particular proprietary
construction equipment, any preferred proprietary
formwork systems and existing stock to be used should
be set out in proprietary documentation.
Copies of the relevant project, construction and
proprietary documentation should be included in the
brief.
2.4 FORMWORK SUPPLIER
Formwork suppliers have obligations under
Work Health and Safety Regulations, AS 3610:1995 and
AS 3610.1:2010.
2.4.1 Work Health and Safety
Formwork is defined under Work Health and
Safety Regulations as a “structure” and prefabricated
formwork is defined as “plant”. Consequently,
designers, manufacturers, importers and suppliers
of formwork have specific obligations under these
regulations to:
1. Ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that
the formwork supplied is without risks to health
and safety;
2. Register the design of prefabricated formwork1
and issue the formwork design registration
number to the person with management or
control of the prefabricated formwork;
3. Eliminate or minimise risks to the health and
safety of those persons:
(a) Using, handling, storing, assembling
and dismantling formwork;
(b) At or in the vicinity of the workplace whose
health and safety are exposed to risk from
the formwork; and
2:7
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 (c) Exposed to risks associated with noise,
hazardous manual tasks, working in
confined spaces and hazardous chemicals.
4. Carry out calculations, analysis, testing or
examination that may be necessary to eliminate
or minimise risks;
5. With regard to the supply of second-hand
prefabricated formwork:
(a) Identify any faults in the prefabricated
formwork;
(b) Provide written notice of:
(i) The condition of the prefabricated
formwork;
(ii) Any identified faults; and
(iii) If appropriate, any restrictions on the
use of the prefabricated formwork that
apply until the faults are rectified.
6. Obtain information other participants (e.g.
supplier, importer, manufacturer, etc) are required
to provide;
7. Provide adequate information to whom the
formwork is supplied. The information provided
must include:
(a) The purpose for which the formwork was
designed or manufactured;
(b) The results of any calculations, analysis,
testing or examination carried out; and
(c) Any conditions necessary to ensure the
formwork is without risks to health and
safety when used for the purpose for which
it was designed or manufactured, as well
as when the formwork is used, handled,
stored, assembled and dismantled,
including conditions or information
regarding:
(i) Hazard identification and risk control
measures;
(ii) Installation, commissioning, operation
and maintenance;
(iii) Cleaning, transport, storage and,
where capable of being dismantled,
dismantling;
(iv) Systems of work necessary for safe
use;
(v) Knowledge, training, skill or
qualification necessary for persons;
(vi) Undertaking inspection and testing;
and
(vii) Emergency procedures.
2:8
Formwork Handbook
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:8
Refer to Work Health and Safety Regulations for
information on obligations specific to risks associated
with noise, hazardous manual tasks, working in
confined spaces and the supply of hazardous
chemicals.
2.4.2 AS 3610:1995 and AS 3610.1:2010
AS 3610.1:2010 defines multiple-use or mass-
produced formwork systems and/or components as
“proprietary formwork”.
In addition, AS 3610.1:2010 requires suppliers
of proprietary formwork to provide information (called
“proprietary documentation”) that is required for its
correct use. Proprietary documentation should set out
information, data and instructions for the correct and
safe use of the proprietary equipment.
Further guidance for formwork is provided in
AS 3610.1:2010 that information provided by the
supplier must include:
(a) Drawings or pictures that clearly identify the
formwork;
(b) Adequate information to fully describe its
intended use and any limitations thereto;
(c) Instructions for use and, where applicable,
maintenance and disposal;
(d) The strength and serviceability limit state
capacities in accordance with AS 3610:1995
and/or other relevant Australian Standards;
(e) The working load limit as calculated in
accordance with AS 3610:1995.
(f) A statement that the formwork depicted in the
documentation complies with AS 3610
(all parts).
(g) Detailed information including, where
appropriate:
(i) Part number;
(ii) Dimensions;
(iii) Section properties;
(iv) Weight;
(v) Any permanent camber built into the item;
(vi) Details of any special attachments, e.g.
access brackets, hand rail posts standards,
plumbing feet; and
(vii) Locations for tie bolts or support points.
2.5 FORMWORK DESIGNER
The competency of the formwork designer
and the level of detail provided in the formwork design
documentation must be commensurate with the level
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 of risk. Guidance on the necessary competence of the
formwork designer is provided in Section 2.10.
Prior to commencing the formwork design, the
formwork designer should:
(a) Be properly briefed, see Section 2.3.2.1;
(b) Review the formwork design brief;
(c) Request any missing information or data; and
(d) Seek clarification where information is unclear or
confusing.
The formwork designer must take measures
to eliminate or, where this is not reasonably practical,
control the risks identified, see Section 2.5.1.
A number of different formwork solutions are
likely to fulfil the requirements of the formwork design
brief. Initially, the merit of all candidates should be
considered. It may not be obvious early in the design
which formwork solution is best. In this case, each
candidate solution should be investigated in more detail.
It may take several iterations of investigation, evaluation
and elimination before the best candidate solution
becomes apparent.
It is important that the formwork designer
provides for access to and egress from the formwork,
as well as access for working and inspecting the
formwork. This is a key requirement and should not
be an after-thought. In addition, the formwork design
should be based on concepts and details whose
realisation is achievable and can be checked on site
(see Section 2.5.2).
The formwork designer must document the
chosen formwork solution. In addition, the formwork
designer must report on the health and safety aspects
of the design.
The formwork designer should provide the
completed design documentation to the formwork
coordinator.
2.5.1 Hazard identification, elimination or control
Formwork safety requirements are set out in
the relevant state and national Work Health and Safety
(WH&S) Regulations, Codes of Practice, Guidance
Notes, Hazard Profiles, Safety Alerts, etc. Although
similar, WH&S Regulations vary from State to State and
some significant differences arise.
Prior to commencing any design, formwork
designers must first consult the relevant WH&S
regulations to determine their obligations,
responsibilities and the design standards and/or codes
of practice to which they must comply.
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:9
Ostensibly all WH&S regulations require the
elimination or, if this is not reasonably practicable, the
control of risk of injury. In this sense, “practicable”
means capable of being put into practice or action
having regard to the:
(a) Severity of the hazard or risk in question;
(b) State of knowledge about that hazard or risk and
any ways of removing or mitigating that hazard
or risk;
(c) Availability and suitability of ways to remove or
mitigate that hazard or risk; and
(d) Cost of removing or mitigating that hazard or
risk.
Put simply, designers have a responsibility
to “design out” hazards and ensure that, in the
construction and use of their designs, others are not
subjected to unnecessary risk.
At the design stage, this might be achieved
by: first identifying any foreseeable situations,
loads or conditions that are hazardous or adversely
affect the stability, strength or serviceability of the
formwork; and, then assessing the associated risk.
Formwork designers must consider hazards that
might arise during fabrication, transport, handling,
assembly, construction, removal, dismantling, storage,
maintenance and disposal of the formwork. Formwork
designers must also take into account the effects the
design of related products or systems will have on the
normal use, maintenance or operation of the formwork.
Formwork designers must prepare a Safety
Report that details the hazards identified during the
design, their assessment, design control measures
taken, the hazards that remain in the design and control
measures to be implemented by others. Later (e.g.
prior to completion of the design and during design
checking), this assessment should be reviewed.
The Safety Report together with information
on the proper operation and conditions of use of
the formwork must be provided to the formwork
coordinator and all other relevant parties; e.g. formwork
supplier/manufacturer, formworker, etc. The level of
detail provided should be commensurate with the level
of risk, see Section 2.8 for guidance.
2.5.1.1 Risk control measures
Where it is not practicable to eliminate the
hazard, risks must be controlled by the highest possible
level of control from a hierarchy of controls; namely (in
descending order from highest to lowest): substitute
2:9
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 or change, isolate or separate, engineered controls,
administrative controls (instructions and signs) and
personal protective equipment.
Substitute or replace a hazard or hazardous
work practice with a less hazardous one; e.g. assemble
formwork at ground level rather than at height, use
remote release shackles to eliminate the need for
access at height.
Separate or isolate the hazard or hazardous
work practice from those at risk; e.g. install screens,
barriers, fences or mark hazardous areas.
Control the hazard by engineering; e.g. install
working platforms, edge protection, restraint and fall
arrest systems, machine or crane handling, operational
controls, warning devices and emergency stops.
Administrative controls include compliance
with codes of practice and design standards, limiting
exposure, specifying safe work methods, train
operators, requiring minimum operator competencies,
supervision, inspections and permits.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) should
only be considered when all other control measures
are not practicable. PPE may not be appropriate to
control some risks. PPE includes: safety helmets, boots,
gloves, hearing protectors, harness and lanyards, and
respirators.
Although formwork designers may only have
limited “control” over the workplace, they must ensure
health and safety of the workplace by documenting
(as part of the formwork design documentation, see
Section 2.5.3) the identified hazards, risk assessment
and the steps taken to eliminate or control risks. This
information together with information on the proper
operation and conditions of use of the formwork must
be provided to the formwork coordinator and all other
relevant parties; e.g. formwork supplier/manufacturer,
formworker, etc. The level of detail provided should be
commensurate with the level of risk, see Appendix A for
guidance.
2.5.2 Practical requirements
The formwork designer must satisfy practical
requirements, which include providing:
(a) Means for adjustment and stripping;
(b) Bracing that ensures the formwork can be safely
erected and stripped;
(c) Devices to facilitate adjustment of the formwork
and permit the controlled movement of the
2:10
Formwork Handbook
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:10
formwork during stripping;
(d) Details to prevent movement and misalignment
at construction joints in the concrete; and
(e) Positive means to prevent any movement
would cause formwork components to become
unstable, dislodge or to collapse.
All adjustment devices should be designed such
that the anticipated actions cannot dislodge them and
are not subject to uncontrolled movement under load.
Additional footings may be required to resist
design actions and prevent instability. Accordingly, it
may be necessary to investigate the foundation material
to determine its bearing and settlement characteristics.
Importantly, any movement of the footings that occurs
before or after the initial set of the concrete should not
have detrimental effects on the cast-in-situ concrete or
the capacity of the formwork.
2.5.3 Formwork documentation
2.5.3.1 General requirements
AS 3610.1:2010 requires the formwork to be
designed and the design to be documented. Formwork
does not comply with AS 3610.1:2010 if it does not have
formwork design documentation.
The purpose of the formwork design
documentation is to communicate:
(a) The general arrangement, details and operation
of the entire formwork construction, as well as
situation specific requirements, conditions and
assumptions upon which the design is based
that must exist, apply or be satisfied; and
(b) Identified hazards, control measures and safe
methods of work.
The level of detail provided in the formwork
design documentation should be commensurate with
the level of risk, see Section 2.10 for guidance.
Depending on the circumstance, the formwork
design documentation may originate from a single
source or the formwork coordinator may have to bring
together separate documentation from different sources
to make up the formwork design documentation; e.g.
formwork documentation from one or more suppliers
for proprietary equipment and documentation detailing
footings from a civil/structural engineer.
It is common practice for some formwork
designers to limit the scope of their design and leave
part of the formwork design to others. Formwork design
documentation is incomplete where details noted as “by
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 client” or “by others” are not detailed elsewhere.
It is the responsibility of the formwork
coordinator to ensure the formwork design and
documentation is complete, and in the latter case,
the assembled documentation is compatible and
contiguous.
2.5.3.2 Specific requirements of AS 3610.1:2010
To satisfy the requirements of AS 3610.1:2010,
formwork documentation must include:
(a) Plans, elevations and sections sufficient to depict
the general arrangement and details of the
formwork and to identify and locate all members
and connections, including bracing and footings/
soleboards, lifting points and arrangements;
(b) Details of the type, quality and grade of all
materials and components;
(c) Details sufficient to fully describe important or
unusual features of the design;
(d) Copies of referenced proprietary documentation;
and
(e) Where proof testing of the formwork assembly
or its components is required: test loads,
arrangements, procedures and acceptance
criteria.
The formwork design documentation must
also set out all assumptions upon which the formwork
design is based and specific requirements that must be
satisfied, including:
(a) Site geotechnical and environmental conditions;
(b) The location and magnitude of all permitted
loads, including any limitations on when they
may be applied;
(c) Permitted imperfections and acceptance criteria
for formwork components and assemblies; e.g.
member out-of-straightness, load and reaction
eccentricities, out-of-plumb erection, etc. (see
Chapter 8);
(d) The locations where the permanent or existing
structure is assumed to provide restraint to the
formwork, and the direction and magnitude
of the loads the structure must resist, or the
stiffness required to effectively restrain the
formwork;
(e) Sequence, method and rate of concrete
placement and vibration; and
(f) Concrete ingredients and admixtures.
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:11
2.5.3.3 Proprietary documentation
Where proprietary equipment or components
are used in the design, the design shall take
account of the information contained in the
proprietary documentation and copies of proprietary
documentation shall be included as part of the
formwork design documentation.
2.5.3.4 Safety report
In addition, the formwork design documentation
must report on any foreseeable situations, loads or
conditions, which might arise during the design life of
the formwork that are: hazardous; adversely affect the
stability, strength or serviceability. The formwork design
documentation should also detail the measures taken
to eliminate or, where this is not reasonably practical,
control the risks identified (SA 2002), see Section 3.2.
2.5.3.5 Multistorey shoring
For multistorey structures, the formwork design
documentation must specify the type of multistorey
shoring (e.g. undisturbed shoring or reshoring) and
provide general arrangement drawings detailing the
number of levels, layout, timing and sequence, as well
as the components to be used as shoring. Guidance on
the design of multistorey shoring is provided in
Chapter 10.
2.6 FORMWORK CHECKER
Prior to the formwork construction, the formwork
design and formwork design documentation should be
reviewed, checked and a formwork design certificate
issued.
The formwork coordinator should appoint, or
agree to the appointment of, a competent person(s)
to check and certify the formwork design and
documentation. Guidance on the obligation and
competence of the person(s) checking the formwork is
provided in Section 2.10.
The formwork coordinator should provide
the person(s) checking the formwork with a copy
of the formwork design brief and formwork design
documentation.
The fundamental purpose of the formwork
design check is to detect any flaws in the formwork
design and/or formwork design documentation. To this
end, the formwork design check must verify that the
2:11
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 formwork design and documentation is complete and
satisfies the formwork design brief. Specifically, that the
formwork design documentation complies with the:
(a) Information and data set out in the formwork
design brief;
(b) General and specific requirements set out in the
formwork design brief; and
(c) General requirements set out in Chapter 3,
where they are not included in the formwork
design brief.
In addition, the design check should review the
identified hazards, as well as the risk assessment and
proposed control measures. The purpose of the review
is to detect any foreseeable and unidentified hazards,
as well as flaws in the assessments of risk and selection
of control measures.
If the formwork design documentation is found
to be incomplete (e.g. refers to details “by client” or “by
others” that are not included in the formwork design
documentation or does not include sufficient detail or
information):
(a) Checking should not proceed;
(b) The formwork coordinator should be notified;
and
(c) The formwork design documentation should
be immediately returned to the formwork
coordinator for completion.
After the design check has been performed,
the person checking the formwork design and
documentation shall issue the formwork coordinator
with either of the following, in writing, as applicable:
(a) If the formwork design and documentation
complies with all the relevant requirements,
a certificate stating the formwork design and
design documentation complies with the design
brief and all relevant requirements, including
stating:
■ Their names and qualifications;
■ Whether they were or were not involved in
the original design;
■ The list of documents that have been
reviewed;
■ Details of the checks undertaken; and
■ The specific requirements against which the
design has been checked;
or
(b) If aspects of the formwork design or design
documentation do not comply with all the
relevant requirements, a report containing the
2:12
Formwork Handbook
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:12
details and descriptions of each area of non-
compliance.
The formwork coordinator should provide the
formwork designer with a copy of the formwork design
certificate. Otherwise, where aspects of the formwork
design do not comply:
1. The formwork coordinator should liaise with
the person(s) checking the design and the
formwork designer on how best to rectify the
aspects of the formwork design, or formwork
design documentation, that are non-compliant.
Compliance might require a completely different
design; and
2. The formwork design and formwork design
documentation should be amended and the
amended documentation re-issued for checking.
Formwork construction should not proceed
unless the formwork has been designed, documented,
checked and certified compliant.
2.7 FORMWORK CONTRACTOR
The formwork contractor has an obligation
to identify and manage the risks associated with the
formwork construction. Managing those risks involves
competent people:
(a) Planning the formwork activity;
(b) Consulting, coordinating and sharing information
with all those involved with the formwork,
especially the formwork designer;
(c) Consulting with workers and their health and
safety representative;
(d) Preparing Safe Work Method Statements
(SWMS);
(e) Training workers in matters specific to formwork
and falsework activities to be undertaken; and
(f) Supervising the formwork construction and its
removal.
2.8 FORMWORK SUPERVISOR
Risks of flaws in the formwork construction can
be minimised if it is carefully supervised throughout and
periodically inspected to ensure:
(a) Design data, information and assumptions about
site conditions are valid and applicable;
(b) There are no hazardous situations or loads
unforeseen in the design,
(c) The specified materials and components are
used;
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 (d) Unidentified materials and components are not
used;
(e) The specified safe work methods are followed;
(f) Hazards identified and remaining in the design
have been assessed and controlled; and
(g) The formwork is constructed in accordance with
the formwork design.
2.9 FORMWORK INSPECTOR
Prior to concrete placement, the formwork
construction should be inspected and formwork
inspection certificate issued.
The formwork coordinator should provide
the person(s) inspecting the formwork with a copy
of the formwork design brief and formwork design
documentation.
The purpose of inspecting the formwork is to
detect any flaws in the construction prior to placing
concrete. This is achieved by comparing the as-
built formwork with the formwork as designed and
documented. Flaws may arise when:
(a) Site conditions or loading situations differ from
those foreseen in the design;
(b) The design documentation is incomplete or
inappropriate; or
(c) The construction departs from the design details.
Where possible, any flaws identified should be
rectified. Otherwise, details of any shortcomings, flaws
or disparity should be documented and forwarded to
the formwork coordinator, who should seek approval or
direction from the formwork designer.
Any approved alterations to the formwork
design or changes directed by the formwork designer
should be documented and returned to the formwork
coordinator and, where appropriate, checked.
In multistorey structures, both the formwork and
the multistorey shoring should be inspected.
When the formwork construction and site
conditions are all in accordance with the formwork
design documentation, the person inspecting the
formwork construction shall certify in writing that the
formwork construction complies with the design,
including stating:
■ Their name(s) and qualifications;
■ Whether they were or were not involved in the
design or checking;
■ The details of formwork construction that has
been inspected;
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:13
■ Time, date and details of the inspection
undertaken; and
■ The specific formwork design documents against
which the construction has been compared.
If aspects of the formwork construction do
not comply with the formwork design documentation,
the person inspecting the formwork shall provide in
writing details and descriptions of each area of non-
compliance.
Section 2.10 provides guidance on the
necessary competence of the formwork inspector.
General guidance on inspecting formwork can be found
in references (CS 2003) and (CS 1999).
2.9.1 Approval to load formwork
Concrete placement should not be permitted
without approval and permission in writing from the
formwork coordinator.
Approval and permission in writing should not
be granted until the formwork coordinator has received
documentation confirming that the formwork has been
designed, documented, checked, certified compliant,
inspected and complies with the design.
2.9.2 Approval to remove formwork
Formwork or multistorey shoring must not be
disturbed, removed or stripped without approval and
permission in writing.
The formwork coordinator must seek written
approval (from the project designer) prior to permitting
the disturbance, removal or stripping of any formwork.
Approval from the project designer may take the form of
a set of criteria that must be satisfied prior to formwork
removal. In this case, the formwork coordinator must
verify that all the criteria have been satisfied before
permitting formwork removal.
Premature or unauthorised disturbance or
removal of any part of the formwork or multistorey
shoring may be hazardous and may have detrimental
effects on the surface finish, serviceability, strength or
stability of the concrete structure.
Chapter 9 provides general guidance on criteria
for stripping formwork and multistorey shoring.
2.10 OBLIGATION AND COMPETENCE
The concept of Formwork Risk Level provides
a useful framework for specifying appropriate levels of
2:13
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 Table 2.2: Appropriate levels of obligation and competence for situations with different levels of risk
Level Formwork design and Formwork design check and
of documentation certification
Risk
Obligation Competence Obligation
Low Mandatory Experienced Optional
Moderate Mandatory Experienced Mandatory
High Mandatory Qualified Mandatory
obligation and competence for situations with different
levels of risk.
For formwork design, documentation, checking
and certification, as well as inspecting the formwork
construction, Table 2.2 sets out appropriate levels of
obligation and competence for situations with different
levels of risk. A method for selecting the appropriate
level of risk for different situations is set in Appendix A.
The level of competency required in Table
2.2 increases with risk. Accordingly, the levels of the
competence are, or the approved equivalent of:
Experienced – A person who has a minimum of
4 years site experience in construction of the particular
type of work.
Qualified – A professional engineer who has
qualified as a member of Engineers Australia (MIEAust)
and who has a minimum of 4 years’ experience in the
design and construction of the particular type of work.
Chartered – A professional engineer who is
a member of Engineers Australia with the status of
Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) or a person
registered on the National Professional Engineers
Register (NPER), or if there is a law that provides for
registration of professional engineers, is a registered
professional engineer, and who has a minimum of 4
years’ experience in the design and construction of the
particular type of work.
Independent – A professional engineer who
is a member of Engineers Australia with the status of
Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) or a person
registered on the National Professional Engineers
Register (NPER), or if there is a law that provides for
registration of professional engineers, is a registered
professional engineer, and who has a minimum of
4 years’ experience in the design and construction
of the particular type of work, and employed by an
2:14
Formwork Handbook
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:14
Formwork inspection and
certification
Competence Obligation Competence
Experienced Mandatory Experienced
Qualified Mandatory Experienced
Independent Mandatory Qualified
organisation not involved in the original design.
In practice, most formwork is designed by
“experienced” persons who may not possess formal
qualifications. Some authorities (WorkCover NSW 1998)
do not require the formwork design be checked and
certified, but rather, require a qualified person to inspect
and certify the formwork construction prior to concrete
placement where the level of risk is moderate or high.
Unfortunately, inspections are often called
at the last minute at a time when the formwork may
be incomplete. It may be difficult to access all parts
of the formwork. Inspectors may be unfamiliar with
project requirements, the formwork brief and design.
Furthermore, construction cost and time pressures
may sway inspectors to haste or to compromise and
approve formwork or modifications thereto, which
in other circumstances would not have happened
and may have delayed concrete placement. Where
inspections are the only form of checking, especially in
less than ideal circumstances, there is a higher risk that
flaws in the design or construction will go undetected.
For the majority of formwork (with a moderate
level of risk), Table 2.1 requires the design be checked
by a qualified person prior to construction commencing.
In this way, design flaws should be detected prior
to construction and subsequent inspection, thereby
reducing the onus on inspectors and reducing risk.
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 REFERENCES
ABCB (2013). Building Code of Australia (BCA),
Australian Building Codes Board.
Bragg, S. L. (1975). Final report of the Advisory
Committee on Falsework. London, Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office: 151.
CS (1999). Checklist for Erecting and
Dismantling Falsework. Berkshire, The Concrete
Society.
CS (2003). Checklist for Assembly, Use and
Striking of Formwork. Berkshire, The Concrete Society.
Hadipriono, F. C. and H.-K. Wang (1986).
“Analysis of causes of formwork failures in concrete
structures.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 112: 112-121.
02 - Safe Formwork.indd 2:15
SA (1995). AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1996). AS 3610 Supplement 2 – 1996
Formwork for concrete – Commentary. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2002). AS/NZS 1170.0 Supplement 1 –
2002 Structural design actions – General principles –
Commentary. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2010). AS 3610.1:2010 Formwork for
concrete Part 1: Documentation and surface finish.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SWA (2011). Work Health and Safety Regulations
2011. Canberra, Safe Work Australia.
WorkCover NSW (1998). Code of Practice –
Formwork. Sydney, WorkCover NSW.
2:15
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 3 design actions Part 0: General principles (SA 2002).
General Design
Requirements
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Formwork should satisfy the requirements set
out in the relevant Work Health and Safety Regulations,
Australian Standards and Codes of Practice. To do
so, formwork should satisfy fundamental structural
requirements to: be safe, be fit for its purpose and
consistently perform as intended through-out its design
working life.
As a minimum, the formwork design should:
1. Identify hazards and assess the risks;
2. Eliminate the hazards, or if not reasonably
practicable, control the risk of injury;
3. Satisfy stability, strength and serviceability limit
states; and
4. Possess structural integrity; i.e. have a minimum
level of connectivity, robustness and resist
progressive collapse.
The first two points are discussed at length
in Chapter 2. This Chapter provides guidance
on requirements to satisfy stability, strength and
serviceability limit states specific to formwork. General
issues regarding structural integrity and the concept of
design working life are also discussed.
The philosophy and principles of structural
design presented herein are consistent with those set
out in ISO 2394:1998 General principles on reliability for
structures (ISO 1998), and AS/NZS 1170.0 Structural
Figure 3.1: Probability distributions for design action effects and design resistance
03 - General Design.indd 3:1
Although not the focus of this text, it is important
that the formwork is cost-effective. This Chapter also
discusses aspects related to formwork economy that
should be taken into account in formwork design.
3.2 STABILITY, STRENGTH
AND SERVICEABILITY
3.2.1 Limit states design
In the context of structural design, the word
“state” means “the condition of a structure”.
The fundamental concept of limit states is that
a structure can be classified as either satisfactory
(serviceable, safe) or unsatisfactory (unserviceable,
unsafe) (Gulvanessian and Holicky 1996). Thus, if the
condition of a structure exceeds any limit state, a limit
state violation is said to have occurred as it no longer
satisfies the fundamental performance requirements.
Often people make statements such as “I’ve
done it this way thousands of times before and never
had a problem”. What does this really mean? It means
that, on each past occasion, the load on the structure
was less than its capacity. How much less or whether it
will be less on the next occasion are all unknowns. The
structure may have been serviceable, but was it safe?
If it was possible to test structures to failure a
sufficient number of times, it would be possible to use
the data collected to verify the reliability of a structure
using purely probabilistic techniques.
Figure 3.1 expresses a simplistic relationship
between the distribution of action effects E and
3:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 resistance R for a structure, in terms of probability
density functions.
In Figure 3.1, Em represents the mean action
effect and Rm represents the mean resistance. The
shaded area in Figure 3.1 represents the probability of
failure pF, which can be expressed as:
pS) 3>( ! 5@ (3.1)
Equation 3.1 represents the probability that the
action effects E exceed the resistance R; i.e. E > R. A
situation where E > R constitutes a limit state violation,
whether or not this leads to the collapse of part or all
the structure depends on the structures limit states
behaviour.
In limit states design, the probability of failure is
controlled by separate partial factors for actions and
resistance. Usually, this is expressed as:
J(Q d I5Q (3.2)
In Equation 3.2, En is the nominal action effect,
Rn is the nominal resistance, γ is a partial load factor,
and φ is a capacity reduction factor. The values for
the partial factors and methods of determining the
nominal action effect and resistance are specified in the
applicable structural Standard. They are carefully chosen
to take account of uncertainties about the probability
distributions of the action effects and resistance, as well
as the mode and consequence of failure.
Factors affecting the probability of failure and
therefore influencing the choice of partial factors
include: choice of the values of actions; degree of
structural integrity; accuracy of structural models used;
quality and durability of materials and equipment;
site conditions; environmental conditions; quality of
workmanship; and measures taken to reduce the risk of
gross human, design and construction errors.
In some situations, the choice of partial factors
should ensure an even lower probability of failure. For
example where:
(a) The risk of injury, economic, social and
environmental losses is greater; or
(b) Collapse occurs suddenly and without warning,
rather than where collapse is preceded by some
kind of warning in such way that measures can
be taken to limit the consequences.
However, satisfying Equation 3.2 does not
guarantee that a structure or part of it will not fail. Failure
may occur due to:
Untitled-5 1
3:2
Formwork Handbook
03 - General Design.indd 3:2
■ An extremely unfavourable combination of
actions, material properties, geometrical
quantities, etc, all of which are associated with
ordinary use and other ordinary circumstances;
■ Effects of exceptional but foreseeable
circumstances and/or actions present only
during a small portion of the design working
life and/or with a low probability. For example,
accidental impact or extreme climatic influences;
■ Consequences of an error, such as lack of
information, omission, misunderstanding and
lack of communication, negligence, misuse, etc;
and
■ Influences that are not foreseen.
Formwork cannot be expected to function
adequately if exceptional actions or exceptionally low
resistance occur, but measures should be taken to limit
the scope of the expected damage. These measures
should not be disproportionate to the original cause.
A practicable approach is to design the
formwork for ordinary use in ordinary circumstances
and take the following additional measures:
(a) Design the structure with minimum levels of
structural integrity and to avoid progressive
collapse, see Section 3.4;
(b) Take protective measures against foreseeable
actions. For example, safeguard against impact
by providing additional protection such as
bollards; and
(c) Reduce the probability of gross design and
construction errors by appropriate quality
assurance and/or quality control measures; e.g.
follow the procedures set out in Chapter 2.
3.2.2 Stability (limit states)
Formwork must be stable (i.e. resist sliding,
overturning and uplift) under extreme and/or frequently
repeated actions.
Stability limit states are concerned with the
loss of equilibrium of the formwork or any part of it,
considered as a rigid body, due to overturning, uplift
and sliding. For example, the possibility of suspended
slab formwork and falsework overturning, lifting or
sliding under extreme wind actions or a cantilever
bearer subject to overturning if only the cantilever is
loaded. It is good practice to check stability limit states
first.
5/08/15 12:33 PM
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 Stability limit states are satisfied by ensuring
the design action effects of destabilising actions do
not exceed the combined design action effects of the
stabilising actions and design resistance.
(GGVW”(GVWE5G
where
Ed,dst = design action effect from destabilising actions
(see Section 4.3.2);
Ed,stb = design action effect from stabilising actions
(see Section 4.3.2); and
Rd = design resistance or capacity (φRn).
For example, stability limit states for overturning
would be satisfied if the design moment from forces
causing overturning do not exceed the combined
effects of the design moment from forces that have
a stabilising effect and any nominal resistance the
structure may have; i.e. Md,dst ≤ Md,stb + φMn.
The partial load factors and action combinations
for stability limit states are set out in Section 4.3.2.
3.2.3 Strength (limit states)
Formwork must resist extreme and/or frequently
repeated actions.
Strength limit states are concerned with the
failure of the formwork or part of it due to yield, rupture,
fatigue or excessive deformation. Strength limit states
also include: instability of the formwork or part of the
formwork due to buckling; the transformation of the
formwork or part of it into a mechanism; and a sudden
change of the structural system to a new system (e.g.
snap through).
Strength limit states are satisfied by ensuring
the design action effect does not exceed the design
resistance for capacity.
(G”5G
where
Ed = design action effect (see Section 4.3.2); and
Rd = design resistance or capacity (φRn).
The partial load factors and action combinations
for strength limit states are set out in Section 4.3.2.2.
3.2.4 Serviceability (limit states)
Formwork must perform adequately under all
expected actions.
Serviceability limit states are associated with
the performance of formwork under conditions of
normal use. Serviceability limit states are satisfied if the
03 - General Design.indd 3:3
serviceability deflection, deformation or frequency does
not exceed the serviceability limit.
GV”GO (3.5)
where
(3.3) δs = design serviceability parameter (deflection,
deformation or vibration frequency) determined
on the basis of the appropriate combination of
actions (see Section 4.3.1).
δl = limiting value of the serviceability parameter.
In particular, consideration should be given to
the following serviceability limit states:
(a) Concrete surface finish quality;
(b) Concrete positional and dimensional
tolerance; and
(c) Elastic behaviour of multiple use equipment.
The partial load factors and action combinations
for serviceability limit states are set out in Section 4.3.1.
3.2.4.1 Serviceability limits for formwork
deformations
Formwork usually consists of three layers
(form face, secondary and primary beams). Surface
undulations result from the cumulative effects of the
combined deflections and dimensional variations due
to permitted formwork material tolerances. Figure 3.2
depicts the magnitude of surface undulations resulting
from the combined deflections of horizontal and
vertical formwork framing members only. If form face
deflections were taken into account the total deflection
may increase.
(3.4)
Figure 3.2: Cumulative deflections (McAdam 1993)
3:3
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 Table 3.1: Acceptable form face deformations and surface undulations

Quality of surface finish Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5

Form face deformation Lesser of Lesser of Span/270 Span/270 NA
(not greater than) 2 mm or 3 mm or
span/360 span/270
Percentage of readings 95 100 90 100 80 100 70 100 70 100
Surface undulations (mm)
For l = 300 mm, 1 2 2 4 3 4 5 7 NA NA
(a – b) ≤
Surface undulations (mm)
For l = 1500 mm, 2 4 3 6 5 7 8 10 NA NA
(a – b) ≤

Table 3.2: Acceptable surface undulations expressed as span to deflection ratios

Quality of surface finish Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

Percentage of readings 95 100 90 100 80 100 70 100
Surface undulations
For span, l = 300 mm l/300 l/150 l/150 l/75 l/100 l/75 l/30 l/43
(a – b) ≤
Surface undulations
For span, l = 1500 mm l/750 l/375 l/500 l/250 l/300 l/214 l/187 l/150
(a – b) ≤

In addition to member deflection, variant
formwork material and fabrication compounded by
imprecise erection will also detract from the formwork
quality and consequently the concrete surface. For
example, deformations in the concrete surface will arise
from variations due to:
■ permitted dimensional tolerances of graded
timber;
■ welding heat deformations during fabrication
steel formwork; or
■ the presence of small gaps between framing
members.
AS 3610
AS 3610.1:2010 (SA 2010) classifies and
specifies the requirements for the physical quality and
colour control of the concrete surface finish. There
are five classes (1 to 5) of surface finish. Where colour
control is incorporated it is denoted by the suffix C
following the surface finish number, e.g. Class 2C.
Class 1 is the highest attainable quality and
should only be specified for use in very special
cases. Class 2 has uniform quality and texture and is
commonly specified for architectural work. Class 3 is
specified with the intention that the concrete is to be
viewed as a whole. Classes 4 and 5 are specified when
the visual quality is not important. Class 4 has good
general alignment, while for Class 5 even alignment is
not important.
Guidance on the design and detailing of
formwork to achieve colour control is beyond the
scope of this text, (refer to CS 1999; CCAA 2006; ACI
2013). However, guidance is provided herein on the
appropriate serviceability deflection limits to use in
design.
The stiffness of formwork is important because
it affects both the quality of the surface finish and
dimensional accuracy of the concrete. Formwork
deformations should not exceed the limits specified
in AS 3610.1:2010 Clause 3.3.4 and Table 3.3.2. The
acceptable surface finish deformation caused by form
face deflection and concrete surface undulations given
in AS 3610.1:2010 Table 3.3.2 are repeated here in
Table 3.1.
The format for the acceptable deformation for
surface undulations is useful for assessing the physical
quality of the concrete surface (see AS 3610.1:2010
Clause 5.2.2(b) and Figure 3.3). However, it is not
convenient for the purpose of formwork design and
AS 3610.1:2010 does not provide guidance on the
acceptable limits for surface undulations for a given
span.

3:4
Formwork Handbook

03 - General Design.indd 3:4 12/09/2016 7:13 am

 Length ( l )
(300 mm or 1500 mm)
Figure 3.3: Measuring surface undulations (SA 2010)
In this case it is useful to consider the limits for
surface undulations expressed in terms of straightedge
length (l) as span to deflection ratios, see Table 3.2.
The values expressed in Table 3.2 are intended
to result in a concrete surface finish that will comply
with the requirements of Table 3.1, but may be more
stringent.
For example, consider using a straightedge that
is 1500 mm long to check undulations for a Class 2
surface. Assume readings a and b are taken only
600 mm apart (l = 2 x 600 = 1200 mm) such that (a – b)
= 3 mm and satisfies both the 90 and 100 percentage
limits of Table 3.1. When expressed as a span to
deflection ratio, l/(a – b) = 1200/3 = 400, which could be
interpreted to mean Table 3.1 permits undulations of up
to l/400 rather than the more stringent criteria of l/500
specified in Table 3.2.
By observation, for short spans the requirements
for form face deflection are more severe than surface
undulation limits for a similar length straightedge (i.e.
where l = 300 mm) and will govern design. For longer
spans, where the deflection of secondary and primary
members plays a major role, the limits for surface
undulation will govern serviceability limit states for the
deflection of secondary and primary members.
AS 3600
In addition, formwork must also satisfy the
tolerances specified in AS 3600 Concrete structures
(SA 2009), which provides permitted tolerances for
plumb, dimensions and surface alignment of concrete
structures and members. In particular, consideration
should be given to the:
■ floor-to-floor plumb tolerance for columns and
walls of 1/200 or 10 mm, whichever is the
greater;
■ deviation from specified height, plan or cross-
03 - General Design.indd 3:5
sectional dimension of 1/200 times the specified
dimension or 5 mm, whichever is the greater;
and
■ deviation from surface alignment, in that the
deviation of any point on a surface of a member,
from a straight line joining any two points on the
surface, shall not exceed 1/250 times the length
of the line.
Recommended serviceability limits for
member deflection
Serviceability limits for deflection must satisfy
the more severe of the requirements set out in AS
3610.1:2010 and AS 3600.
Form face deflection and surface undulations
will run parallel with the members primarily responsible
for the deformation. Therefore, measurements of form
face deflection and surface undulations should be taken
in the direction of the undulation; i.e. with straight-edge
parallel to the member span (form face, secondary
or primary member). Thus, these deformations are
primarily the result of the deflection of a single member.
However, measurements for surface alignment
to AS 3600 may be taken in any direction and therefore
may take account of the accumulated deflection of
two or more members. Thus, to satisfy the AS 3600
surface alignment limit of 1/250 times the length of the
line (span), the total deflection (secondary plus primary
member deflection) must be less than span/250.
Table 3.3 shows recommended serviceability
limits for deflection for use in the design of formwork
members. They are intentionally more stringent than
the acceptable concrete surface deformations and
alignment tolerances permitted in AS 3610.1:2010 and
AS 3600 because they are intended to make allowance
for variant formwork material and fabrication, as well
as deflection, and satisfy both AS 3610.1:2010 and AS
3:5
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 Table 3.3: Recommended serviceability limits for formwork member deflection

Serviceability limit Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5

1. Form face deflection Lesser of Lesser of Span/300 Span/300 NA
1 mm or 2 mm or
span/500 span/300
2. Secondary member Span/750 Span/500 Span/300 Span/300 NA
deflection
3. Primary member deflection Span/750 Span/500 Span/300 Span/300 NA

3600. 1 V d I$Q I \ (3.6)

Where light shines across a concrete surface
where
at a flat angle, particularly in the case of smooth glossy
Ns = design axial force at serviceability limit states;
finishes (e.g. anti-graffiti paint), the recommended
φ = capacity factor for tension
deflection limits specified in Table 3.3 may not
(see AS 4100 Table 3.4);
be appropriate. Under these conditions, surface
An = net area of the cross-section; and
imperfections appear exaggerated and less deflection
fy = yield stress used in design.
is desirable. High quality materials must be used and a
When form ties are fabricated from high strength
high standard of workmanship is required.
steel, yielding at serviceability limit states is not an
In addition to controlling deflection, formwork
issue. However, hole elongation is a more serious
should have sufficient stiffness, mass, or both, to avoid
problem.
any detrimental effects of vibration on its structural
For example, it is common that formwork shores
capacity, tolerances and surface finish.
are fabricated from steel circular hollow sections. Height
Where formwork acts only as a working platform
adjustment is achieved by telescoping close fitting
or only to provide access and egress, it must satisfy the
sections, which are connected by a shear pin. The
serviceability limits set out in the relevant Standard; e.g.
ubiquitous adjustable steel prop and shore frame are
AS 1576.1 or AS 1657.
examples of this arrangement. If these members were
designed in accordance with AS 4100, at ultimate limit
3.2.4.2 Serviceability limits for multiple-use
states hole elongations up to 60% could be expected
equipment
(Bridge et al. 2002). In particular, hole elongation in
For multiple-use equipment, irreversible
formwork shores is undesirable because it contributes
deformations that result from fatigue and yielding such
to unanticipated load redistribution. Thus, limits need
as bending, squashing and elongation may have a
to be placed on the ply-bearing stresses that occur at
detrimental effect on strength and might render the
serviceability limit states.
equipment unserviceable.
For pin or bolt connections in multiple use steel
Accordingly, for multiple-use formwork to remain
formwork, in addition to the strength requirements
serviceable, it is important that yielding does not occur
set out in AS 4100, it is recommended applying the
at serviceability limit states. In particular, three areas of
following serviceability requirement that the design ply
concern arise: bending, yielding of threaded steel form
bearing force should be limited (Bridge et al. 2002) such
ties and hole elongation due to steel ply bearing failure.
that:
In each case, AS 4100 Steel Structures (SA 1998)
1 EV d IG I W S I \ (3.7)
permits plastic behaviour at ultimate limit states, which
in itself is not a problem, except that the ratio of ultimate where
to serviceability actions is often lower in formwork than Nbs = design ply bearing force at serviceability limit
for normal structures. states;
For multiple-use members subject to φ = capacity factor for ply bearing
compression or tension, strains at serviceability limit (see AS 4100 Table 3.4);
states should be checked to ensure they remain elastic, df = diameter of bolt or pin;
namely: tp = thickness of ply; and

3:6
Formwork Handbook

03 - General Design.indd 3:6 12/09/2016 7:13 am

 Figure 3.4: Impact damage but not failure (sourced from WorkSafe Victoria)

fy = yield stress of steel ply.
Satisfying this requirement should limit hole
deformations to 2% of hole diameter.
3.2.5 Working load limit (WLL)
AS 3610.1:2010 requires suppliers of proprietary
formwork to publish the strength and serviceability
limit states capacities and working load capacity of
proprietary formwork, as calculated in accordance
with AS 3610:1995 (SA 1995). The requirement to
publish both limit states and working load capacities is
intended to minimise the risk of misunderstanding and
possible “overloading” of the formwork up to its limit
states capacity, if only the limit states capacities were
published.
The working load limit (WLL) should satisfy the
following conditions for strength and serviceability:
I5Q
:// d
/6'
and
://”(VPD[
where
φRn = strength limit states design resistance or
capacity;
LSD = limit states divisor that satisfies LSD ≥
1.5, unless a lessor value is justified by a
rigorous statistical analysis of load and
capacity data using probability methods
(SA 2003)1; and
Es.max = maximum action effect satisfying
serviceability limit states.
3.3 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
Formwork must satisfy minimum structural
integrity requirements so that the formwork is not
damaged disproportionally as a consequence of impact
or due to human error. In addition, formwork must resist
progressive collapse.
3.3.1 Robustness
(3.8)
Formwork should be designed so that any
damage due to impact or occurring as a consequence
(3.9) of human error is not disproportionate to the original
cause. Figure 3.4 shows an example of a robust

1 Prior to the publication of SA (2003). Amendment No. 1 to AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete. Sydney, Standards Australia, AS 3610:1995
Clause A4.4.4 permitted working load capacities to be derived from the limit state capacity using a divisor of less than 1.5 (based on the load
factors given in AS 3610:1995 Table 5.1); however, calculating the working load capacity using this method was unreliable.

3:7
Formwork Handbook

03 - General Design.indd 3:7 12/09/2016 7:13 am

 structure. Here the bridge gantry has withstood the
impact from the truck tray body, which has become
detached from the truck. There is significant damage,
but the gantry did not collapse.
One of the most common causes of formwork
falsework collapse is a lack of connectivity and
inadequate bracing (Bragg 1975; Hadipriono and Wang
1986). The risk of this occurring can be reduced by
providing minimum levels of strength, continuity and
ductility, i.e. connections should be designed to be
ductile and have a capacity for large deformations
under the effect of abnormal actions.
To this end, formwork members and
connections should be designed, as a minimum, to
resist lateral loads equivalent to 2.5% of the vertical
actions, respectively, see Section 4.2.6.3.
3.3.2 Preventing progressive collapse
To reduce the risk of progressive collapse, the
designer must identify key structural elements whose
failure would cause the collapse of more than a limited
portion of the formwork and then:
(a) If possible, redesign the formwork in such a way
that local damage does not lead to immediate
collapse of the whole formwork or a significant
part of it; or
(b) If this is not possible, the design should take
their importance into account by considering
specified exceptional actions that cover the
majority of unforeseen events such as accidents
or similar occurrences.
3.4 DESIGN WORKING LIFE
AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 (SA 2002) defines the
“design working life” of a structure as the minimum
number of years a structure or structural element is
to be used for its intended purpose, with required
maintenance but without structural repair being
necessary.
For permanent structures, the minimum design
working life might be considered to be 25 years or
more. For temporary structures such as formwork
and falsework, a shorter period may be appropriate.
For example, custom formwork made for particular
project may be in use for less than one year and
then scrapped. On the other hand, during its “design
working life” proprietary equipment might be used
numerous times over 25 years or more.
3:8
Formwork Handbook
03 - General Design.indd 3:8
For the purpose of determining the magnitude
of environmental actions, the design working life of a
particular assembly of formwork components could
be considered as the period the particular assembly is
exposed to the environment, see Section 4.2.4.
3.5 AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS
National formwork Standards set out
specifications and procedures to ensure that formwork
is fit for its purpose and consistently performs as
intended. Currently, as amended, Australian Standard
AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete sets out
requirements for the design and testing of formwork
and Australian Standard AS 3610:2010 Formwork for
concrete Part 1: Documentation and surface finish sets
out the requirements for documentation, surface finish
and construction. Sometimes, compliance with AS
3610 is a requirement of WH&S regulations or AS 3610
is specified as a Code of Practice.
3.5.1 Australian formwork Standards:
a brief history
The first Australian formwork Standards were AS
CA70:1971 Design and Construction of Formwork and
AS CA72 Part 1:1972 Control of Concrete Surfaces –
Formwork.
In 1974, these Standards were superseded by
AS 1509:1974 (SAA 1974a) and AS 1510 Part 1 – 1974
(SAA 1974b), respectively. Essentially, AS 1509 and AS
1510.1 were metric versions of CA70 and CA72 with a
few other minor changes.
In 1975, the Standards Association of Australia
established a policy of a general unified approach for
the design of all types of structures using limit states
design (SAA 1975). In 1984, in keeping with that policy,
Standard’s Committee BD/43 was formed to write a
new Standard that would include limit states design
rules for formwork.
In 1990, AS 3610 Formwork for concrete (SA
1990) was published, together with two Supplements.
AS 3610 set out the requirements for the design,
fabrication, erection, and stripping of formwork, as well
as the specification, evaluation and repair of the quality
of the formed concrete surface. Supplement 1 provides
additional copies of photographic charts for surface
finish and colour control. Supplement 2 provides a
commentary to AS 3610:1990.
Significantly, AS 3610:1990 was the first
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 national Standard to introduce limit states formwork
design methods. In fact, AS 3610:1990 set out both
permissible stress and limit states methods; however,
the permissible stress methods were only intended
for use until other relevant material Standards were
available in limit state format.
Later in 1995, AS 3610 was revised but
remained ostensibly unaltered. The current versions
of the Standard and Supplements are AS 3610:1995,
AS 3610 Supplement 1 –1995 (SA 1995) and AS 3610
Supplement 2 –1996 (SA 1996).
In 1997, Standards Australia embarked on a
revision of AS 3610:1995 and a draft (SA 1999) was
issued for public comment in October 1999. Shortly
thereafter, potential short comings in the draft were
identified and it was decided that further research was
required before the Standard could be published.
In 2003, Standards Australia issued Amendment
No 1 to AS3610:1995 (SA 2003) and AS 3610
Supplement 2 – 1996 (SA 2003) as an interim measure
to address shortcomings identified in the limit states
action combinations. These shortcomings arose
because AS 3610 was written when there were little
statistical data available on the action effects and
resistance of formwork. Therefore, the design methods
were specified based on experience and judgement
and generally followed the design rules for permanent
structures. Subsequent data became available
and a disparity could be demonstrated (Ferguson
2003) between the reliability of the limit states action
combinations in AS 3610:1995 and international
practice, as well as target reliability indices.
In 2005, Standards Australia issued a second
draft (SA 2005) for public comment. Subsequently, it
was decided to split the Standard into parts, but to date
only one part has been published.
In 2010, Standards Australia published
AS 3610.1:2010 Formwork for concrete Part 1:
Documentation and surface finish. The content of AS
3610.1:2010 supersedes Sections 2, 3 and 5, as well as
part of Clause 4.7, of AS 3610:1995. Until withdrawn, AS
3610:1995 will coexist with AS 3610:2010 Part 1.
3.5.2 Other Australian Standards relevant
to formwork
The design of all structures, including formwork
and falsework, must comply with the requirements of
AS/NZS 1170 Structural design actions Parts 0 to 4.
03 - General Design.indd 3:9
Specifically:
■ AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural actions Part 0:
General principles (SA 2002);
■ AS/NZS 1170.1:2002 Structural actions Part
1: Permanent, imposed and other actions (SA
2002a);
■ AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 Structural actions Part 2:
Wind actions (SA 2011);
■ AS/NZS 1170.3:2003 Structural actions Part 3:
Snow and Ice actions (SA 2003); and
■ AS 1170.4:2007 Structural actions Part 4:
Earthquake actions in Australia (SA 2007).
In addition to the actions specified in AS/NZS
1170, loads and load combinations that need to be
considered in formwork design are included in AS
3610:1995 and updated in Chapter 4.
As formwork can be constructed using
combinations of many different materials, formwork
designers need to take account of the information and
procedures specified in a range of Standards. Now that
all relevant permissible stress material Standards have
been withdrawn, it is appropriate to use the limit states
Standards shown in Table 3.4.
3.6 ECONOMY
Formwork represents a significant cost
component of a concrete structure. The overall cost
of formwork is a function of many factors, including:
design, materials, transport, storage, handling, as well
as labour availability, skill and productivity. Importantly,
greater economies may be achieved and false
economies avoided by analysis of the construction
of the concrete structure as a whole rather than just
considering the formwork in isolation.
Nowhere is the saying “time is money” more
true than in the construction industry. Often, material
economies in the design of the structure (e.g. reducing
wall thickness at height) are in fact false economies,
when the effect on construction is taken into account
(e.g. delays while system formwork is modified).
From a formwork perspective, the greatest
economies (in labour, material and time) are commonly
achieved through repetition and reuse. Repetition leads
to higher productivity and opportunities to automate
occur when formwork can be reused many times with
little or no change.
Economies also arise on each occasion
formwork can be constructed from stock components
3:9
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 Table 3.4: Applicable Standards for various materials used in formwork

Concrete AS 3600 Concrete structures

AS 4100 Steel structures
Steel
AS/NZS 1554.1 Structural steel welding – Welding of steel structures
AS 2074 Cast steels
Cast steel
AS 1998 Welding of steel castings
Cold-formed steel AS/NZS 4600 Cold-formed steel structures
AS 1720.1 Timber structures Part 1: Design methods
Timber AS 2082 Timber – Hardwood – Visually stress-graded for structural purposes
AS 2858 Timber – Softwood – Visually graded for structural purposes
Laminated Veneer
AS/NZS 4357 Structural laminated veneer lumber
Lumber (LVL)
Masonry AS 3700 Masonry structures
Aluminium AS 1664 Aluminium structures – Limit state design
AS/NZS 2269 Plywood – Structural
Plywood
AS 2271 Plywood and blockboard for exterior use.

with little or no modification or cutting. Project
designers might realise these savings by judicious
selection of building dimensions.
Where the quality of the concrete surface finish
is important, false economies arise when short cuts in
design and construction of formwork result in non-
conformance and costly remedial work.
Economies may also be achieved in formwork
material handling. This happens where mechanical
and automated machines can increase productivity by
handling large formwork assemblies, negating the need
for them to be dismantled and re-assembled after each
use.
REFERENCES
ACI (2013). Guide to Formed Concrete Surfaces.
Farmington Hills, American Concrete Institute.
Bragg, S. L. (1975). Final report of the Advisory
Committee on Falsework. London, Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office: 151.
Bridge, R. Q., T. Sukkar, I. G. Hayward and
M. Van Ommen (2002). “The behaviour and design of
structural steel pins.”
CCAA (2006). Guide to Off-form Concrete
Finishes. Sydney, Cement and Concrete Association of
Australia.
CS (1999). Technical Report 52: Plain formed
concrete finishes. Berkshire, The Concrete Society.
Ferguson, S. A. (2003). Limit states design of
steel formwork shores. Master of Engineering (Honours),
University of Western Sydney.
Gulvanessian, H. and M. Holicky (1996).
Designers’ Handbook to Eurocode 1: Part 1 Basis of
design. London, Thomas Telford.
Hadipriono, F. C. and H.-K. Wang (1986).
“Analysis of causes of formwork failures in concrete
structures.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 112: 112-121.
ISO (1998). ISO 2394:1998 General principles
on reliability for structures. Geneve, International
Organization for Standardization.
McAdam, P. S. (1993). Formwork: A practical
approach. Brisbane, Stuart Publications.
SA (1990). AS 3610:1990 Formwork for concrete.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1995). AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1995). AS 3610 Supplement 1 – 1995
Formwork for concrete – Blowhole and colour
evaluation charts. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1996). AS 3610 Supplement 2 – 1996
Formwork for concrete – Commentary. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (1998). AS 4100:1998 Steel Structures.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1999). DR99481 Formwork for concrete
(Draft Australian Standard – Revision of AS 3610:1995).

3:10
Formwork Handbook

03 - General Design.indd 3:10 12/09/2016 7:13 am

 Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2002). AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural
design actions Part 0: General principles. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2002a). AS/NZS 1170.1:2002 Structural
design actions Part 1: Permanent, imposed and other
actions. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2003). Amendment No. 1 to AS 3610:1995
Formwork for concrete. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2003). Amendment No. 1 to AS 3610
Supplement 2 – 1996. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2003). AS/NZS 1170.3: Structural design
actions Part 3: Snow and Ice actions. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2005). DR05029 Formwork for concrete
(Draft Australian Standard – Revision of AS 3610:1995).
Sydney, Standards Australia.
03 - General Design.indd 3:11
SA (2007). AS 1170.4: Structural design actions
Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2009). AS 3600:2009 Concrete Structures.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2010). AS 3610.1:2010 Formwork for
concrete Part 1: Documentation and surface finish.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2011). AS/NZS 1170.2: Structural design
actions Part 2: Wind actions. Sydney, Standards
Australia.
SAA (1974a). AS 1509:1974 SAA Formwork
Code. Sydney, Standards Association of Australia.
SAA (1974b). AS 1510 Part 1 – 1974 Control of
Concrete Surfaces – Formwork. Sydney, Standards
Association of Australia.
SAA (1975). AS 1793:1975 Limit State Design
Method. Sydney, Standards Australia.
3:11
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:13 am
 4
Actions and Action Combinations

1. Weight of formwork and falsework (Gf )

2. Weight of concrete (Gc)
3. Vertical actions from workers and equipment (Qw)
4 Vertical and horizontal actions on edge protection (Qg)
5. Weight of stacked materials (Qm)
6. Horizontal actions from construction activity (Qah)
7. Accidental impact (Ah)
8. Concrete pressure (P)
9. Serviceability wind (Ws)
10. Ultimate wind (Wu)
11 Snow (Su)
12 Earthquake (Eu)
13. Flowing water (Su)
14. Trapped debris (Su)
15. Other vertical and horizontal actions, eg. thermal, shrinkage, prestress, etc. (Qxv, Qxh)

Figure 4.1: Formwork and falsework design actions

4:1
Formwork Handbook

04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:1 12/09/2016 7:14 am

 4.1 INTRODUCTION
Formwork should be designed to resist the
effects of all foreseeable actions, including extreme,
frequently repeated and exceptional actions. In
determining the magnitude of the design actions,
account should taken be taken of the probabilities of
exceedence during the formwork’s design working life.
For each separate design situation, the
combined effects of simultaneously occurring actions
should be taken into account. Actions that are not
spatially fixed should be applied where they produce
the most unfavourable effect. Actions that cannot occur
simultaneously should not be combined.
The magnitude and combination of actions
on the formwork may vary during construction. It is
important to consider actions during each stage of
construction, namely:
Table 4.1: Stages of formwork construction
Stage 1 Prior to concrete placement, during
handling and erection of the form-
work as well as once the formwork
is erected
Stage 2 During concrete placement
Stage 3 After concrete placement, while
the formwork supports the applied
loads.
It is important that the formwork designer is
briefed by those in control of site activities. Based on
knowledge of the construction method, the designer
should make a realistic assessment of combined effects
of actions that will act simultaneously.
4.2 ACTIONS
It is important to take account of different types
of actions:
(a) Direct actions (e.g. external forces, loads);
(b) Indirect actions (e.g. imposed or constrained
deformations due to temperature changes or
differential settlement or imposed acceleration
due to machine excitation or earthquake); and
(c) Notional actions that are introduced to take
account of structural imperfections that have
a significant effect on the behaviour of the
formwork.
Direct actions can be classified as either:
permanent, variable or accidental. Permanent actions
act continuously with little variation in magnitude and
4:2
Formwork Handbook
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:2
at a specific location. As the name suggests, the
magnitude of variable actions fluctuates with time.
Accidental actions are usually of short duration. Unlike
permanent actions, the point of application of variable
and accidental actions can be random.
4.2.1 Permanent actions (G)
4.2.1.1 Vertical actions from weight
of formwork (Gf)
In this text, the notation Gf replaces G used in
AS 3610:1995 (SA 1995).
The weight of formwork is a permanent action
and should include, where applicable, the weight of:
(a) Any part of the permanent structure forming part
of, or supported by, the formwork;
(b) Any ancillary structure connected
to the formwork;
(c) Forms;
(d) Falsework;
(e) Footings; and
(f) Counter-weights used to provide stability.
4.2.1.2 Vertical actions from weight
of concrete (Gc)
The weight of concrete should be considered as
a permanent action (Gc).
The weight of un-reinforced concrete with dense
aggregate is 24.0 kN/m3. For reinforced concrete, add
0.6 kN/m3 for each 1% of reinforcement by volume (SA
2002a). It is common practice to assume the weight
of reinforced concrete is 25.0 kN/m3, but this may
underestimate the weight of heavily reinforced concrete
or concrete mixes that contain heavy aggregate (e.g.
concrete made using iron ore as aggregate).
Why in formwork design is concrete treated as a
permanent action and not a variable action?
Arguably, since concrete is the main action that
formwork is designed to support, it should be a variable
action (say, Qc). However, the way actions vary in time
determines whether they are permanent or variable.
Permanent actions are actions that are likely to act
continuously throughout a given reference period and
for which variations in magnitude are small compared
with the mean value (ISO 1998). Similarly, variable
actions are those for which the variation in magnitude
with time is neither negligible in relation to the mean
value, nor monotonic.
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 In general, structural design Standards consider
the weight of concrete as a permanent action. The
assumed coefficient of variation for concrete is in the
order of 0.10, (Rosowsky et al. 1994). Accordingly, a
partial load factor of 1.2 is reasonable (Ellingwood
et al. 1982).
International practice has been to consider the
weight of concrete as a dead load (BS 5975 and ACI
347) probably because designers were familiar with this
concept and, conveniently, permissible stress methods
did not differentiate between the effects of permanent
and variable actions, negating the need for any change.
Australian (SA 1995), Israeli (SII 1998) and European
(ECS 2004) limit states formwork Standards also
consider the weight of concrete a permanent action.
4.2.2 Concrete pressure (Pc)
During concrete placement, wet concrete
behaves as a quasi-fluid and exerts pressure on the
formwork. Initially, concrete behaves hydrostatically and
the pressure increases proportionally with the weight
of the fluid concrete head. As concrete sets, increased
fluid concrete head has a reduced effect on concrete
pressure.
The behaviour and pressure of wet concrete is
discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
4.2.3 Vertical and horizontal variable
actions (Qv and Qh)
Account should be taken of the most adverse
effect of combinations of concurrently acting imposed
vertical and horizontal variable actions:
(a) Combined vertical variable action with the
most adverse effect (Qv) will come from action
combinations that include one or more of the
following:
Qw = vertical actions from workers, concrete
mounding and equipment;
Qm = vertical actions from stacked materials
and equipment;
Qgv = vertical actions on edge protection; and
Qxv = other vertical actions
The actions Qw and Qm are not considered
to occur concurrently at the same location and only
the actions with the most adverse effect need be
considered.
(b) Combined horizontal variable action with the
most adverse effect (Qh) will come from action
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:3
combinations that include one or more of the
following:
Qah = horizontal actions from construction
activity;
Qgh = horizontal actions on edge protection;
and
Qxh = other horizontal actions.
To determine the most adverse effect, consider
the most adverse combination of magnitude and
position for each set of actions.
4.2.3.1 Vertical actions from workers, concrete
mounding and equipment (Qw)
In this text, the notation Qw replaces Quv and Qc
used in AS 3610:1995.
Stage 1 – Prior to concrete placement
Prior to concrete placement, for areas of
horizontal and sloping formwork that are trafficable,
allow a uniformly distributed vertical action for the
weight of workers, which includes an allowance for their
personal tools, Qw1 ≥ 1.0 kPa.
Stage 2 – During concrete placement
During concrete placement, it is necessary
to take account of the weight of workers and their
personal tools, as well as the short-term dynamic
effects of discharging concrete out of a skip or pump
and any associated minor mounding of concrete.
AS 3610 recommends considering either of two
load situations:
(a) Quv2 ≥ 1.0 kPa;
(b) Qc ≥ 3.0 kPa acting for a 5 minute duration over
an area 1.6 m x 1.6 m square at any location
and zero over the remainder.
In addition, AS 3610:1995 specifies a strength
Figure 4.2: Typical construction activity during
concrete placement (Stage 2) (Fattal 1983)
4:3
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 limit states load factor γ = 1.5 for Quv and γ = 1.0 for
Qc. Thus, at strength limit states the magnitude of the
factored loads is 1.5Quv2 = 1.5 kPa and 1.0Qc = 3.0
kPa.
Taking account of the effects of both loading
conditions complicates calculations, especially given
the limited area over which Qc applies. A simpler
approach is desirable.
It is equally reliable to take account of the effect
of a uniformly distributed action of:
(a) For the design of formwork members and
supports, Qw2 ≥ 2.0 kPa; or
(b) For the design of multistorey shoring (see
Chapter 10), Qw2 ≥ 1.0 kPa.
For the design of formwork members and
supports, this approach is reasonable because at
strength limit states the magnitude of the factored
loads is 1.5Q w2 = 1.0Qc = 3.0 kPa. In addition,
designing the formwork to support Q w2 = 2.0 kPa
consequently provides a minimum allowance for
stacked materials during Stage 3 of Q m3 = 2.0 kPa, as
Q w3 and Q m3 are not considered to act concurrently at
the same location.
Arguments that this approach is more severe,
as Qw2 is not limited to an area of 1.6 m x 1.6 m, do not
take account of:
(a) For many members that span up to 1.6 m and
whose tributary load width is less than 1.6 m,
there is no change;
(b) The design of members spanning more than
1.6 m is likely to be governed by serviceability,
which does not take account of Qw2; and
(c) The design of formwork supports is governed
by the maximum vertical load, which often
occurs during Stage 3 due the effect of stacked
materials or subsequent construction activity.
Stage 3 – After concrete placement
After concrete placement, allow for a uniformly
distributed vertical action Qw3 ≥ 1.0 kPa over the
concrete surface and trafficable areas of the formwork.
This is adequate for the normal traffic of workers,
as well as an allowance for their personal tools, but
insufficient for mechanical equipment or actions from
subsequent construction.
The magnitude of Qw3 may need to be increased
to take account of the actions of the subsequent
construction activity on the newly placed slab.
4:4
Formwork Handbook
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:4
Floors supporting multistorey shoring
When calculating the action effects in multistorey
shoring, the majority of the construction activity
occurs on the uppermost concrete slab (supporting
the formwork for the next level to be constructed) and
allowing for a uniformly distributed action of Qw3 = 1.0
kPa should be adequate.
There is usually less activity on the lower floors,
connected by multistorey shoring and allowing for
a uniformly distributed vertical action of Qw4 = 0.25
kPa should be adequate for each floor supporting
multistorey shoring, see Chapter 10.
Platforms
The design actions for temporary platforms,
not part of the formwork, should comply with AS/NZS
1576.1 (SA 2010).
For working platforms attached to formwork and
used to provide a working area for workers and their
tools, consider the most adverse effect from either:
(a) a uniformly distributed vertical action of
Qw ≥ 1.0 kPa; or
(b) a concentrated vertical force of Qw ≥ 1.2 kN
applied through a 100 mm × 100 mm pad at
any point.
For platforms, or parts of the formwork, that
will be used to provide access and egress to and from
places of work, account should be taken of crowding by
considering the most adverse effect from either:
(a) a uniformly distributed vertical action of Qw ≥ 2.5
kPa; or
(b) a concentrated vertical force vertical of Qw ≥ 1.2
kN applied through a 100 mm × 100 mm pad at
any point.
4.2.3.2 Vertical actions from stacked materials
and equipment (Qm)
In this text, the notation Qm replaces M used in
AS 3610:1995.
During construction, it is difficult to prevent
the common practice of stacking materials and
construction equipment on the formwork or upon
newly placed concrete still supported by formwork, see
Figures 4.3 and 4.4.
Typically, stacked materials include: portable
toilets; carpenter’s tables; column forms; metal
containers; tool boxes; barrels of water; bundles of
reinforcement; bricks; sand; metal frames; steel braces;
timber; aluminium beams; and scaffold.
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 Figure 4.3: Stacked materials (Stage 1)

Figure 4.4: Stacked materials and equipment (Stage 3)

Recommendations for stacked materials in AS
3610:1995
AS 3610:1995 requires the project designer to
place limits on the timing, magnitude and location of
stacked materials. In the absence of specified limits
on stacked materials, AS 3610:1995 recommends the
design load for stacked materials to be:
Stage 1: M1 = 4.0 kPa;
Stage 2: M2 = 0 kPa (i.e. materials are not stacked
on wet concrete); and
Stage 3: M3 = 4.0 kPa.
AS 3610:1995 also considers the load from
workers and equipment (Quv) and stacked materials (M)
act concurrently; i.e. the formwork design should take
account of Quv + M; i.e.
Stage 1: Quv1 + M1 = 5.0 kPa;
Stage 2: Quv2 + M2 = 1.0 kPa (i.e. materials are not
stacked on wet concrete); and
Stage 3: Quv3 + M3 = 5.0 kPa.
Recommendations for stacked
materials in the literature
Guidance on the appropriate magnitude of
stacked materials can be found in literature that analysed
data collected from site surveys that weighed every
piece of material and mapped its location (Ayoub and
Karshenas 1994; Karshenas and Ayoub 1994). Ayoub

4:5
Formwork Handbook

04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:5 12/09/2016 7:14 am

 and Karshenas recommend that for formwork with
tributary areas less than 28 m2, the weight of stacked
material can be considered equivalent to an uniformly
distributed action of not less than 2.4 kPa. When
considering the design of formwork with a tributary area
greater than 28 m2, the authors recommend multiplying
the design load by a load reduction factor
§  ·
\P ¨   ¸ (4.1)
© $¹
Where ψ m is not greater than 1.0 and not less
than 0.83.
Equation 4.1 effectively reduces the magnitude
of the action from 2.4 kPa to approximately 2.0 kPa as
the tributary area increases from 28 m2 to 56 m2.
Design recommendations
It is important that the formwork designer is
briefed by those in control of site activities about the
construction method, equipment, components and
plans for stacking materials.
It is reasonable to assume that workers will not
traverse across the top of stacked materials. In this
case, Qw need not be considered to act concurrently
with Qm. However, consideration may need to be given
to combinations where other loads act concurrently with
stacked materials (Qm + Qxv); e.g. where materials are
transported and stacked using mechanical equipment,
such as a fork lift.
It is common practice for materials to be
placed on packing (short lengths of timber called
“dunnage”) that allows space for removing forklift tynes
or lifting slings, see Figures 4.3 and 4.4. The effect of
the packing is to concentrate the weight of stacked
materials under the packers. Figure 4.3 depicts material
bins with legs that act as point loads.
For the design of formwork, the allowance for
stacked materials should:
(a) not exceed any limitations specified in the project
documentation;
(b) in the absence of any limitations placed on the
magnitude of stacked materials in the project
documentation, not exceed 4.0 kPa without
seeking approval from the project designer;
(c) at each stage of construction, be based on a
realistic assessment; and
(d) satisfy the following minimum criteria:
Stage 1: Qm1 ≥ 2.5 kPa or the equivalent
concentrated line or point loads.
4:6
Formwork Handbook
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:6
Stage 2: Qm2 = 0 kPa.
Stage 3: Qm3 ≥ 2.5 kPa.
For the design of formwork components with
a tributary area greater than 30 m2, the allowance for
stacked materials may be reduced by a load reduction
factor
§  ·
\P ¨   ¸ (4.2)
© $¹
The value of ψ m cannot be greater than 1.0 nor
less than 0.8.
Taking account of tributary area results in an
allowance for stacked materials:
(a) For tributary areas A ≤ 30 m2, Qm ≥ 2.5 kPa;
and
(b) For tributary areas 30 m2 < A < 70 m2,
§  ·
4P t ¨  ¸ kPa
© $¹
(c) For tributary areas A ≥ 70 m2, Qm ≥ 2.0 kPa.
Prior to concrete placement (Stage 1), the
magnitude of stacked materials (Qm1) does not
usually govern formwork design. However, the effect
of concentrated loads under packers should be
assessed.
After concrete placement (Stage 3), it is
common practice to stack material upon recently
poured concrete slabs. At this stage, the formwork
should effectively have an inbuilt minimum reserve
capacity to support some stacked materials, given for
Stage 2 it has been designed for a minimum action of
Qw2 = 2.0 kPa.
The designer should consider situations where
the weight of stacked materials exceeds 2.5 kPa,
previously recommended. In some cases the weight of
stacked materials can easily exceed 5.0 kPa (e.g. pallets
of bricks).
For economy, the formwork designer may
choose to limit the area of formwork (or slab) upon
which materials may be stacked. Any limit must be
clearly depicted on the formwork drawings. The
magnitude of the allowance for stacked materials and
any limitation placed thereon must be:
(a) consistent with the proposed construction
methods;
(b) known and approved by those in control
of site activities; and
(c) noted and detailed on the formwork
documentation.
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 For the design of multistorey structures
and shoring, the accumulated weight of stacked
materials on several floors will have a significant
effect on the number of levels and magnitude of
the load carried by multistorey shores and the
load shared between supporting slabs. In most
cases, the resulting load will exceed the capacity
of the slabs. However, where stacked materials are
permitted allowances should be based on realistic
assessments such that Q m ≥ 2.0 kPa.
4.2.3.3 Horizontal actions from construction
activity (Qah)
In this text, the notation Qah replaces Quh used
in AS 3610:1995.
Construction activities impose horizontal actions
on the formwork. Actions may arise from the individual
and combined effects of: concrete pumping systems;
the acceleration and deceleration of trolleys, skips
or other vehicles; cable tensions; and the actions of
workers and equipment.
An assessment of the magnitude of the
horizontal actions should be made.
Nevertheless, the design horizontal action
should be not less than 5 kN nor less than 1 kN/m
distributed uniformly along the edge of the formwork,
whichever is the more severe, see Figure 4.5.
Figure 4.5: Horizontal actions from construction activity acting on formwork of a 20 m × 10 m concrete slab
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:7
4.2.3.4 Vertical and horizontal actions on edge
protection (Qgv and Qgh)
Where edge protection is attached to formwork,
design edge protection members and connections to the
formwork, as well as the formwork members supporting
the edge protection, to resist the effects of an action
acting either horizontally inwards, horizontally outwards
or vertically downwards. The magnitude of the action
shall not be less than the most adverse of either:
(a) a concentrated force of 0.6 kN acting at any
point on the top rail, edge or post; or
(b) 0.35 kN/m distributed uniformly along the top rail
or edge.
Toeboards installed on edge protection attached
to formwork shall be designed for a concentrated
horizontal force of 0.1 kN acting at any point.
4.2.3.5 Other vertical and horizontal
actions (Qxv and Qxh)
In some circumstances, other vertical and
horizontal actions arise during construction. Often the
effects of these actions are significant and therefore
must be taken into account in the formwork design.
Other sources of vertical and horizontal actions
include:
(a) Manual or mechanical equipment (e.g. forklifts,
cranes, etc);
4:7
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 (b) Prestress or post-tensioning; see Chapter 7.
(c) Axial shortening, shrinkage and creep of
concrete;
(d) Buoyancy;
(e) Temperature change; and
(f) Imposed acceleration due to machine excitation.
4.2.4 Environment actions (wind, snow,
water and earthquakes)
4.2.4.1 Wind (Ws and Wu)
Wind acting on formwork and falsework imposes
the following actions:
1. Horizontal pressure on walls or side forms;
2. Horizontal frictional drag along soffits or
platforms;
3. Horizontal frictional drag on falsework or
framework members; and
4. Vertical (upward and downward) pressure on
soffit forms.
Formwork should be designed to resist the
magnitude of wind actions determined in accordance
with AS/NZS 1170.2 (SA 2002b).
When exposed to strong winds, construction
activity will continue until the wind speed reaches
some predetermined threshold. Once the wind speed
exceeds this threshold construction activity will cease.
Up until construction ceases, it is necessary to take
account of action combinations that include the effects
of wind and other actions from concurrent construction
activities.
Working or Serviceability wind speed (Vs )
From a practical perspective, if exposed to
strong winds construction is unlikely to proceed beyond
a mean site wind speed of 50 km/h (Force 6 on the
Beaufort scale) or 27 knots. This is consistent with
guidance in authoritative references (Tayakorn and
Rasmussen 2009; ECS 2004) that suggest the value
chosen for a working design wind speed (not ultimate)
Vs should not be less than 18 m/s.1
For ultimate limit state action combinations, the
resulting working or serviceability wind pressure Ws
should be multiplied by a limit states partial load factor
of 1.5.
Ultimate wind speed (VR )
Normally, before the wind speed reaches
ultimate limit states construction will have ceased.
The design wind speed should be based on
the annual probability of exceedence specified in AS/
NZS 1170.0 (SA 2002) taking account of the level of
risk and region. Table 4.2 is an example of the annual
probabilities of exceedence for ultimate limit states
wind, snow and earthquake events.
The use of levels of risk for formwork in Tables
4.2 and 4.3 replaces the structure importance factor.

Table 4.2: Annual probabilities of exceedence for ultimate limit states

Level of Risk Wind Snow Earthquake
Low 1/25 1/25 Not required
Ordinary 1/100 1/50 Not required
High 1/500 1/100 1/500

Table 4.3: Ultimate limit states regional wind speeds, m/s wind, snow and earthquake events

Level Region
of Risk A (1 to 7) W B C D
Low 37 43 39 47 53
Ordinary 41 47 48 59 73
High 45 51 57 69 88

1 The working design wind speed represents the 3 second gust wind speed for permissable
stress design, which is greater than the mean wind speed measured on site.

4:8
Formwork Handbook

04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:8 12/09/2016 7:14 am

 Refer to Appendix A for guidance on selecting the
appropriate level of risk for formwork in different
situations.
For the annual probability of exceedance given
in Table 4.2, Table 4.3 presents ultimate limit states
regional wind speeds (3 second wind gust speeds).
4.2.4.2 Snow (Ss and Su)
The limit states snow actions should be
determined in accordance with AS/NZS 1170.3 (SA
2003) considering the appropriate annual probability of
exceedence specified in Table 4.2.
4.2.4.3 Serviceability and ultimate
water (Ss and Su)
In this text, the notation S replaces Xw used in
AS 3610:1995.
Where formwork is erected in water, take
account of actions by river currents, tides, waves and
flooding. These actions may include: the dynamic
pressure of the water; impact from floating objects; the
effects of increased frontal area and head of water due
to trapped debris; buoyancy and uplift.
4.2.4.4 Earthquake (Eu)
It would be unusual to design formwork or
falsework to resist earthquakes. Inherently, satisfying
robustness requirements set out in Chapter 3 provides
a sufficient resistance.
If it were necessary to design formwork to resist
Figure 4.6: Impact from moving crane load (SA 1996)
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:9
earthquakes, the ultimate earthquake forces should be
determined in accordance with AS1170.4 considering
the appropriate annual probability of exceedence
specified in Table 4.2.
4.2.5 Accidental actions (Av and Ah)
Where applicable, formwork should be designed
to resist the effects of vertical and horizontal accidental
actions.
In this text, the notation A replaces I used in
AS 3610:1995.
4.2.5.1 Vertical Impact (Av)
When formwork is erected on sites where
overhead or mobile cranes operate, there is some
risk of impact from crane loads landing on top of the
formwork. In this situation, in addition to the weight of
the lifted load, an allowance of not less than 25% of
the weight of the lifted load should be applied to the
formwork.
4.2.5.2 Horizontal impact (Ah)
When formwork is erected on sites where
overhead or mobile cranes operate, there is some risk
of impact from crane loads, as shown in Figures 4.6
and 4.7. For example, in the situation depicted in Figure
4.6, the impact of a 2700 kg kibble of concrete travelling
at 3 km/h and coming to rest in a distance of 25 mm is
equivalent to 40 kN (SA 1996).
4:9
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 IMPACT FROM CONCRETE BUCKETS
Figure 4.7: Impact from moving crane load (McAdam and Lee 1997)
Figure 4.8: Impact from moving vehicle (SA 1996)
When formwork is erected adjacent to or
bridges access for vehicles, there is some risk of impact
from those vehicles, as shown in Figure 4.8.
When formwork assemblies are crane handled,
there is risk of collision with another object during lifting.
4.2.6 Notional actions (N1, N2 and N3)
Notional actions are applied to idealised
“perfect” structural models to take account of permitted
structural imperfections that have a significant influence
on the structural behaviour; otherwise, the strength and
stability of the structure may be overestimated; e.g. N1
for initial out-of-plumb and N2 for bracing forces.
As structural imperfections are present at all
times, notional actions should be considered to act
concurrently and in combination with other actions.
Notional actions are also used to achieve
minimum levels of structural integrity; e.g. N2 for bracing
stiffness and N3 for minimum levels of robustness.
In Figures 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11, the forces F1 to
F8 represent vertical actions acting on the falsework at
each location. The magnitude of each force F1 to F8 is
calculated by first analysing the structure without any
4:10
Formwork Handbook
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:10
notional actions to determine the combined effect of all
other concurrent actions factored in accordance with
the relevant combination under consideration. Thus,
the magnitude of the notional load and its effects will
vary depending on the combination of actions under
consideration, see Section 4.3.
4.2.6.1 Notional horizontal forces for initial
out-of-plumb erection (N1)
AS 3610:1995 permits falsework, intended to be
vertical, to be erected out-of-plumb up to an inclination
of 1 in 200 or a maximum horizontal displacement of
40 mm. This may be taken into account by analysing a
structural model of the formwork, incorporating:
(a) out-of-plumb members; or
(b) vertical members and notional horizontal
forces equal to 0.01 times the sum of the
vertical design actions acting at each point of
application, see Figure 4.9.
The value of 0.01 is consistent with the
requirements of other national standards; e.g. (ECS
2004; Tayakorn and Rasmussen 2009). It also reflects
the results of research that measured the effects of
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 Figure 4.9: Notional loads required to take account of initial out-of-plumb erection

Figure 4.10: Notional forces to ensure braces have the minimum brace strength and stiffness

permitted out-of-plumb tolerances in steel structures
and recommends a value for the notional force of twice
the permitted out-of-plumb tolerance, i.e.
 resist the forces arising in the bracing due to permitted
u 

The notional force should be considered to act,
in either direction, in combination with direct actions
for serviceability, stability and strength limit states, see
Section 4.3.
Notional forces (N2) are intended to ensure
the members that brace compression members to
reduce their effective length have sufficient strength to
out-of-straightness and to achieve the minimum brace
stiffness needed to be effective in reducing member
effective length.
Notional forces (N2) should be applied at each
bracing point in a manner that minimises the residual

4.2.6.2 Notional forces for braces that reduce the
effective length of compression members
(N2)
For free standing falsework, notional forces (N2)
do not apply, because the effect of applying notional
horizontal loads to ensure structural integrity (N3) is
sufficient to ensure the bracing is adequate.
Notional forces (N2) apply to the design of
falsework that has a top or intermediate restraint.
Refer to Section 8.3.1 for the difference between top-
restrained and freestanding falsework.
forces accumulating at points of restraint. For example,
in the arrangement shown in Figure 4.10, within each
structure, the forces on each level of bracing are
applied in opposing directions, and the forces on the
same level in adjacent structures are considered to act
in opposite directions. The forces in falsework bracing
are real and some residual forces can be expected at
points of restraint, see Section 8.3.3.3.
The recommended magnitude of the notional
horizontal force at each bracing point is equivalent to
2.5% of the axial force in the compression member.

4:11
Formwork Handbook

04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:11 12/09/2016 7:14 am

 Where restraint is provided to more than
one compression member, AS 3610:1995 (following
guidance in AS 4100) permits reducing the magnitude
of the notional force applied to each additional member
up to a maximum of seven members to 1.25% of the
axial force in each additional compression member.
However, reducing the magnitude of notional
force is not recommended where:
(a) Falsework members exceed the out-of-
straightness limit permitted in AS 4100 of l/1000,
as is permitted in AS 3610:1995;
(b) Multiple columns are connected by a line of
braces; or
(c) Columns are braced at multiple points, see
Section 8.3.3.3.
The notional force should be considered to act,
in either direction, in combination with direct actions for
strength limit states, see Section 4.3.2.2.
4.2.6.3 Notional horizontal forces to ensure a
minimum level of structural integrity (N3)
AS/NZS 1170.0 requires all structures to have a
minimum level of structural integrity, such that all parts
of the structure are tied together (both in the horizontal
and vertical planes) so that the structure can withstand
an event without disproportionate damage.
This requirement is deemed to be satisfied
if all parts of the structure are connected to provide
load paths to points of restraint and the members and
connections, as a minimum, can resist the following
lateral loads:
(a) Formwork and falsework members can resist the
Figure 4.11: Notional horizontal actions to ensure minimum levels of structural integrity
4:12
Formwork Handbook
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:12
effects of a notional horizontal action equivalent
to 0.025 times the applied vertical actions; and
(b) Formwork and falsework connections and ties
can resist the effects of a notional horizontal
action equivalent to 0.05 times the applied
vertical actions.
The applied vertical actions should be
determined from, and act simultaneously with, the most
adverse combination of permanent and variable vertical
actions [G, Q]. The robustness horizontal action should
be considered to apply at the respective points of
application for each vertical action, see Figure 4.11.
The requirements in AS/NZS 1170.0 for
robustness are similar purpose to the tried and proven
BSI 5975 minimum stability requirements, which require
falsework structures to resist a minimum horizontal
action of 2.5% of the applied vertical actions (Tayakorn
and Rasmussen 2009).
For practical purposes, to comply with the
robustness requirements in AS/NZS 1170.0, it is
sufficient for all formwork structures to be designed
to resist the most adverse effects that result from the
strength limit states action combinations in Section
4.3.2.2, which include Combinations 4.11b and 4.12b.
The horizontal notional actions (N3), in
Combinations 4.11b and 4.12b, are applied at each
point of application of the vertical actions, see Figure
4.11. The magnitude of the horizontal notional action
(N3) should not be less than 0.025 times the combined
factored vertical action at each point of application.
The horizontal notional actions apply in each falsework
plane.
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 4.3 ACTION COMBINATIONS
Verifying that serviceability and ultimate limit
states have been satisfied requires first determining the
appropriate combinations of actions for each design
situation.
For clarity, some actions (e.g. water, snow, ice
and earthquake) have been omitted in the following
lists of action combinations. Where these actions may
occur, they should be taken into account in accordance
with AS/NZS 1170.0.
In this text, the format and load factors of
combinations of actions presented vary from those
presented in AS 3610:1995 Table 4.5.1. They have
been updated to comply with AS/NZS 1170.0 and
include loads omitted in AS 3610:1995 that need
to be taken into account. Designs based on these
equations are deemed to comply with AS 3610:1995
under the provisions of Clause 1.4, which permits
the use of methods of design not specifically
referenced, provided the requirements of the
Standard are met.
The notation used in the following sections
is intended to express the design action effect that
results from the combined effect of the applicable
concurrent actions selected from the listed set, factored
accordingly. The vertical actions and horizontal actions
have been grouped separately, but are considered to
act concurrently.
In the following combinations, the prefix ±
is used to indicate the action in question may act
in different directions; e.g. ± Wsh indicates that the
horizontal serviceability wind actions may act in any
direction. Consideration should be given to determining
and taking account of the application of the relevant
action in the direction that has the most adverse
effects.
4.3.1 Action combinations for serviceability
limit states
4.3.1.1 Surface finish quality and
dimensional control
For the purposes of verifying concrete surface
finish quality and dimensional accuracy, the following
possible combinations of vertical and horizontal
actions during Stage 2 needs to be considered, where
applicable:
(VY >*I*FJS3FY@DQG(VK >JS3FK@
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:13
where
Esv = serviceability action effect from
vertical actions;
Esh = serviceability action effect from
horizontal actions;
Pcv = vertical component from concrete pressure
acting on an inclined surface;
Pch = horizontal concrete pressure acting on a
vertical surface or the horizontal component
from concrete pressure acting on an inclined
surface; and
γp = serviceability load factor for concrete pressure,
where:
γp = 1.1 for Class 1 and Class 2;
otherwise, γp = 1.0.
Where the positional accuracy of the formed
element is important, consideration should be given
to deformations arising during Stage 2. In particular,
combinations that include for the effects of persistent
horizontal actions such as unbalanced concrete
pressure, wind and notional actions:
(VY >*I*F3FY@DQG(VK >3FK“:VK“1@ (4.4)
4.3.1.2 Elastic behaviour in multiple-use formwork
For multiple-use formwork it is important that
behaviour at serviceability limit states remain elastic
(reversible). This may be a problem for ductile materials
where the ratio of yield to ultimate strength is less than
the load ratio of serviceability limit states to strength
limit states; e.g. mild steel bolts in tension and mild steel
plates in bearing.
Inelastic behaviour is most likely to occur when
the formwork is most heavily loaded, typically during
Stages 2 and 3. Thus, consideration should be given
to combinations of actions that include for the effects
of the combined weight of formwork and concrete plus
any concurrently applied action, such as the weight of
workers and equipment, stacked materials, concrete
pressure, wind and notional loads:
(VY >*I*F4Y3FY“:VY@ (4.5)
DQG(VK >“4K3FK“:VK“1@
where
Qv = combination of vertical imposed actions;
i.e. [Qw or Qm, Qxv];
Qh = combination of horizontal imposed actions;
i.e. [Qah, Qxh];
Wsv = vertical serviceability limit states
(4.3) wind action; and
4:13
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 Wsh = horizontal serviceability limit states
(GYGVW >*I*F“:XY@
wind action. (4.8)
DQG(GKGVW >“:XK“1@

4.3.2 Action combinations for ultimate limit states Permanent and accidental actions,
– strength and stability (GYGVW >*I*F$Y@DQG(GKGVW >“$K@ (4.9)
For strength and stability limit states, the most where
adverse combinations of actions that occur during Edv.dst = net destabilising effect of the combined
Stages 1, 2 and 3 must be considered. vertical actions;
During Stage 1, Gc may be zero or represent the Edh.dst = net destabilising effect of the combined
weight of reinforcement. At this Stage, the destabilising horizontal actions;
effects (uplift, sliding and overturning) of wind are Wuv = vertical ultimate limit states wind action;
significant in comparison to subsequent Stages. Wuh = horizontal ultimate limit states wind action;
Over half of all formwork collapses occur Av = vertical actions from accidental impact;
during Stage 2. Thus, it is necessary to consider the and
concrete placement sequence (e.g. the possibility of Ah = horizontal actions from accidental impact.
concrete placed only on a single span or cantilever). It The above combinations should only
is unlikely that concrete placement would commence include actions that act concurrently and produce a
or continue during storm winds, so Stage 2 action destabilising effect. They should not include any actions
combinations including Wu can be neglected. However, that produce a stabilising effect.

as the primary cause of failure is inadequate bracing, Where applicable, action combinations including
the effect of snow, ice and earthquake actions should
the combinations of vertical and horizontal actions need
be taken into account (SA 2002).
careful consideration.
For combinations of vertical actions that
The design of primary members (shores and
produce net stabilising effects (Edv,stb)
primary beams) is often governed by the effects of
Permanent actions only,
stacked materials present during Stage 3.
Consideration should be given to the possibility
(GYVWE >*I*F@ (4.10)

that variable actions might act in the opposite direction where

to any permanent actions; e.g. concrete pressure, wind Edv,stb = net stabilising effect of the combined
or water actions might act in the opposite direction to vertical actions.
weight of the formwork. This combination should only include permanent
The action combination and partial load factors actions (or parts thereof) that produce a stabilising
for accidental impact, reflects the low probability that effect.
impact will occur simultaneously with other horizontal
actions and that some damage is acceptable. 4.3.2.2 Action combinations for
strength limit states
The basic combinations for strength limit states
4.3.2.1 Action combinations for
stability limit states are:
(a) Permanent actions only,
The basic action combinations for the stability
limit state are: (GY >*I*F@DQG(GK >“1“1@ (4.11a)
Combinations of vertical and horizontal actions (GY >*I*F@DQG(GK >“1@ (4.11b)
that produce net destabilising effects (Edv,dst and
Edh,dst), include: (b) Permanent, variable and notional actions,

Permanent actions only, (GY >*I*F4Y3FY“:VY@

(4.12a)
(GYGVW >*I*F@DQG(GKGVW >“1@ (4.6) DQG(GK >“4K3FK“:VK“1“1@

Permanent, variable and notional actions, (GY >*I*F4Y3FY“:VY@

(4.12b)
DQG(GK >“1@
(GYGVW >*I*F4Y3FY“:VY@
(4.7)
DQG(GKGVW >“4K3FK“:VK“1@ (GY >*I*F3FY“:VY@
(4.13)

4:14
Formwork Handbook

04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:14 12/09/2016 7:14 am

 The factor γd is intended to reduce the
DQG(GK >3FK“:VK“1“1@
probability of failure due to underestimates of the action
(GY >*I*F“:XY@ effects unique to formwork and falsework structures
(4.14)
DQG(GK >“:XK“1“1@ that are not accounted for by applying general limit
(GY >*I*F“:XY@ states load factors; i.e. 1.35G or 1.2G +1.5Q and 1.5P.
(4.15)
DQG(GK >“:XK“1“1@ Underestimates may arise due to phenomena such as
unanticipated load distribution (Ikäheimonen 1997).
(c) Permanent and accidental actions,
Herein the strength load factor for primary
(GY >*I*F$Y@DQG(GK >“$K@
where
Edv = design action effect from the combined
vertical actions; and
Edh = design action effect from the combined
horizontal actions.
As for stability limit states, where applicable,
action combinations including the effect of snow, ice
and earthquake actions should be taken into account
(SA 2002).
Concrete placement is not likely to proceed
during an ultimate wind event; therefore Combinations
4.14 and 4.14 are not considered to act during Stage 2.
4.3.2.3 Strength load factor for
“primary” members
For members and connections critical to
structural integrity (i.e. whose failure would cause
structural failure, instability or collapse), the strength
limit states design action effect Ed calculated from
action Combinations 4.11a to 4.16, should be multiplied
by a strength load factor γd, see Equation 4.17.
JG(G”5G
where
Rd = design resistance or capacity, see Chapter 3.
γd = strength load factor for primary members
For all “primary” members and connections
critical to structural integrity and whose
failure may cause instability or collapse of
the structure (e.g. primary beams, bearers,
soldiers, shores, props, form ties and
anchors), γd = 1.25; or
For members and connections not critical to
structural integrity and whose failure would
have only localised effects and deformations
and not cause overall failure, instability or
collapse of the structure (e.g. secondary
beams, joists, studs and form face members),
γd = 1.0.
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:15
(4.16) members γd replaces the global load factor introduced
in Amendment No 1 to AS 3610:1995 (SA 2003) to
take account of unanticipated load distribution. The
value for γd has been revised from 1.30 (in Amendment
1) to 1.25, as the result of calibration with the current
combinations of actions in AS1170.0. (i.e. action
combinations 1.2G + 1.5Q and 1.35G adopted in this
text versus 1.25G + 1.5Q specified in AS 3610:1995)
4.3.2.4 Duration of load factor for
use with AS 1720.1
The resistance of timber, plywood and LVL is
dependent upon the duration of loading. Resistance
decreases as load duration increases. Thus, for each
design situation, the appropriate duration of load factor
for use with AS 1720.1 (SA 2010) corresponds to the
duration of load factor (k1) for the shortest duration
action contributing to the combination, see Table 4.4.
For timber products, appropriate design
situations can be selected by considering, for each
combination of actions, the magnitude of the quotient
of the resulting action effect divided by the appropriate
load duration factor and not merely the magnitude of
(4.17)
the action effect alone.
The resistance of timber members and
connections may be overestimated where the
magnitude of the shortest duration action has an
negligible effect or, in the case of variable actions,
may be omitted from the action combination. In this
case, it would be appropriate to consider the quotient
of the action effect resulting from the combined
remaining actions and the duration of load factor (k1)
for the next shortest duration action contributing to the
combination.
Design Example
For the limit states strength design of a formwork
soffit bearer, taking account of vertical permanent and
imposed actions and neglecting all other actions, the
governing combination of actions for the design of
timber bearers could be one of the following:
4:15
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 Table 4.4: Duration of load factor (k1) for strength

Type of load Effective duration of peak load Duration of load factor k1

Formwork weight, Gf 5 months 0.80
Concrete weight, Gc
(a) for plywood 5 hours 0.97
(b) for bearers and joists 5 days 0.94
(c) for supports 5 months 0.80
Imposed actions, Qw and Qah 5 hours 0.97
Stacked materials, Qm 5 days 0.94
Accidental impact, A 5 seconds 1.00
Concrete pressure, P 5 hours 0.97
Wind,
(a) Serviceability wind, Ws 5 hours 0.97
(b) Ultimate wind, Wu 3 seconds 1.00
Snow, Su 5 days 0.94
Earthquake, Eu 5 minutes 1.00
Water, Su
(a) River currents 5 months 0.80
(b) Tidal action 5 hours 0.97
(c) Flooding 5 days 0.94
(d) Wave action 5 minutes 1.00

Stage 1 * I  4P or * I

6WDJH   RU 
Stage 2 * I  *F   4Z or * I  *F 
6WDJH  RU 
Stage 3 * I  *F   4P or * I  *F 
6WDJH  RU 

From Table 4.4, for each action, the effective duration of peak load and
duration of load factor for bearers are:

Formwork weight Gf 5 months and 0.80;

Concrete weight, Gc 5 days and 0.94;
Workers and equipment, Qw 5 hours and 0.97; and
Stacked materials, Qm 5 days and 0.94.

Taking account of the duration of load factor, the most adverse combination for the limit states strength
design of the timber bearers will be the greater of the following:

* I  4P * I

Stage 1 or
6WDJH    RU  
* I  *F   4Z * I  *F 
Stage 2 or
6WDJH   RU 

Stage 3
* I  *F   4P * I  *F 
or
6WDJH   RU 

Any risk of underestimation due to the negligible effect short term variable actions (e.g. workers and
equipment) with a high load duration factor or which might be omitted is avoided by considering combinations for
permanent actions only, as well as combinations for permanent and variable actions.

4:16
Formwork Handbook

04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:16 12/09/2016 7:14 am

 REFERENCES
Ayoub, H. N. and S. Karshenas (1994). “Survey
Results for Concrete Construction Live Loads on Newly
Poured Slabs.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
120 (No. 5, May): 1543-1562.
ECS (2004). EN 12812.2 Falsework –
Performance requirements and general design.
Brussells, European Committee for Standardization.
Ellingwood, B., J. G. MacGregor, T. V. Galambos
and C. A. Cornell (1982). “Probability Based Load
Criteria: Load Factors and Load Combinations.” ASCE
Journal of the Structural Division 108 (No ST5 May):
978-997.
Fattal, S. G. (1983). Evaluation of construction
loads in multistory concrete buildings. Washington,
D.C., U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Bureau of
Standards : For sale by the Supt. of Docs. U.S. G.P.O.
Ikäheimonen, J. (1997). Construction Loads on
Shores and Stability of Horizontal Formworks Doctoral
Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology.
ISO (1998). ISO 2394:1998 General principles
on reliability for structures. Geneve, International
Organization for Standardization.
Karshenas, S. and H. N. Ayoub (1994). “Analysis
of Concrete Construction Live Loads on Newly Poured
Slabs.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 120
(No. 5, May): 1525-1542.
McAdam, P. S. and G. Lee (1997). Formwork a
practical approach. London, E & EF Spon.
Rosowsky, D. V., Y. L. Huang, W. F. Chen and T.
Yen (1994). “Modeling concrete placement loads during
construction.” Structural Engineering Review 6(2):
71-84.
04 - Actions & Actions.indd 4:17
SA (1995). AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1996). AS 3610 Supplement 2 – 1996
Formwork for concrete – Commentary. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2002). AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural
design actions Part 0: General principles. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2002). Australian/New Zealand Standard
AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural Design Actions Part 0:
General principles. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2002a). AS/NZS 1170.1:2002 Structural
design actions Part 1: Permanent, imposed and other
actions. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2002b). AS/NZS 1170.2 Structural design
actions Part 2: Wind actions. Sydney, Standards
Australia.
SA (2003). Amendment No. 1 to AS 3610:1995
Formwork for concrete. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2003). Australian/New Zealand Standard
AS/NZS 1170.3:2003 Structural Design Actions Part 2:
Snow and ice actions. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2010). AS 1720.1:2010 Timber structures.
Part 1: Design methods. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2010). AS/NZS 1576.1:2010 Scaffolding Part
1: General requirements. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SII (1998). SI 904 Formwork for Concrete:
Principles, The Standards Institution of Israel.
Tayakorn, C. and K. J. R. Rasmussen (2009).
Research Report No R896 Structural Modelling of
Support Scaffold Systems, University of Sydney
4:17
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:14 am
 5
Concrete Pressure

Figure 5.1: Comparison between measured and calculated pressures (Clear and Harrison 1985)

5.1 INTRODUCTION When hydration commences, the concrete starts

The behaviour of concrete and its effect on
concrete pressure are discussed in detail in this
Chapter. The Chapter starts with a review of the
method adopted in AS 3610:1995 (SA 1995) to calculate
concrete pressure.
This is followed by a review of the influence of
different factors on concrete pressure and selecting an
appropriate rate of rise so as to avoid cold joints.
The final part of this Chapter presents an
overview of the statics of concrete pressure.
to set. Products form on the surface of the cement
particles enhancing inter-particle bond and restricting
inter-particle movement. Once this occurs, increments
of vertical load have a reduced effect on the concrete
pressure. Equation 5.2 takes account of the influence
that various factors have on the onset and rate of
hydration.
When applied, these equations produce a
design pressure envelope similar to that depicted in
Figure 5.2.

5.2 CIRIA REPORT NO 108

The concrete pressure exerted on the formwork
may be calculated using the method developed by
Clear and Harrison in the CIRIA Report 108 (Clear and
Harrison 1985), which was adopted in AS 3610:1995.
Equations 5.1 and 5.2 were developed from
tests involving some 350 sets of data. Figure 5.1 shows
a comparison between measured and calculated
pressures using these equations.
Newly mixed concrete comprises a gradation of
particles from coarse aggregate down to fine cement
particles suspended in water. At this stage, the concrete
exerts a fluid or hydrostatic pressure on the formwork, Figure 5.2: Concrete pressure envelope (Clear and
which can be determined using Equation 5.1. Harrison 1985)

5:1
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:1 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 Figure 5.2 shows the effect concrete setting has C3 = coefficient for the effect concrete temperature

on the maximum hydrostatic concrete pressure, which §  ·
has on setting time, &  ¨¨ ¸¸
occurs at a depth hh below the top of the concrete, © 7F   ¹
given in Equation 5.3. where, Tc = concrete temperature at
The concrete pressure (Pc) at any depth (h) placement, ° C.
below the top of the concrete can be determined as In some situations, Equation 5.3 may not have a real
follows (Clear and Harrison 1985): solution or the depth hh at which stiffening takes
(a) For h < hh, effect may be greater than the depth of the concrete
3F UJK (5.1) pour hc. In this case, the concrete pressure Pc should
(b) For h ≥ hh, be determined using Equation 5.1 where h = hc, and
3F UJKK (5.2) Equation 5.2 can be neglected.
The values in Table 5.1 were taken from
where
KK & 5F  & & K I 
 & 5F d KF (5.3)
AS 3610:1995 and have been updated to include
subsequently published guidance (Pallett 2009).
In Equations 5.1 to 5.3, Retarding admixtures include retarders,
Pc = concrete pressure at a depth (h), in kPa retarding water reducers, retarding superplasticisers
and any admixture that is used such that it effectively
ρ = wet density of concrete, in kg/m3
acts as a retarder.
g = gravity, m/s2
Type SR cement is defined on a performance
h = depth below the top of the concrete basis and may contain a high percentage of slag
(0 ≤ h ≤ hc), m necessitating the use in Table 5.1 of a higher value of
hc = depth of concrete pour, m coefficient C2 than the 0.30 suggested by Clear and
hh = maximum depth of hydrostatic pressure, m Harrison (1985).
(see Figure 5.2) Equations 5.1 and 5.2 are likely to be
conservative for no-fines concrete, underwater
hf = vertical form height, m
concreting, controlled permeability form fabrics (Arslan
Rc = vertical rate of concrete rise up the form, m/hr
2002) and very permeable forms such as expanded
C1 = coefficient dependent on the size and shape metal. In the latter case, concrete pressures may be
of formwork, reduced by as much as 50%.
where the plan width or breadth is greater than Importantly, the equations have not been proven
2 m, C1 = 1.0; otherwise, C1 = 1.5. for temperatures in excess of 30 °C or below 5 °C and
C2 = coefficient for the effect concrete cement and do not cover: concrete pumped from below; the use of
admixtures have on setting time, external vibrators attached to the formwork; revibrating
(0 ≤ C2 ≤ 0.6), see Table 5.1 the concrete by deeply immersing internal vibrators; i.e.

Table 5.1: Values of coefficient C2

Group Concrete C2
A Concrete with GP or HE cement
Basic Concrete with GB cement containing less than 20% fly ash and/or slag that also 0.30
concrete includes metakaolin or silica fume
B Concrete with LH, SR or SL cement
Retarded Concrete with GB cement 0.45
concrete Self-compacting concrete (SCC)
C
Heavily Any Group A or B concrete (including SCC) with cement containing greater than 35%
0.60
retarded flyash or greater than 65% slag
concrete
For any concrete (including SCC) in Group A or B, increase the value of C2 by adding 0.15 where a retarding
admixture is used in the concrete.

5:2
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:2 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 Table 5.2: Factors affecting concrete pressure (Clear and Harrison 1985)

Concrete Admixtures
Aggregate shape, size, grading and density
Cementitious materials
Mix proportions
Temperature at placing
Wet density
Workability
Formwork Permeability/watertightness
Plan shape and area of the cast section
Roughness of the sheeting material
Slope of the form
Stiffness of the form
Vertical form height
Placing Impact of concrete discharge
In air or underwater
Placing method (e.g. lift height or rate of rise)
Vibration

more than 1.0 m. In these cases, formwork pressures
are likely to be higher.
In the case of self-compacting concrete, DIN
18218 “Pressure of fresh concrete on vertical formwork”
(DIN 2010) provides guidance based on research by
Proske (2002).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the maximum
concrete pressure ever measured is 150 kPa.
5.2.1 Factors influencing concrete pressure
From casual inspection of Equation 5.1, it is clear
that concrete density and vertical pour height have
a direct (linear) bearing on the hydrostatic concrete
pressure. In Equations 5.2 and 5.3, some of the factors
that influence the rate of hydration and therefore
concrete pressure are less obvious and discussed
herein. Form height and the height at which the
concrete is discharged are also discussed as these can
affect the maximum concrete pressure.
Factors that affect the maximum concrete
pressure are listed in Table 5.2.
Some of these factors are taken into account in
Equations 5.1 to 5.3, namely:
ρ = wet density of concrete, kg/m3;
hc = vertical pour height, m;
C1 = coefficient dependent on the size and shape
of formwork;
Rc = vertical rate of concrete rise up the form, m/hr;
C2 = coefficient for the effect concrete cement and
admixtures have on setting time, see Table 5.1;
Tc = concrete temperature at placement, ° C; and
hf = vertical height of form, m.
Figures 5.3 to 5.8 are included to demonstrate
the sensitivity of concrete pressure to each of these
factors, for pours up to 6 m high. In each case, only
one variable changed. Otherwise, each figure depicts a
scenario where concrete with a wet density of 24 kN/m3
is discharged from the top of formwork that is nominally
200 mm higher than the pour. The nominal rate of
concrete rise in the formwork is 5 m/hr. The nominal
coefficient for concrete materials C2 is taken to be equal
to 0.45 and the concrete temperature is assumed to
be 20 °C. Except for Figure 5.4, where C1 = 1.5 (e.g.
columns), the nominal value for coefficient C1 = 1.0 (e.g.
walls).
5.2.2 Plan shape and area of cast section
A common misconception is that deep elements
with a large plan area (e.g. 3 m deep raft foundations)
have high concrete pressures. To the contrary, in
elements with small plan cross-section shape or area
vibration can be sufficient to mobilise all the concrete;
however, in elements with a large plan section or area,
all of the concrete is not mobilised at the same time and
less energy is transmitted into the formwork.
The effect is that the maximum pressures in
walls are lower than in columns. For the purposes
of Equation 5.3, a “column” is defined as a section
where both the width and breadth are equal to or less
than 2 m; otherwise, the section is considered to be
a “wall”. The difference in pressure between “walls”
and “columns” is addressed in Equation 5.3 by the

5:3
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:3 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 Figure 5.3: Influence of rate of rise
on concrete pressure in walls

Figure 5.4: Influence of rate of rise

on concrete pressure in columns

Figure 5.5: Influence of coefficient

C2 on concrete pressure in walls

5:4
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:4 12/09/2016 7:15 am


coefficient C1, which is equal to 1.0 for “walls” and 1.5
for “columns”.
The effect of plan shape and area can be seen
by comparing the pressures plotted in Figures 5.3 and
5.4, which plot the concrete pressure for a range of
rates of concrete rise.
Clearly the pressure in columns (Figure 5.4) is
greater than walls (Figure 5.3) and hydrostatic pressure
governs the design of columns more so than for walls.
5.2.3 Concrete rate of rise
The rate at which concrete rises vertically up the
formwork is a critical factor. The effect of rate of rise on
concrete pressure is shown in Figures 5.3 and 5.4, for
walls and columns respectively.
From Figures 5.3 and 5.4, it can also be seen
that:
(a) As the rate of rise increases, the maximum
concrete pressure increases; and
(b) The rate of rise has a greater influence compared
to other factors.
The rate of rise has a significant effect on
the maximum concrete pressure and factors to be
considered when selecting an appropriate rate of rise
are discussed in more detail later in the Chapter.
5.2.4 Constituent concrete materials
Concrete pressure is greater in concrete that
takes longer to set (i.e. Groups B and C in Table 5.1).
Coefficient C2 (specified in Table 5.1) takes
into account the effects of concrete with different
cements and admixtures. The value of C2 in Table 5.1
05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:5
Figure 5.6: Influence of concrete
temperature on concrete pressure
in walls
should be increased for admixtures that effectively act
as retarders, such as retarding water reducers and
any admixture that is used above the recommended
dosage.
The effects of different values of coefficient C2
can be seen in Figure 5.5, which plots the maximum
concrete pressure for concrete placed in wall formwork.
Figure 5.5 demonstrates that concrete pressure
increases with increasing the values of C2.
5.2.5 Concrete temperature
As with all chemical reactions, the rate of
hydration increases with increased temperature.
Higher concrete temperature will increase in the rate of
hydration causing a reduction in concrete pressure.
In Equation 5.3, the coefficient (C3) takes
account of the effects concrete temperature has on
concrete setting time. Its influence is demonstrated in
Figure 5.6, specifically:
(a) As the concrete temperature increases the
maximum concrete pressure decreases; and
(b) At low concrete temperatures, changes have a
greater effect on the maximum pressure.
The temperature factor C3 is considered
sufficiently accurate for concrete temperatures at
placing between 5 °C and 30 °C. It would not be
prudent to extrapolate the design equation beyond
these values.
5.2.6 Vertical form height
The vertical form height hf is important because
it limits the maximum possible vertical pour height and
5:5
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:15 am
 Figure 5.7: Measuring vertical form height or concrete discharge height (Clear and Harrison 1985)

Figure 5.8: Influence of vertical form

height on concrete pressure in walls

therefore the maximum pressure. previously discussed it has less of an effect on the
The form height may also dictate the minimum maximum concrete pressure.
discharge height, which is important because the
impact of falling concrete increases concrete pressure. 5.2.7 Other factors
Figure 5.7 demonstrates how the factor hf should be Other factors that affect the maximum concrete
measured. pressure include m`ethod of vibration and formwork
Figure 5.8 demonstrates the influence of a range permeability. In addition, when concrete is placed
of vertical form heights expressed in terms of height underwater, concrete pressure is affected.
above the top of the pour.
Concrete may be placed by a static hopper with 5.2.7.1 Method of vibration
a tremie pipe, directly to the base of the form. In this Equations 5.1 and 5.2 do not cover situations
case, the height of the concrete shall be measured from where:
the base of the form to the top of the hopper (Pallett 1. Concrete is pumped from below;
2009). 2. External vibrators are attached to the formwork;
Although, the maximum concrete pressure and
increases with increasing form height or concrete 3. The concrete is revibrated by immersing internal
discharge height, when compared with the factors vibrators more than 1.0 m.

5:6
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:6 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 In these cases, formwork pressures are likely to
be higher.
5.2.7.2 Formwork permeability
If all other conditions are equal, formwork
pressures decrease as the formwork permeability
increases. For example, pressures are substantially
lower (up to 50%) for extremely permeable form
materials such as expanded metal or fabric (Pallett
2000).
5.2.7.3 Underwater concreting
When concrete is placed under water, the
effective weight of concrete (density) is reduced by the
weight density of water (e.g. 25 kN/m3 concrete under
water weighs 15 kN/m3). Further guidance can be found
in the British Concrete Society publication “Formwork –
A guide to good practice” (CS 2012).
For concrete elements where the plan area of
the concrete element varies with height, the rate of
concrete delivery must also vary if a constant rate of
rise is to be maintained.
5.3.1 Minimum rate of rise for full depth
hydrostatic pressure
It is often useful to know the minimum rate
of rise Rh at which the concrete pressure will remain
hydrostatic to the full depth of the concrete pour. If the
actual rate of rise Rc is greater than Rh, Equation 5.2
can be neglected.
Equations 5.5 and 5.6 calculate the minimum
rate of rise for hydrostatic pressure to occur to a
concrete depth h.
If the difference between the height of the
formwork hf and the depth of the concrete h is
small, it can be shown that the concrete will behave
hydrostatically to a depth h, if:

§ K  &  &  ·

5.3 RATE OF RISE
The rate concrete rises up the form has a
significant effect on concrete pressure. In selecting
an appropriate rate of rise upon which to base the
formwork design, consideration must be given to many
factors including: the proposed method and rate of
concrete delivery, the proposed method and sequence
of concrete placement, the duration of concrete
placement, formwork economy, formwork shape and
plan area, and any limitations on formwork strength or
serviceability. In any case, the formwork design should
be based on a realistic estimate of the maximum rate of
rise that could be expected.
For concrete elements with parallel side
formwork, the rate of rise (Rc ) can be calculated as
follows:
9F
5F
$F
where
Vc = rate of concrete delivery, m3/hr; and
Ac = plan area of the concrete element
to be cast, m2.
5K K  t ¨¨ ¸
¸ (5.5)
&
©  ¹
If the difference in height is significant, the
equation is much more complex, as shown in
Equation 5.6 (below).
5.3.2 Proposed method of concrete placement
Concrete may be placed in many ways. The
most common methods are: discharging directly out
of the truck into the formwork; discharging out the
truck into a concrete kibble (or skip), which is lifted by
a crane and emptied into the formwork; or discharging
out of the truck into the hopper of a concrete pump
and pumped along a pipeline and/or boom into the
formwork.
A concrete truck is capable of discharging its
contents directly into formwork at approximately 30
(5.4)
m3/hr. The rate at which concrete can be delivered
by crane is approximately 20 to 25 m3/hr. If concrete
pumps are used, concrete may be delivered at rates
of 50 to 75 m3/hr. If concrete is delivered concurrently
from more than one source (e.g. two pumps) the rates

§  & &    K  & &    K   K   & &   K  ·
I ¸
5K K  t ¨¨
     
(5.6)
¨ & ¸¸
© ¹

5:7
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:7 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 Figure 5.9: Concrete placed in layers

Figure 5.10: Vertical construction joints introduced to reduce the area of concrete to be placed

of delivery will potentially increase proportionally. of the concrete. Common practice is to ensure each layer
On the other hand: is placed within in 0.5 hrs. This has a direct relationship
(a) The rate of rise chosen should also be consistent on the minimum permitted rate of rise, specifically:
with practical minimum concrete delivery rates.
GO
If the rate of rise is too slow, previously placed 5F t (5.7)
WF
concrete may start to set causing cold joints to
form, or concrete yet to be placed may start to where
set causing blockages; and dl = thickness of the layer, m; and
(b) When chutes are used to place concrete and tc = setting time of the concrete, hrs.
avoid segregation the rate of rise may also be Based on typical values of dl = 0.5 m and tc =
slower than expected. 0.5 hrs, substituting into Equation 5.7 establishes a
practical minimum rate of concrete rise:
5.3.3 Proposed sequence of concrete placement

It is good practice to place and vibrate concrete, 5F t t  PKU (5.8)

progressively, in layers (typically 300 to 500 mm thick). and Equation 5.4 becomes:
A layer is placed over the whole plan area of the form,
9F
before commencing the subsequent layer. Each layer is 5F t  PKU (5.9)
$F
placed following the same sequence or path, starting
Similarly, a useful expression for the minimum
and finishing at the same location, see Figure 5.9.
rate of concrete delivery is given by:
To avoid cold joints (where a layer of concrete
sets before the subsequent layer is placed), the time to 9F t  $F PKU (5.10)
place a single layer should be less than the setting time

5:8
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:8 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 Figure 5.11: Concrete placed to full height over a shorter distance to avoid cold joints

On large pours (e.g. raft foundations) it may not
be possible to deliver concrete at a rate that satisfies
the inequality in Equation 5.10. In this case, two options
are available:
(a) Divide the concrete element into two or more
parts that each satisfy Equation 5.10, and
which are poured on separate days. This can
be achieved by introducing vertical construction
joints, see Figure 5.10; or
(b) Place the concrete in layers, which are the full
width of the concrete element, but reach full
height in a shorter distance, such that Equation
5.10 is satisfied. In this way, the concrete is
progressively placed from one end of the pour to
the other in layers, which might be considered
like parallelograms in elevation, see Figure 5.11.
In the latter case, the angle and length of the
slope as well as the layer thickness is dictated by the
properties and behaviour of the concrete mix, including
the internal shear friction (φ c).
“tapered” walls and columns whose plan area varies
with height.
5.3.6 Economy
The direct relationship between rate of rise and
the required formwork stiffness and strength provides
an apparent opportunity for economy by choosing a
lower rate of rise. This must be balanced to achieve
an overall cost-effective solution. Potential formwork
savings may be offset by additional costs for labour
to place the concrete and to deliver concrete in small
quantities.
5.3.7 Limitations on formwork strength
or serviceability
It may be necessary to restrict the rate of
concrete rise to avoid overloading formwork with a
limited capacity. This is often necessary when using
proprietary column and wall panel formwork systems.

5.4 STATICS OF CONCRETE PRESSURE

5.3.4 Duration of concrete placement
To design formwork, it is necessary to know
For scheduling reasons, concrete is often placed
the magnitude and shape of the concrete pressure
in vertical elements such as walls and columns late in
distribution. At this stage, it is useful to introduce the
the afternoon. At this time of day, the time remaining to
concept of a concrete pressure reduction factor (α),
the pour the concrete is often limited by the desire of:
such that:
workers to go home; or employers to avoid or minimise
KK
overtime penalties. This situation is inconsistent with D d  (5.11)
specifying a slow rate of rise.
KF

Using α , Equations 5.1 and 5.2 can be replaced by:

5.3.5 Formwork and reinforcement arrangement
3F D3F PD[ (5.12)
The arrangement of the reinforcement and
formwork may obstruct or impede concrete placement where
or vibration, which can result in a rate of delivery less
3F PD[ UJKF (5.13)
than what might otherwise be expected. For example:
thin walls and balustrades are narrow; and heavily
reinforced elements have little space between bars. 5.4.1 Vertical side formwork
Consideration should also be given the effects For vertical side formwork, it can be shown that
changes in plan area have on the rate of rise; e.g. the resultant force (Fp) per unit width produced by the

5:9
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:9 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 (a) Hydrostatic (α = 1.0) (b) Limited by setting (α < 1.0)

Figure 5.12: Concrete pressure distribution on vertical formwork

(a) (b)
Figure 5.13: Hydrostatic concrete pressure distribution on an inclined soffit or lower surface

concrete pressure distribution acting at the centre of Equations 5.16 and 5.17 can be considered
pressure at a height hp above the bottom of the form, is generic expressions for all values of α.
given by either:
(a) If α = 1.0, the maximum concrete pressure is 5.4.2 Inclined side or sloping soffit formwork
hydrostatic, see Figure 5.12(a), and: The situation is slightly more complex with
inclined formwork.
3F PD[ KF
)S N1PDQG (5.14)

5.4.2.1 Hydrostatic concrete pressure
KF
KS P (5.15) Soffit or lower form

First consider the distribution of hydrostatic
(b) If α ≤ 1.0, the concrete pressure may be limited
concrete pressure on an inclined surface AB, shown
by concrete setting, see Figure 5.12(b), and:
in Figure 5.13(a). In accordance with Pascals Law, the

> @
concrete pressure distribution is as shown in Figure
3F PD[ KF
    D  N1PDQG

)S (5.16) 5.13(b).

However, the distribution of hydrostatic pressure

KF ª    D  º could also be considered equivalent to the vector sum

KS «  »
P of the orthogonal pressure distribution components as
 «¬    D  »¼ (5.17)
shown in Figure 5.14, namely:

5:10
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:10 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 3F 3F[  3F\ (5.18)

This is the typical situation for a sloping soffit

or the lower form of an inclined wall or column. In this
case, the resolution of the pressure distributions shown
in Figure 5.14 is useful for input into structural analysis
software and often makes hand calculations simpler.

Top or upper form

Next, consider the situation of the hydrostatic
pressure on a top form of a sloping soffit or the upper
form of an inclined wall or column, as shown in Figure
5.15(a).
The pressure distribution is shown in Figure
5.15(b) and the resolution into orthogonal components
in Figure 5.16.
Figure 5.14: Vector components of hydrostatic
concrete pressure distribution on an inclined soffit or
lower surface

(a) (b)

Figure 5.15: Hydrostatic concrete pressure distribution on an inclined top or upper surface

Figure 5.16: Vector components of hydrostatic Figure 5.17: Incorrect concrete pressure distribution
concrete pressure distribution on an inclined top or (limited by setting) on an inclined soffit or lower
upper surface surface

5:11
Formwork Handbook

05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:11 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 Figure 5.19: Correct concrete pressure distribution
Figure 5.18: Vector components of concrete pressure (limited by setting) on an inclined soffit or lower
distribution (limited by setting) on an inclined soffit or surface
lower surface

Figure 5.21: Vector components of concrete pressure

Figure 5.20: Concrete pressure distribution limited by distribution limited by setting on an inclined top or
setting on an inclined top or upper form upper form

5.4.2.2 Concrete pressure limited by setting of concrete pressure normal to the bottom of the
inclined form (Pcx’) is given by the expression:
Soffit or lower form
First assume that the maximum concrete 3F[
3F PD[ D VLQ  T  FRV  T  (5.19)
pressure shown in Figure 15.13(a) is limited by concrete
Furthermore, the magnitude of the component
setting. Intuitively, the pressure diagram might be
of concrete pressure in the plane of the inclined form
expected to be as shown in Figure 5.17, which is often
Pcy’ increases from zero at a depth of hh = αhc to a
how it is presented in the literature.
maximum value at the full depth of the concrete at point
However, by considering the vector sum of the
A given by the expression:
orthogonal pressure components shown in Figure 5.18
it can be shown that the distribution in Figure 5.17 is 3F\
3F PD[ VLQ T FRV T   D  (5.20)
incorrect. The distribution shown in Figure 5.17 does
not take into account that the vertical component of
concrete pressure is not limited by setting.
The correct concrete pressure distribution is as
shown in Figure 5.19.
In Figure 5.19, the magnitude of the component
5:12
Formwork Handbook
05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:12
The latter is significant as it results in an axial
tension/compression force in the form, which is often
neglected in the literature and as a consequence may
cause underestimation.
The validity of this solution can be seen by
considering as θ approaches 90 degrees (closer to a
12/09/2016 7:15 am
 vertical form), the concrete pressure Pcx’ (in Equation
5.19) approaches αPcmax and Pcy’ (in Equation 5.20)
approaches zero. Conversely, as θ approaches zero
degrees (closer to a horizontal form), Pcx’ approaches
Pcmax , which approaches zero, and Pcy’ (in Equation
5.19) also approaches zero.
Top or upper form
In a similar way, consider the orthogonal vector
components of the concrete pressure distribution on a
top form of a sloping soffit or upper form of an inclined
wall or column as shown in Figure 5.20.
In this case, the orthogonal distribution diagram
is shown in Figure 5.21.
In either case, common errors can be avoided
and hand calculations simplified by considering the
vector components shown in Figures 5.14, 5.16, 5.18
and 5.21, as appropriate.
05 - Concrete Pressure.indd 5:13
REFERENCES
Arslan, M. (2002). “Effects of drainer formwork
on concrete lateral pressure.” Construction and Building
Materials 16: 253-259.
Clear, C. A. and T. A. Harrison (1985). Report
108 – Concrete pressure of formwork, CIRIA.
CS (2012). Formwork – A guide to good practice.
Berkshire, The Concrete Society.
DIN (2010). DIN 18218 Pressure of fresh
concrete on vertical formwork. Berlin, German
Standards.
Pallett, P. (2000). “Construction joints and stop
ends with Hy-Rib and ggbs concrete.” Concrete 34
(No. 10, Nov/Dec): 37-40.
Pallett, P. (2009). “Concrete groups for formwork
pressure deterimination.” Concrete
Vol 43 (No. 2, March): pp 44-46.
Proske, T. (2002). “Self-Compacting Concrete
– Pressure on formwork and ability to deaerate.”
Darmstadt Concrete 17.
SA (1995). AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
5:13
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:15 am
 6 6.1
Side Formwork
Figure 6.1: Wall formwork with secondary horizontal
walers and primary vertical soldiers
Figure 6.2: Wall formwork with secondary vertical
studs and primary horizontal walers
06 - Side Formwork.indd 6:1
INTRODUCTION
The term “side formwork” covers a broad range
of applications including slab edge, beam side, wall and
column formwork. The discussion herein will focus on
design of wall formwork, but principles apply equally to
other types of side formwork.
Side formwork usually consists of a form face,
secondary members (horizontal walers or vertical
studs), primary members (vertical soldiers or horizontal
walers) and form ties as shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2.
The concrete pressure from freshly placed
concrete is transferred via the one-way action of the
form face and framing members to the form ties and/or
bracing, see Figure 6.3.
The most common method of resisting the
concrete pressure is to balance the force on opposing
faces using form ties in tension, see Figure 6.4.
In some situations, form ties are not or cannot
be used. In this case, the concrete pressure must be
resisted by bracing alone. Such a situation is typical for
single-sided formwork, as shown in Figure 6.5.
Irrespective of the method used to resist
concrete pressure, side formwork requires bracing to
resist destabilising imposed actions and accidental
impact. In addition, when formwork is inclined or
opposing forms are not parallel, the formwork must be
designed to resist “out-of-balance” concrete forces.
In general, the principles governing the design
of side formwork are adequately covered in the
literature (CS 2012) and apply equally to formwork
Figure 6.3: Load distribution through side formwork
(McAdam and Lee 1997)
6:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:15 am
 designed using permissible stress or limit states
methods; however, some important aspects are often
misunderstood and warrant attention. In addition,
in some cases, confusion exists about the correct
application of limit states design methods and this also
warrants further explanation.
6.2 FORM TIES
6.2.1 Types of form ties
Form ties are tension members and usually
consist of a rod or bar with a connector at each end.
Figure 6.4: Double-sided wall formwork (bracing not
shown)
Figure 6.5: Single-sided wall formwork
6:2
Formwork Handbook
06 - Side Formwork.indd 6:2
Form ties can be fixed length or adjustable and some
types of ties can be recovered and reused. Common
types of form ties are shown in Figure 6.6, including Bar
ties, She-bolts, Coil ties and Snap ties.
Bar ties are adjustable and consist of a coarse
threaded rod with nuts and plates. They can be fully
recovered by isolating the threaded rod from the
concrete using a sleeve and cone assembly. Parts of
She-bolts and Coil ties can be recovered and reused,
leaving only a threaded rod cast-in the wall. Snap ties
are not intended to be recovered and reused. Form
ties with non-recoverable ferrous parts, such as She-
bolts, Coil ties and Snap ties, should be designed
so that no part of the tie remains within the concrete
cover zone.
6.2.2 Form tie capacity
In determining the design capacity of form ties it
is important to:
(a) Take account of the mode of failure –
ductile or brittle;
(b) Consequence of failure;
(c) Ensure form ties are more reliable than the
members they join;
Figure 6.6: Common types of form ties
12/09/2016 7:15 am
 (d) Take account of wear and tear that may impair
the strength of reusable sections; and
(e) If reusable, ensure elastic behaviour at
serviceability limit states.
In the past, the design capacity of form ties
was established from tests using the ultimate strength
method (SAA 1974a). The permissible load of a form
tie was established by dividing the ultimate strength
determined from tests by a load factor. The value of the
load factor was 2.0 for non-reusable sections and 3.0
for reusable sections. Importantly, when determining
the ultimate strength from a limited number of tests any
differences between the structural properties of the
materials tested and guaranteed minimum properties
must be taken into account.
6.2.2.1 Comment on the current design rules
for tension members resisting concrete
pressure and other threaded tension
members
Studies into the cause of falsework failures
suggest that often the failure of side formwork is a
trigger for the collapse of falsework (Hadipriono and
Wang 1986). In addition, researchers measuring the
load in form ties found them to vary from predicted
values. Thus, the consequence of form tie failure
is important and an increase in design actions or
reduction in capacity is necessary to take account
of unanticipated load redistribution and the mode of
failure.
Currently, AS 3610:1995 (SA 1995) permits
the design capacity components to be established
by calculation or testing in accordance with Appendix
A. In addition, AS 3610:2010 (SA 2010) requires all
threaded components to be free of wear, deformation
or corrosion that might impair strength.
A major shortcoming of testing in accordance
with AS 3610:1995 Appendix A is that it does not
distinguish between non-reusable and reusable
sections, nor mode of failure (ductile or brittle), nor
whether the component tested is a member or
connector, where the latter requires a greater level of
reliability.
To some extent this shortcoming is addressed
in that AS 3610:1995 requires the design action in
tension members resisting concrete pressure, and other
threaded tension members, to be increased by 20%.
This factor is intended to take account of the mode
and consequence of failure; i.e. sudden failure without
06 - Side Formwork.indd 6:3
warning and the risk of progressive collapse.
Unfortunately, the current requirement to
increase the design action of tension members by
20% can be easily overlooked because it is applied
to the actions and not the capacity. An undesirable
consequence of introducing this load factor, versus
reducing capacity, was published capacities for some
form ties ostensibly “increased” from earlier published
data.
Amendment No 1 to AS 3610:1995 (SA 2003a)
introduced a global load factor to take account of
unanticipated load distribution. For members whose
failure could cause collapse, the magnitude of the
global load factor is 1.3; otherwise, for all other
members the magnitude of the global load factor is 1.0.
The global factor applies to form ties and is in addition
to the 20% increase in design actions.
Herein the strength load factor for primary
members γd, replaces the global load factor introduced
in Amendment No 1 to AS 3610:1995 and the value
has been recalibrated from 1.3 to 1.25 to be consistent
when using the current combinations of actions in
AS1170.0. (i.e. 1.2G +1.5Q and 1.35G which supersede
the combination 1.25G +1.5Q in AS 3610:1995), see
Section 4.3.2.3.
6.2.2.2 Recommendations on the design of
tension members resisting concrete
pressure and other threaded members
For formwork members resisting concrete
pressure in tension, and other threaded tension
members, increase the design forces calculated using
the strength limit states action combinations (see
Section 4.3.2.2):
(a) By the strength load factor for primary members,
γd = 1.25, to take account of unanticipated load
distribution (see Section 4.3.2.3); and
(b) By a further 20%, except for members whose
capacity has been reduced to take account of
mode and consequence of failure.
6.2.3 Serviceability limit states
Another shortcoming of the current design
method is that it does not ensure elastic behaviour at
serviceability limit state.
Excessive movement or elongation at
serviceability limit states is undesirable. Deformations at
serviceability limit states should be checked to ensure
6:3
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:15 am
 Figure 6.7: Form ties balance concrete pressure on double-sided formwork
that they are acceptable. Extremely ductile materials
may be unsuitable for use as formwork ties.
Guidance on ensuring elastic behaviour of
multiple-use equipment is provided in Chapter 3. A
simple and more conservative approach may be to
ensure elastic behaviour at ultimate limits states, which
negates the need to check serviceability limit states.
6.2.4 Form tie identification
A potential problem arises when form tie
components from different manufacturers are mixed,
i.e. nuts from manufacturer A used with threaded bar
from manufacturer B.
Purchasing stock from one source or marking
matching components may reduce the risk of
unintentional mixing.
Instances of two nuts being used to “increase”
the capacity of suspect form ties are also cause for
concern. When two nuts are locked together, the 2nd
nut carries the load. This practice does not increase
capacity and is not recommended. If the loaded nut
fails, the load will be transferred to the other nut which
may also fail. The purpose of lock nuts is to prevent
unintentional loosening. In this case, the lock nut is
placed on the bolt first followed by the full nut, not vice
versa as is common practice.
6.2.5 Precautions when using form ties
Form ties are intended to be used in tension.
The tensile capacity of form ties is eroded when subject
6:4
Formwork Handbook
06 - Side Formwork.indd 6:4
to shear and bending.
Due to the chemical properties of high tensile
steel form ties, welding is not recommended. Unless
special procedures are followed, the strength and
ductility of the form tie bar may be impaired by welding.
In addition, high tensile form ties should not be
hot dip galvanised due to the risk of brittle fracture.
Similarly, the risk of brittle fracture increases when high
tensile steel under load comes into contact with wet
concrete. Accordingly, some suppliers of high tensile
fasteners do not recommend using steel with a tensile
strength greater than 800 MPa when cast in concrete.
6.3 DOUBLE-SIDED WALL FORMWORK
6.3.1 Balanced concrete pressure
The most common and economical method of
wall formwork is double-sided. The concrete pressure
on each face is balanced by form ties, as shown in
Figure 6.7.
In the situation depicted in Figure 6.8, the
pressure on the lower face is greater than on the upper
face. The form ties balance the horizontal concrete
pressure on the upper face leaving an imbalance on the
lower face, which must be resisted by the formwork,
bracing and their connections to avoid instability.
6.3.2 Limit states design of wall form
face and framing members
A concrete pressure envelope can be
12/09/2016 7:15 am
 Figure 6.8: Form ties balance concrete pressure
on double-sided inclined formwork
Figure 6.9: Out-of-balance effects when opposing
side forms are not parallel
determined using Equations 5.1 to 5.3. For serviceability
limit states the action combination given in Equations
4.3 to 4.5 apply. For stability limit states, the action
combinations given in Equation 4.7 applies. For strength
limit states, the action combinations in Equations 4.12a
and 4.13 apply.
The deformations and action effects in form
face and framing members can be determined from the
pressure at the appropriate height intervals. For stability
and strength limit states, the action effects in primary
beam (e.g. vertical soldiers or horizontal walers), braces
and form ties should be multiplied by factor γd = 1.25 to
take account of unanticipated load redistribution.
Form ties are often capable of exerting much
higher forces on soldiers and walers than they can
resist in bearing, web yielding or web buckling.
06 - Side Formwork.indd 6:5
For timber
formwork, often
bearing capacity
perpendicular to
the grain will govern
design. For example, the
characteristic bearing capacity
of LVL products is of the order of 12 MPa;
therefore, twin LVL soldiers (50 mm apart) have a
limit states bearing capacity of approximately 50% of
the limit states tensile capacity of commonly used high
tensile form ties, when exerted by a bearing plate 130
mm wide by 100 mm high.
For cold-form steel formwork members, often
web buckling or web crippling will govern design.
6.3.3 Unbalanced concrete pressure
Figure 6.9 shows a plan of side formwork.
Where the opposing sides are not parallel, out-of-
balance effects arise. Axial forces are generated in the
plane of the formwork. Instability might be avoided by
creating a shear connection between adjacent sides, as
shown in Detail 1.
Figure 6.10 shows various arrangements of
inclined and tapered formwork with out-of-balance
effects. In each case, there is an imbalance of concrete
pressure that results in an unbalanced vertical action.
Often the vertical action can be balanced by a restraint
(tie or support) at the base of the formwork. In addition,
significant axial forces are generated in the formwork
6:5
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:15 am
 (a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 6.10: Out-of-balance effects on inclined and tapered wall formwork

6:6
Formwork Handbook

06 - Side Formwork.indd 6:6 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 Figure 6.11: Action effects
on single-sided formwork
and it is necessary to ensure that the formwork
members are capable of resisting the combined effects
of bending, shear and axial tension or compression, as
appropriate.
6.4 SINGLE-SIDED WALL FORMWORK
In some situations, it is not possible to use
form ties to balance concrete pressure. However,
considerable additional work (cost) is involved in bracing
single-sided formwork. So much so, it is recommended
that single-sided formwork should only be adopted after
careful consideration.
The action effects of pouring concrete in the
single side formwork in Figure 6.5 are depicted in
Figure 6.11. A common mistake is to underestimate
the magnitude of uplift to be resisted at the base of the
formwork. The connections anchor the formwork and
brace should be designed for the appropriate forces.
6.5 BRACING
Side formwork nearly always requires bracing to
provide stability and alignment.
6.5.1 Bracing for alignment
Bracing is required at intervals along the length
of side formwork to ensure transverse alignment, in
particular at the top of the formwork. The spacing of
06 - Side Formwork.indd 6:7
the bracing is a function of the formwork stiffness,
straightness and continuity.
Formwork may have sufficient stiffness to satisfy
strength and serviceability requirements across the
short span between form ties, but along its length it
may be slender and require bracing at regular intervals.
In addition, horizontal framing members may not
be straight and bracing may be required to straighten
the formwork. The sides of column formwork are
often slightly twisted or prone to twisting under load.
Therefore, bracing is required to hold the formwork
square.
Larger concrete elements, with long sides,
may be formed by joining a series of formwork panels
together. Without bracing, the joints may be misaligned
causing steps and/or angular misalignment in the
concrete face.
6.5.2 Bracing for stability
6.5.2.1 Robustness
Bracing may also be necessary to ensure a
minimum level of stability. This can be achieved by
designing the bracing members and connections to
resist 2.5% of the weight of the formwork and concrete,
as well as imposed actions, see action Combinations
4.11b and 4.12b in Section 4.3.2.2.
6:7
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:15 am
 Figure 6.12: Imposed and notional actions on side formwork

Figure 6.13: Bracing for accidental impact

6:8
Formwork Handbook

06 - Side Formwork.indd 6:8 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 6.5.2.2 Imposed actions AS 3850:2003 provides useful guidance on
In addition to any out-of-balance effects from assessing anchor capacity. AS 3850 recommends that
concrete placement, bracing and its connections are anchors that rely solely on chemical adhesion should
also required to resist the appropriate combinations of not be used unless each fixing is individually proof
destabilising effects of imposed actions. For example: tested.
the weight of workers and equipment on cantilever Masonry anchors should be used in accordance
platforms, minimum horizontal actions associated with with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Typically,
construction activity and wind actions. the concrete in which masonry anchors are fixed should
Figures 6.12 and 6.13 depict examples of have a minimum strength of at least 15 MPa and be at
the imposed actions on side formwork, other than least three days old.
concrete pressure. Refer to Chapter 4 for guidance
on the appropriate combination of actions in different REFERENCES
situations. CS (2012). Formwork – A guide to good practice.
Berkshire, The Concrete Society.
6.5.2.3 Accidental actions Hadipriono, F. C. and H.-K. Wang (1986).
“Analysis of causes of formwork failures in concrete
In situations where there is a foreseeable risk of
structures.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
impact (e.g. from crane load, see Figure 6.13), bracing
Management 112: 112–121.
should be designed to resist such an event in a manner
McAdam, P. S. and G. Lee (1997). Formwork –
that is proportional to the risk. It may be acceptable that
a practical approach. London, E & EF Spon.
the formwork is damaged, but catastrophic collapse
SA (1995). AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete.
that endangers workers should be prevented. The
Sydney, Standards Australia.
Commentary to AS 3610:1995 (SA 1996) provides
SA (1996). AS 3610 Supplement 2 – 1996
useful guidance on dealing with such an event.
Formwork for concrete – Commentary. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
6.5.3 Bracing anchors
SA (2003a). Amendment No. 1 to AS 3610:1995
Where it is necessary to fix bracing to concrete
Formwork for concrete. Sydney, Standards Australia.
using masonry anchors, deformation-controlled
SA (2003b). AS 3850:2003 Tilt-up construction
anchors, including self-drilling anchors and drop-in
requirements. Sydney, Standards Australia.
(setting) impact anchors, should not be used,
SA (2010). AS 3610:2010 Formwork for concrete
AS 3850:2003 (SA 2003b). Deformation-controlled
Part 1: Documentation and surface finish. Sydney,
anchors are not suitable because they have no
Standards Australia.
additional load capacity after the initial setting process,
SAA (1974a). AS 1509:1974 SAA Formwork
fail without warning and are highly sensitive to
Code. Sydney, Standards Association of Australia.
installation procedures.
Load-controlled anchors are preferred because
they behave elastically until they first begin to slip, after
which they exhibit ductile load behaviour. The maximum
load applied to these anchors should be limited to 65%
of the “first slip load”.

6:9
Formwork Handbook

06 - Side Formwork.indd 6:9 12/09/2016 7:15 am

 7 between the secondary members (joists, studs,
Soffit Formwork
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Figure 7.1 shows the general arrangement of
simple slab formwork, which is indicative of most soffit
formwork.
The attention of this Chapter is focused on
aspects associated with the design of soffit forms.
Chapter 8 addresses the design of the falsework that
supports the soffit forms. In particular, this Chapter
discusses:
(a) The load path for vertical loads through the
formwork;
(b) Loading patterns;
(c) Load distribution in both horizontal and sloping
soffit forms;
(d) Sloping soffit formwork; and
(e) Unbalanced concrete pressure and
discontinuous formwork.
7.2 LOAD PATH FOR VERTICAL LOADS
THROUGH SOFFIT FORMWORK
Typically:
■ The form face material is subject to a uniformly
distributed pressure and spans one-way
Figure 7.1: Simple suspended slab formwork
(McAdam and Lee 1997)
07 - Soffit Formwork.indd 7:1
etc);
■ The secondary members are subject to a
uniformly distributed load and span simply
supported between primary members or
continuously over several primary members
(bearers); and
■ The primary members are subject to point loads,
from the secondary members, and span simply
supported between supports or continuously
over several supports (props, shores, etc), see
Figure 7.2.
7.3 LOADING PATTERNS
7.3.1 Stage 1 – Prior to concrete placement
Prior to concrete placement, the soffit forms
may experience heavy loading from materials stacked
on the formwork. Importantly, the loads may be point
or line loads rather than uniformly distributed and
the consequential detrimental effects need to be
considered.
Figure 7.3 depicts bundles of reinforcement
placed on top of the soffit forms. To facilitate
disconnecting and removing the crane chains it is
common practice to land reinforcement and other loads
on timber spreaders or “gluts”. Doing so effectively
causes the form face directly under the glut to be
loaded with a line load or the secondary members by
point loads.
Figure 7.2: Load distribution through soffit formwork
(when viewed from underneath)
7:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:16 am
 Stacked load
Figure 7.3: Line or point loads that arise from stacked
materials during Stage 1 (SA 1996)
PROGRESS OF POUR
STABLE
PROGRESS OF POUR
UNSTABLE
Figure 7.5: Importance of direction of pour (McAdam
and Lee 1997)
7.3.2 Stage 2 – During concrete placement
During concrete placement, concrete is
generally placed, starting from one side of a slab pour,
progressively across the formwork. Thus, it is possible
that during concrete placement only one span of a
continuous joist or bearer may be loaded, see Figures
7.4 and 7.5. In general, all spans of continuous beams
will not be fully loaded until the concrete front has
passed.
7.3.2.1 Stability limit states
Rarely are secondary or primary beams
connected to their supports in a way that would
prevent uplift, which can occur when only one span of
a continuous span beam is loaded, see Figure 7.4. This
is an important situation to consider when determining
7:2
Formwork Handbook
07 - Soffit Formwork.indd 7:2
OVERLOAD
BEARER LIFTS
AND PROP
FALLS OVER
DEFLECTED SHAPE OF BEARER
Figure 7.4: Adverse partial loading of multiple span
bearer (McAdam and Lee 1997)
the strength and stability of formwork members, as well
as the assembly as a whole. In particular, in the case of
cantilever formwork failing to prevent uplift may cause
overturning, see Figure 7.5.
7.3.2.2 Strength limit states
Multiple span bearers and joists should be
designed for the most adverse action effects arising
from the loading of any valid arrangement of one
or more spans. This is the reason that all joists and
bearers spanning two or more equal spans should be
designed to resist the:
(a) Bearing and shear forces for the central support
of a two-span arrangement; and
(b) Bending moments that arises mid-span of a
single simply supported span or over the central
support of a two-span arrangement.
Serviceability limit states
For form deflection, it is common practice to
assume that deformations are elastic and the interim
larger deformations on the loaded spans of a partially
loaded joist or bearer will not be present when all spans
are loaded. In this case, the interim deflections can be
ignored and only the deflections associated with the
final loading arrangement need be considered, as this is
the deflected shape the concrete will retain when set.
7.3.3 Stage 3 – After concrete placement
After concrete placement, concrete quickly
gains strength and it is often assumed that the slab
is sufficiently stiff to span between closely spaced
supports. In this situation, any subsequent loads
12/09/2016 7:16 am
 Figure 7.6: Point loads from secondary beams (joists) acting on the primary beam (bearer)

(such as stacked materials) need only be taken into
account in the design of primary members and their
supports; i.e. need not be taken into account in the
design of conventional form face and secondary
members. However, this assumption may not be valid
in all situations and must be verified, in particular, for
longer spanning members, e.g. long span permanent
formwork.
7.4 ANALYSIS OF SOFFIT FORM MEMBERS
7.4.1 Point loads vs UDL
Soffit form primary beams (bearers) are subject
to a series of point loads from each secondary beam
(joist), see Figure 7.6.
A comparison of the effect of point loads versus
an equivalent uniformly distributed load on a continuous
primary beam (Ikäheimonen 1997) shows:
(a) When calculating beam reactions (shore loads),
in most cases, point loads can be replaced by
a uniformly distributed load without large errors;
and
(b) Deflections, bending moments and shear
stresses due to point loads could be higher than
approximately 2 or less; e.g. common LVL sections
95 x 47, 95 x 65, 130 x 77 and 150 x 77. Although less
efficient as beams, these members are less likely to roll
or fall over and are less susceptible to lateral buckling
than are narrow members, see Figure 7.7.
In most situations, it is assumed the form face
and secondary beams provide effective lateral restraint
to the secondary and primary beams, respectively.
Consequently, in most conventional formwork design
situations the lateral buckling of beams need not be
considered. However, connection details between
members should be checked to ensure they are
consistent with this assumption. In particular, lateral
buckling should be considered when using slender
members (whose height to width ratio exceeds 2) and
when channel sections are used.
7.4.3 Simply supported beams
Often the action effects in beams can be based
on one of three simple beam load cases, namely: a
simply supported beam with a uniformly distributed load
on one, two or three or more spans. In this case, the
action effects for the maximum beam reaction, bending

if replaced by an equivalent uniformly distributed

load.
In practice, it is much simpler to analyse the
action effects in primary beams by replacing point
loads with an equivalent uniformly distributed load. In
nearly all cases, the application of the strength load
factor for primary members (γd = 1.25) will take account
of any underestimation of shear force and bending
moment that might arise by replacing point loads with a
uniformly distributed load.

7.4.2 Lateral buckling of beams

In conventional formwork, it is common Figure 7.7: Narrow timber beams required lateral
practice to use members whose height to width ratio is restraint (McAdam and Lee 1997)

7:3
Formwork Handbook

07 - Soffit Formwork.indd 7:3 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 moment, shear and deflection can be represented by
the following equations:
Maximum reaction, ܴ ൌ ߙோ ‫݈ݓ‬
Maximum bending moment, ‫ ܯ‬ൌ ߙெ ‫ ݈ݓ‬ଶ
Maximum shear force, ܸ ൌ ߙ௏ ‫݈ݓ‬
ఈഃ ௪௟ర
Maximum deflection, ߜ ൌ 
ாூ
In Equations 7.1 to 7.4:
(a) The coefficients for α are given in Figure 7.8;
(b) For secondary and primary beams, the
magnitude of the uniformly distributed load w
should be calculated from the most adverse
combination of actions and after taking account
of the continuity of the members supported
by, and the reaction on, the beam under
consideration.
In some situations, a more rigorous analysis is
required and the use of beam analysis software would
be appropriate.
7.5 SLOPING SOFFIT FORMWORK
For analysis purposes, it is conservative to
neglect any effect reinforcement will have on preventing
concrete flow down a slope.
(7.1)
7.5.1 Vertical falsework
(7.2)
If concrete remains at rest on a sloping soffit
(7.3) because of friction between the form face material and
(7.4) the wet concrete, only vertical forces are applied to the
falsework, see Figure 7.9.
Figure 7.10 shows the concrete and form face
are prevented from sliding together because of the
friction between the form face material and the joists.
Similarly, friction prevents sliding between the joists and
bearers, as well as between bearers and wedges.
However, if the concrete does not remain
stationary, additional forces parallel to the form
surface will arise due to changes in momentum at the
commencement, surge or cessation of concrete flow
that must be taken into account.
If friction between the layers of framing members
is insufficient to resist sliding, movement will occur
and a mechanical connection is required. In this case,
the stabilising effects of friction are ignored and the
mechanical connection designed to resist the entire
destabilising effects causing sliding.
7.5.2 Stability limit states – Sliding
To satisfy the assumption that the concrete and
formwork remain at rest due to friction and therefore
satisfy stability limit states:
5G•(GGVW (7.5)
where
5G *I*FFRVDIP (7.6)
(GGVW *I*FVLQD (7.7)
In Equation 7.6, φμ is the design coefficient of
static friction. In Appendix B, Table B1 provides
guidance on appropriate values for the static
friction coefficients (μ) for use in the limit states
design of temporary structures with a capacity
factor, φ = 0.8.
Destabilising combinations of actions including
imposed actions need not be considered as these
actions cannot be applied to wet concrete.
Substituting Equations 7.6 and 7.7 into 7.5 yields

P t  WDQD  (7.8)

or
§ P ·
D d DUFWDQ¨ ¸ (7.9)
Figure 7.8: Coefficients for beam action effects ©  ¹

7:4
Formwork Handbook

07 - Soffit Formwork.indd 7:4 12/09/2016 7:16 am


Figure 7.9: Concrete and formwork held at rest on a
sloping soffit by friction
Figure 7.10: Action effects on sloping soffit formwork
Figure 7.11: Destablising and stablising action effects
on joists running across the slope
Softwood sliding on softwood perpendicular to the
grain μ = 0.3.
Therefore, to satisfy stability limit states, for
§  ·
film faced plywood,Q ¨ ¸ ≤ 3.0°; and for softwood
©  ¹
§  ·
timber, α ≤ arctan ¨ ¸ ≤ 9.0°
©  ¹
For slopes greater than 3.0°, the fasteners
holding the plywood to the joists would have to resist
sliding. Similarly for slopes greater than 9.0°, to resist
sliding the joists would have to be fixed to the bearers
and, likewise, the bearers would have to be fixed to the
wedges.
7.5.3 Stability limit states – Overturning
It may be possible for narrow joists or bearers
running across the slope to overturn. In this situation,
the friction forces form a destabilising couple that is
balanced by the stabilising component of the vertical
action effects. To satisfy stability limit states,
(GVWE•(GGVW (7.10)
(GVWE *I*FFRVDE (7.11)
Equations 7.8 and 7.9 are useful for verifying that
(GGVW *I*FVLQDG (7.12)
stability limit states for sliding have been satisfied.
In Equations 7.11 and 7.12, the variables b and d
Example 1: Verification of stability limit states refer to the width and depth of the joist shown in Figure
for soffit formwork sliding
7.11.
For sloping soffit formwork constructed from
Substituting Equations 7.11 and 7.12 into 7.10
film faced plywood and softwood joists and bearers,
yields
determine the maximum slope that friction resistance
E
alone will satisfy stability limit states.
From Table B1, film-faced plywood sliding on
softwood timber perpendicular to the grain μ = 0.1.
t  WDQD  (7.13)
G
Equation 7.13 is useful for verifying that stability
limit states for overturning have been satisfied.

7:5
Formwork Handbook

07 - Soffit Formwork.indd 7:5 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 Example 2: Verification of stability limit states
for joists overturning
Given that 9° is maximum slope at which
softwood joists will satisfy stability limit states for sliding,
determine the minimum width depth ratio for softwood
joists running across the slope that satisfies stability
limit states for overturning.
E
fixed and braced to the soffit. The horizontal force from
the edge form is transferred into the soffit and balanced
by friction between the wet concrete and form face
material. On larger pours, concrete pressure is exerted
on previously placed concrete which is transferred by
friction between the setting concrete and form face
material and balanced in a similar manner.
 
Therefore, t  WDQ  $ t 
G
However, if the soffit formwork is discontinuous,
the falsework must resist horizontal forces from
lateral concrete pressure. Figures 7.13 and 7.14 show
For slopes up to 9°, softwood timber joists or
examples of situations where the soffit formwork is
bearers running across the slope with a depth to width
discontinuous.
ratio equal to or less than 2 to 1 will satisfy stability limit
To avoid horizontal forces being transferred to
states for overturning.
the falsework in the situations shown in Figure 7.13(c)
Overturning can also be prevented by lateral
and 7.13(d), the soffit formwork must be continuous
bracing.
and have sufficient capacity to balance the opposing
horizontal forces in tension.
7.5.4 Out-of-vertical falsework
The falsework must also be designed to resist
If the falsework supporting sloping soffit
horizontal forces when concrete is cast on soffit
formwork is designed out-of-vertical, as shown in Figure
formwork erected adjacent to, but not connected to, an
7.12, it must be capable of resisting the combined
existing or previously constructed structure or where
actions of both axial forces and destabilising forces in
the edge form is not connected to the soffit form, see
the plane of the soffit.
Figure 7.14.

7.6 UNBALANCED CONCRETE PRESSURE –

REFERENCES
DISCONTINUOUS SOFFIT FORMWORK
CS (1995). Formwork – A guide to good practice.
For nominally level soffit formwork, the fluid
Berkshire, The Concrete Society.
concrete is contained within an area by edge forms
Ikäheimonen, J. (1997). Construction Loads
or stop ends. It is usually assumed that the concrete
on Shores and Stability of Horizontal Formworks.
exerts an equal and opposite pressure on the opposing
Department of Structural Engineering. Stockholm, Royal
edge forms or stop ends and the soffit is continuous;
Institute of Technology: 161, 76.
therefore, these forces are balanced and there is no
McAdam, P. S. and G. Lee (1997). Formwork –
effect on the falsework.
A practical approach. London, E & EF Spon.
Initially during placement, concrete behaves
SA (1996). AS 3610 Supplement 2 – 1996
as quasi-fluid. When placed against a form edge, the
Formwork for concrete – Commentary. Sydney,
concrete exerts pressure on the edge form which is
Standards Australia.

Figure 7.12: Concrete held at rest on a sloping soffit

by friction, with out-of-vertical falsework

7:6
Formwork Handbook

07 - Soffit Formwork.indd 7:6 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 Figure 7.13: Examples of discontinuous soffit formwork where horizontal forces from lateral concrete pressure
are transferred to the falsework (CS 1995)

Figure 7.14: Examples of horizontal forces being transferred to falsework, when concrete is cast on formwork
adjacent to but not connected to an existing structure (CS 1995)

7:7
Formwork Handbook

07 - Soffit Formwork.indd 7:7 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 8 the formwork documentation. However, in practice this
Falsework
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Formwork falsework is often heavily loaded. In
addition, when falsework structures are tall and slender
their capacity is sensitive to detrimental second-order
effects. Furthermore, permitted tolerances for falsework
structures and members are greater than for permanent
structures, and falsework connections are semi-rigid
with complex behaviour, or rely on friction. Thus,
the capacity of falsework is difficult and complex to
determine, and easily over-estimated.
To simplify falsework design, designers make
assumptions upon which the safety of the falsework
depends. Designers often base their design on
assumptions about:
1. The magnitude of loads acting on the falsework,
including their presence or otherwise, and their
path through the structure to points of restraint,
for example:
(a) The soffit formwork acts as a diaphragm
and all horizontal loads are transferred to
the permanent structure;
(b) No allowance for stacked materials;
(c) No allowance for multistorey loads; and
(d) Side forms do not induce any side loads
into the falsework (i.e. internally tied).
2. The strength and stability of the falsework
structure, for example:
(a) The top of the falsework is restrained by the
permanent structure (i.e. the falsework is
not freestanding);
(b) The falsework is fully braced
and will not sway;
(c) The falsework shores are loaded
concentrically or within a specified minimum
eccentricity;
(d) The falsework is not subject to differential
settlement or axial shortening; and
(e) The falsework is built from components that
are undamaged (i.e. in “as new” condition)
or whose imperfections are within permitted
tolerances.
All the design assumptions should be stated in
08 - Falsework.indd 8:1
is not always the case.
Assumptions that simplify design should be
conservative; i.e. tend towards overestimating loads
and underestimating capacity. However, in practice this
is not often the case. For example, all the assumptions
listed above are commonplace and, yet, all risk either
underestimating loads or overestimating the falsework
capacity. The risk of failure increases if the design
assumptions are inappropriate for, or not applicable to,
the actual formwork construction.
In practice, the onus for checking that the
design assumptions are valid and applicable to the
situation on site falls to others; e.g. those responsible
for checking the formwork design, supervising the
formwork construction and inspecting the completed
formwork.
In situations where the formwork design is split
between two or more parties, one party must take
overall responsibility to ensure the design assumptions
for each part of the design are consistent, valid and
applicable. For example, if the falsework and formwork
are designed by different parties, one party must
ensure the falsework design assumptions are consistent
with the formwork design and vice versa.
To reduce the risk of falsework failure, in
addition to the formwork and falsework designer(s),
it is necessary for all those involved in co-ordinating,
checking, supervising and inspecting formwork and
falsework to have knowledge of the:
1. Loads and load combinations that should be
taken into account in the design; and
2. Aspects of the falsework design that have a
major influence on strength and stability.
Those involved in designing the formwork and
falsework, as well as checking the design, require
the greatest depth of knowledge and understanding.
Those supervising and inspecting the construction
need not have the same level of understanding as the
designer, but must be able to determine if the design
assumptions are valid for the situation at hand. Those
responsible for co-ordinating and constructing the
formwork need only a basic understanding.
Section 8.2 provides an overview of the load
situations encountered at each stage of construction,
which should be taken into account in the falsework
design as they may be critical to falsework safety.
Section 8.3 provides guidance on aspects that should
8:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:16 am
 be taken into account in determining the behaviour and
action effects that result from the vertical and horizontal
loads. Section 8.4 provides guidance on calculating
the capacity of falsework members; in particular, how
to take account of the combined effects of axial forces
and bending moments in falsework shores.
8.2 FALSEWORK DESIGN ACTIONS
To determine the most adverse design
situations, for each stage of construction, consideration
should be given to all valid combinations of foreseeable
direct, indirect and accidental design actions (see
Chapters 4 and 7).
For falsework design, in addition to the vertical
loads, it is particularly important that proper account is
taken of horizontal loads, namely:
(a) Horizontal loads from construction activity and
other sources, see Section 4.2.3;
(b) Wind actions, see Section 4.2.4;
(c) Notional loads for initial out-of-plumb erection
and bracing forces, see Section 4.2.6; and
(d) Minimum notional horizontal loads that ensure
structural integrity, see Section 4.2.6.
It is important to remember that after analysis of
the structure, the resulting strength limit states action
effects in all the primary members should be amplified
by the strength factor for primary members, γd = 1.25,
see Section 4.3.2.
8.2.1 Stage 1 – Prior to concrete placement
Prior to concrete placement, falsework
structures are typically vulnerable to destabilising
horizontal actions such as wind and accidental
impact. This is accentuated where the stability of
falsework relies on friction for connectivity; i.e. where
the formwork soffit forms are intended to act as a
diaphragm to transmit horizontal loads. At this stage
of construction, without significant vertical actions, the
friction between the formwork components may be
insufficient for the soffit form to act as a diaphragm and
transmit the loads to points of restraint.
8.2.2 Stage 2 – During concrete placement
Nearly half of all falsework failures occur during
concrete placement (Hadipriono and Wang 1986). At
this stage the falsework is vulnerable to combinations of
vertical and destabilising horizontal actions.
The design must take account of destabilising
8:2
Formwork Handbook
08 - Falsework.indd 8:2
horizontal actions which may arise from: unbalanced
lateral concrete pressure; construction activity; wind;
water; accidental impact; out-of-vertical members; out-
of-plumb erection; differential settlement; temperature
changes; imposed acceleration from equipment or
due to machine excitation; and bracing out-of-straight
members, see Chapters 4 and 7.
The sequence of concrete placement may also
affect stability; e.g. uplift and overturning if cantilevers
are loaded first, see Chapter 7.
8.2.3 Stage 3 – After concrete placement
Often, during this stage, the falsework
experiences its maximum vertical loading. This occurs
due to additional load from construction activity on
the completed slab. In particular, additional loads may
arise from: the operation of equipment; multistorey
loading; stacked materials; post-tensioning of the slab;
axial shortening, shrinkage and creep of concrete; and
premature removal of formwork and falsework.
At this stage of construction, the permanent
structure (newly cast slab) usually provides additional
lateral restraint that was not present during concrete
placement. Consequently, although the falsework may
experience its maximum vertical load, the degrading
effects of horizontal actions may not be as great and
this stage of construction may not govern design.
8.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING FALSEWORK
BEHAVIOUR, STABILITY AND STRENGTH
Investigations into falsework collapses
(Bragg 1975; Hadipriono and Wang 1986) identify
“inadequate bracing” as the primary cause of falsework
failure. Inadequate bracing may result if the design
assumptions are inappropriate (e.g. see Section 8.1
paragraphs 1(a) and (d), as well as 2(a) to (e)).
Falsework bracing serves several purposes. It
may be necessary:
(a) For practical purposes to maintain stability
during, and facilitate, erection;
(b) To reduce sway, so as to satisfy serviceability
limit states;
(c) To transmit design actions (direct and indirect)
from points where they arise to anchorage or
reaction points at the foundation or permanent
structure; and/or
(d) To restrain and reduce the effective length of
compression members.
12/09/2016 7:16 am
 The stability and strength of the falsework will 8.3.1.1 Freestanding
depend on whether the falsework is adequately braced.
Falsework structures are nearly always intended
to be fully braced frames that do not sway; therefore,
are subject to primarily axial loads. Often, for economic
reasons, designers omit or minimise the amount of
bracing without considering (or understanding) the
consequence. If the bracing is inadequate:
1. Falsework will sway; (a) (b)
2. Axial forces in bracing will increase;
3. Bending moments will arise in the vertical
members that significantly reduce capacity; and
4. Any assumptions about column effective length
may no longer be valid.
To avoid overestimating the stability of the
falsework and underestimating the action effects
in members and connections requires careful
consideration of how the falsework is restrained
and braced, the consequential effects on falsework
behaviour, and how this behaviour can be properly
taken into account in a structural model. (c) (d)
Section 8.3 looks at the different ways
falsework can be restrained and braced, as well as the
effectiveness of each.

8.3.1 Falsework restraint

The stability, strength and behaviour of the
falsework will depend on whether the falsework is
effectively restrained or freestanding.
Falsework can be considered to be: freestanding
(unrestrained), top restrained or partially restrained, as
shown in Figures 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 respectively. Figures
8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 depict falsework with braces that have
pin connections.
In Figures 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3, the initial shape of the
falsework is depicted on the figure on the left hand side
(e) (f)
and the possible deformed shape under purely vertical
loads is depicted in the figure(s) on the right-hand side. Figure 8.1: Unrestrained or freestanding falsework
Predicting the deformed shape is useful in estimating
the effective length of the vertical members and in turn
their capacity.
Sway occurs where one end of a vertical
member is displaced horizontally relative to another.
In all the cases in Figure 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3, sway has
occurred. Assumptions that these arrangements are
fully braced frames subject to only axial loads would not
be valid.

8:3
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:3 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 8.3.1.2 Top restraint

(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

(f) (g) (h)

Figure 8.2: Top restrained falsework

8:4
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:4 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 8.3.1.3 Intermediate restraint

(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e)

(f) (g) (h)

Figure 8.3: Intermediate restraint

8:5
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:5 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 8.3.1.4 Requirements for formwork to be
considered top restrained
If permitted by the project designer, the
surrounding permanent structure is often assumed
to provide restraint to the falsework structure. This is
achieved if the formwork on top of the falsework is
laterally restrained in all directions and rotationally by the
permanent structure, which means the following must
apply:
(a) The formwork provides load paths laterally and
rotationally (i.e. members and connections of
sufficient strength and stiffness) from the point of
application of the horizontal loads to the points
of restraint, see Figure 8.4;
(b) The connection from the formwork on top of
the falsework to the permanent structure has
sufficient strength and stiffness to transmit the
accumulated horizontal loads; and
(c) The permanent structure has sufficient strength
and stiffness to provide restraint.
It must be justified to assume that the formwork
soffit acts as a diaphragm with sufficient lateral
and rotational strength and stiffness to transfer the
horizontal forces to points of restraint.
Figure 8.4: Designation for the load paths required to
provide full lateral and rotational restraint
Rarely does the surrounding permanent
structure provide lateral restraint in all directions and
rotational restraint. Examples of different levels of
restraint are shown in Figures 8.5 and 8.6.
It is important to verify, if it is permitted to use
the permanent structure to provide restraint, that the
permanent structure is structurally adequate and
sufficiently stiff to provide the required degree of
restraint. For example, tall slender concrete columns
may be too flexible to provide effective restraint.
It is important that the designer identifies or
provides for load paths from the point of application of
horizontal actions to points of restraint. The members
8:6
Formwork Handbook
08 - Falsework.indd 8:6
and connections between the point of application of
the horizontal loads and points of restraint should be
capable of transferring the accumulated horizontal
action, without detrimental effects or displacements
that would degrade the level of restraint.
Where top restraint in any particular direction
(or rotationally) is not provided, the falsework capacity
should be based on it being freestanding in that
direction (or free to rotate) and the falsework should
be designed as an unrestrained freestanding structure
whose members and connections are capable of
bracing the vertical members to provide stability, resist
vertical loads and provide a load path from the point of
application of the horizontal loads to a point of restraint.
8.3.2 Falsework – Sway or fully braced frames
A member can be considered a sway member
if the transverse displacement of one end of the
member relative to the other end is not prevented. This
can occur if a member is not braced or not braced
effectively. Due to the translation of the ends of sway
members, second order effects (e.g. bending moments)
are introduced, which must be taken into account.
All the frames depicted in Figures 8.1, 8.2 and
8.3 contain sway members. Similarly, the tower on the
left of Figure 8.7 has sway members. For all members
to be considered fully braced, it would be necessary
to brace the tower as shown on the right of Figure 8.7,
providing the bracing used is fully effective (see the
following Sections).
The amount of sway and falsework buckling
capacity is sensitive to the length of screw jack
extension at the top and bottom of the falsework.
Whenever possible, the screw jack extension should be
minimised.
Similarly, Figure 8.8 shows different bracing
configurations for falsework with multiple columns
connected by horizontal bracing. The bracing
arrangement on the right in Figure 8.8 is recommended
to avoid the bracing from concentrating the vertical
action effects due to horizontal forces into the first two
columns.
Both falsework structures shown in Figure
8.8 contain sway members. For all the members to
be considered fully braced, it would be necessary to
effectively brace the falsework, including the top and
bottom screw jacks, in a manner similar to that shown
in Figure 8.9.
12/09/2016 7:16 am
 (a) (b) (c)

(d)

Figure 8.5: Differing levels of top restraint (e)

provided by surrounding walls

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 8.6: Differing levels of top restraint provided by columns

8:7
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:7 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 Figure 8.7: Freestanding falsework with sway and fully braced members

Figure 8.8: Freestanding falsework with multiple column bracing

8:8
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:8 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 Figure 8.9: Freestanding falsework with fully braced members

Figure 8.10: Top restrained and fully braced falsework

Figures 8.7, 8.8 and 8.9 depict freestanding shown in Figure 8.10; otherwise bending moments are
falsework. To avoid sway members in falsework that introduced, which must be taken into account. Failure
is top restrained, it is also necessary to brace the to do so may result in overestimating the capacity of the
top and bottom screw jacks in manner similar to that falsework.

8:9
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:9 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 Figure 8.11: Effective length factors for members with idealised end restraints (SA 1998)
8.3.3 Falsework bracing
This Section explains aspects that affect the
design of bracing, especially bracing intended to reduce
the effective length of falsework shores.
8.3.3.1 Problems with existing design criteria
for falsework bracing
Unfortunately, the design criteria for falsework
bracing (restraint) systems specified in the relevant
material Standards may not be adequate when applied
to formwork falsework, because:
(a) AS 3610:1995 (SA 1995) permits the use
of compression members with a larger out-
of-straightness than is permitted in material
Standards (e.g. AS 4100);
(b) The forces that arise in braces that reduce
the effective length of compression members
effective length of the compression member
increases non-linearly;
(e) In some cases, the connection of horizontal
bracing members behaves, not as a pin joint, but
more like a semi-rigid joint; and
(f) Often braces are connected eccentrically from
node points and/or in a manner that reduces the
effective axial stiffness of the bracing.
In this Section, we investigate the influence of
each of these factors.
8.3.3.2 Concept of effective length
Most designers are familiar with the concept of
the elastic buckling load of a braced member (Nomb). The
magnitude of the elastic buckling load is dependent on
the end restraint provided by the surrounding framework.
S  (,
increase with member out-of-straightness. 1 RPE N H O 
N H O  (8.1)
(c) When more than one compression member is
connected by a line of horizontal bracing, the where
minimum brace stiffness required to reduce the E = Young’s modulus of elasticity;
effective length of all the compression members I = second moment of area of the cross section;
increases non-linearly; ke l = member effective length, which is the product
(d) In addition, when compression members are of:
braced at multiple points along their length, the ke = member effective length factor; and
minimum brace stiffness required to reduce the l = member length.

8:10
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:10 12/09/2016 7:16 am

 For members with idealised end restraints
the value of the member effective length (ke) is given
in Figure 8.11. Unfortunately, the effective length of
members in braced frames, like falsework, is more
complex to estimate.
Another familiar concept is the need to brace
members along their length to reduce effective length
and increase axial capacity. Figure 8.12 depicts an
axially loaded compression member with a single
central brace. In Figure 8.12, the brace is idealised as
a spring, this reflects the knowledge (Timoshenko and
Gere 1961) that for the brace to be effective it must
have a minimum axial stiffness (k) such that:
 1 RPE
Nt
O
If the inequality in Equation 8.2 is satisfied, the
member effective length factor ke = 0.5 and the elastic
buckling capacity increases four fold.
S (, 
1 RPE
O
8.3.3.3 Minimum brace axial stiffness and forces
in braces intended to reduce effective
length of falsework shores
Member out-of-straightness
In a straight “ideal” column, braced to reduce
effective length, there are no forces in the braces. To
be effective the braces must merely satisfy minimum
axial stiffness requirements similar to Equation 8.2.
However, Figure 8.12 also depicts that real members
have geometric and material imperfections (represented
Figure 8.12: Braced column with an initial
out-of-straightness imperfection δo
08 - Falsework.indd 8:11
by an initial out-of-straightness δo). Under load, these
members will deflect immediately, which introduces real
forces into the brace and reactions at the end restraints.
Single column with single brace
Figure 8.12 shows the classic situation of
a single column with an intermediate brace that is
intended to reduce the effective length of the column. In
this situation, the current method in AS 4100:1998 Steel
structures (SA 1998), and adopted in AS 3610:1995,
is to design column braces to resist an axial force of
0.025Nd.
However, the methods in AS 4100 and AS
3610:1995 differ. In AS 4100, the structure is designed
(8.2) to resist the greater of either: the design actions and
notional forces or the application of the bracing force
0.025Nd. AS 3610:1995 requires the bracing force to
be considered to act in conjunction with other design
actions and notional forces. In effect, the bracing force
(8.3) acts as a notional load, see Chapter 4.
By following the requirements in AS 4100
to design column braces to resist an axial force
of 0.025Nd, it is implicit that 0.025Nd exceeds the
magnitude of the brace forces, Equation 8.2 will be
satisfied and brace stiffness need not be checked.
Studies (Clarke and Bridge 1994; Trahair 1999)
to determine the value of the brace design force Nb
found:
(a) the force in the brace is directly proportionally to
the initial out-of-straightness imperfection; and
(b) that for columns complying with the permitted
out-of-straight tolerances in AS 4100 (l/1000),
the design criteria of 0.025Nd are conservative.
Trahair suggests, for columns with a permitted
out-of straightness of l/1000, a brace force design
criteria between 0.005Nd to 0.015Nd.
Based on these findings and the knowledge
that AS 3610:1995 permits falsework members to be
out-of-straight up to l/300 compared with the lower
limit of l/1000 permitted in AS 4100, it might be argued
that appropriate design criteria for falsework bracing
intended to reduce the effective length of columns
be increased by a factor of 1000/300 and should fall
between from 0.015Nd to 0.045Nd.
Use of the design criteria of 0.025Nd for
formwork bracing (see Section 4.2.6.2) might be
seen to be consistent with a permitted out-of-straight
tolerance of l/600, because, in this case, the range of
8:11
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:16 am
 Figure 8.13: A series of parallel out-of-straight columns restrained by a line of bracing

bracing force criteria suggested by Trahair, factored by k = minimum axial brace stiffness for a single
1000/500, would fall between from 0.008Nd to 0.025Nd. column, see Equation 8.2
In practice, all braces would have to satisfy the
Multiple columns with single line of braces
maximum value of kn.
A more common situation in falsework is when
Of concern is that the current criteria, to design
multiple parallel columns are connected by a line of
braces to resist a design force is based on the brace
bracing, as modelled in Figure 8.13.
stiffness required for a single column, does not take
Guidance provided in Clause 6.6 of AS 4100 and
into account the non-linear increase in brace stiffness
Clause 4.4.6 of AS 3610:1995 suggests that the first
required for braces that connect multiple columns.
brace should be designed to transfer a force of 0.025Nd
and all subsequent braces, up to a maximum of seven, Single column with multiple braces
be designed to transfer a force of 0.0125Nd. Another variation on the single column with a
Thus in Figure 8.13, the design force central brace is when a column is braced at multiple
accumulates along the line of bracing reaching a
maximum of 0.025 + (4 x 0.0125) = 0.075Nd. There
appears no justification for this rule in the literature,
other than it is reasonable to assume that the
imperfections are not uniform.
An analysis of the arrangement in Figure 8.13
demonstrates that, if the imperfections are uniform,
then:
(a) the force in the bracing increases proportionally
to the number of columns; and
(b) to be effective the brace stiffness increases non-
linearly, see Figure 8.14.
Figure 8.14 depicts the brace stiffness multiplier
(α) such that:
N Q t DQ N (8.4)
where
Figure 8.14: Brace stiffness multiplier for a series
kn = minimum axial stiffness of brace number n of parallel 48.3CHS4.0 columns 3 metres long and
αn = brace stiffness multiplier given in Figure 8.14 restrained by a line of bracing at mid point

8:12
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:12 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 Figure 8.15: Single column braced at
multiple points along its length
points along its length, as shown in Figure 8.15.
From first principles it can be shown
(Timoshenko and Gere 1961) that the required brace
stiffness for a single column with multiple braces is
given by the expression
P1 RPE
Nt (8.5)
DO
in which m is the number of spans and α is
a numerical factor which depends on the number of
spans, see Table 8.1. For more spans, the magnitude of
the factor a asymptotes to 0.250.
For practical purposes, the brace stiffness
required to reduce the effective length of a column
increases with the number of spans along the column
length. For example, the brace stiffness required to
ensure a 6 metre high column has an effective length of
2 metres is 1.5 times the brace stiffness required if the
same column is 4 metres high with effective length of 2
metres.
Again concerns arise as to whether the current
criteria, for a single column with a central brace, to
Table 8.1: Values for the factor α in Equation 8.8
m 2 3 4 5 6
α 0.500 0.333 0.293 0.276
08 - Falsework.indd 8:13
design braces to resist a design force of 2.5% of the
axial force in the column will result in braces whose
axial stiffness is sufficient to provide required axial
stiffness to adequate brace columns at more than one
point along their length.
8.3.3.4 Brace connection behaviour
The capacity and behaviour of connections of
horizontal and diagonal braces vary from one falsework
system to the next.
Depending on the falsework, the connection
of horizontal and diagonal braces to vertical shores is
considered to behave as either: a “pin”, which is free to
rotate; or a semi-rigid joint. Rarely are falsework brace
connections rigid.
It would be conservative to neglect the rotational
stiffness of brace connections and model them as pin-
ended:
(a) If the falsework was intended to behave as a fully
braced frame; or
(b) In the absence of any published technical data
7 9 11
0.268 0.263 0.258 0.255
8:13
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 on the characteristic stiffness and capacity of a
falsework connection.
Researchers who have investigated the semi-
rigid properties of horizontal brace connections have
found the joints have an initial looseness, the bending
stiffness about the horizontal axis is significantly greater
than the bending stiffness about the vertical axis and
the rotational stiffness about the horizontal axis is tri-
linear (Tayakorn and Rasmussen 2008). The rotational
joint stiffness varies significantly for different falsework
systems.
Researchers who have investigated the sway
stiffness of proprietary scaffold structures needed to
take into account the semi-rigid joint properties of the
horizontal brace to column connection (Godley and
Beale 1997; 2001).
Figure 8.16 depicts a semi-rigid connection that
is typical of many modular scaffold systems commonly
used for falsework. Commonly, these systems rely on a
“wedge” detail for positive fixing, but do not incorporate
a locking device to guarantee the connection remains
fixed.
Taking account of the semi-rigid behaviour
of brace connections complicates falsework design.
Semi-rigid behaviour will introduce bending moments
in the horizontal and vertical members, and change the
effective length of the vertical compression members.
Comparatively, falsework with diagonal bracing
is more stable than falsework that relies solely on
semi-rigid connections for stability. The behaviour and
Figure 8.16: Typical horizontal brace (ledger) to
column (standard or shore) connection
8:14
Formwork Handbook
08 - Falsework.indd 8:14
stability of falsework with both diagonal bracing and
semi rigid connections will depend on the comparative
influence of each; however, the effect of semi-rigid
connections will be to increase the capacity of the
falsework.
During installation, there is anecdotal evidence
that hammering in the second end may cause the first
end to come loose. Without any locking device, this
type of connection might be susceptible to loosening
during stress reversals. Some authorities require that
joints undergo cyclic testing with acceptance criteria
limiting increases in rotation. The cyclic testing will also
establish any difference between positive and negative
rotation performance. Figure 8.17 presents a plot of
hysteresis loops typical of the results of cyclic tests.
To establish design values for rotational stiffness
it is necessary to take account of the variability of the
connections and the quality of workmanship. AS 4084
Supplement 1 – 1993, which provides commentary
to the Australian Steel Storage Racking Standard, is
relevant because, similar to falsework, steel storage
racks are tall slender heavily loaded structures. AS 4084
Supp. 1 recommends a capacity reduction factor of
0.67 be applied to the joint spring constant established
by testing. Usually, steel storage rack connections are
fitted with locking devices to prevent disengagement.
For falsework connections without any locking device,
a capacity reduction factor of less than 0.67 might be
justified.
Figure 8.17: Hysteresis loops for horizontal brace
(ledger/transom) to column (standard) connection
(ECS 1997)
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 (a) Double coupler (forged). (SOURCED FROM HTTP:// (b) Scaffold tube lacing connection using a double
WWW.DOUGHTY-ENGINEERING.CO.UK /CGI-BIN /TROLLEYED _ PUBLIC. coupler (pressed steel). (SOURCED FROM HTTP://WWW.DOUGHTY-
CGI?ACTION=SHOWPROD _ T24901) ENGINEERING.CO.UK /SHOP/22/INDEX.HTM)

Figure 8.18: Scaffold tube double coupler

(a) Swivel coupler (forged) (SOURCED FROM HTTP:// (b) Scaffold tube diagonal brace connection using
WWW.DOUGHTY-ENGINEERING.CO.UK /CGI-BIN /TROLLEYED _ PUBLIC. a swivel coupler (pressed steel) (SOURCED FROM HTTP://
CGI?ACTION=SHOWPROD _ T24801) WWW.DOUGHTY-ENGINEERING.CO.UK /SHOP/22/INDEX.HTM)

Figure 8.19: Scaffold tube swivel coupler

8.3.3.5 Brace axial stiffness Braces connected with scaffold tube and couplers
If horizontal and diagonal braces connect to a Figures 8.18 and 8.19 show scaffold couplers
vertical member in the same plane and their centre lines and how they are used to connect scaffold tube lacing
intersect at the same point (without any eccentricity), and bracing to vertical scaffold tube compression
their axial stiffness can be expressed as: members.
When scaffold tube connected by scaffold
($
6 (8.6) couplers is used as horizontal lacing or diagonal
O
bracing, its effective axial stiffness is reduced. This can
where
be dealt with in the following way (ECS 2004):
S = member axial stiffness;
E = modulus of elasticity; ($
A = member cross-sectional area; and 6 (8.7)
EO
l = member length.

8:15
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:15 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 Where
β = reduction factor introduced to take account
of the joint behaviour, eccentric connections
and out-of-plane bracing (caused by the offset
inherent in the coupler connection).
For horizontal bracing connected using double
couplers, β = 20; and
For diagonal bracing connected using swivel
tube couplers, β = 35 (providing the distance
between the horizontal lacing connection (node
point) and the diagonal bracing connection is a
maximum of 150 mm).

Figure 8.20: An example of eccentric end connection

of a diagonal brace

(a) Continuous bearer positioned eccentric to shore centreline (McAdam 1993)

(b) Discontinuous bearers lapping on shore (SA 1996)

Figure 8.21: Examples of eccentric loading

8:16
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:16 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 Figure 8.22: Examples of irregular or variable stiffness bearing surfaces (SA 1996)
Proprietary diagonal bracing
In addition to the semi-rigid properties of
proprietary brace connections, Godley and Beale
determined the effective axial stiffness of proprietary
diagonal bracing. This was necessary because the
eccentricity and construction of the end connections
significantly reduced the axial stiffness of the bracing
member, see Figure 8.20.
For example, the effective axial stiffness of a
48.3 mm diameter tube proprietary diagonal brace 3.2
m long with an cross sectional area of approximately
460 mm2 was equivalent to a member with a cross
sectional area of 10.4 mm2. In terms of reduction
factors, this would be equivalent to β = 44.
Where it may be conservative to neglect the
rotational stiffness of member connections and model
them as pin-ended, it is not conservative to neglect
the reduction in axial stiffness of lacing and bracing
members. The stability and capacity of falsework may
be over-estimated if the design of proprietary brace
connections reduces the axial stiffness of bracing
members. It is especially important to take account
of the effect of reduced brace axial stiffness given the
08 - Falsework.indd 8:17
increased requirement for brace stiffness that could be
expected in falsework structures that typically consist
of a series of parallel columns braced at multiple points
along their length.
8.3.3.6 Plan bracing (diagonal bracing
in the horizontal plane)
In addition to horizontal and diagonal bracing in
vertical planes, for tall slender falsework structures, it
may be necessary to provide plan bracing to maintain
the orthogonal arrangement of the falsework and
prevent buckling about a non-orthogonal axis.
Plan bracing may also be required to provide a
load path for horizontal loads to points of restraint.
8.3.4 Falsework base plates and screw jacks
8.3.4.1 Eccentricity
Due to the nature and conditions of working
on construction sites, accidental or unintentional end
eccentricities occur at the base and head of falsework
shores. For example:
■ Despite the best intentions, bearers may be
8:17
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:17 am

AN ‘OUT OF PLUMB’ PROP
IS ECCENTRICALLY LOADED
Figure 8.23: Example of eccentric reaction
(McAdam 1993)
placed eccentric to the shore centreline, see
Figure 8.21(a);
■ Eccentricities may be implicit in the arrangement
or design of the formwork, see Figure 8.21(b);
■ Irregular or stiffness variations in the bearing
surfaces under formwork shores might cause
eccentricities, see Figure 8.22; and
■ Eccentricities arise when formwork shores are
erected out-of-plumb, see Figure 8.23.
Figure 8.24: Column strength curves for eccentrically loaded shore in “new” condition
8:18
Formwork Handbook
08 - Falsework.indd 8:18
8.3.4.2 Detrimental effect of eccentric
loads or reactions
The effect of eccentric loads or reactions is
to introduce bending moments in screw jacks and
falsework shores that significantly degrade their axial
capacity. In addition, unless braced, eccentric loads will
cause the falsework members to sway and, in some
situations, cause instability.
Figure 8.24 compares the design axial capacity
versus member effective length for a 48.3CHS4.0 G250
steel formwork shore out-of-straight l/1000 and loaded
eccentrically: 5 mm, 15 mm and 25 mm. Figure 8.24
demonstrates that the axial capacity of the shore is
markedly reduced by small eccentricities.
8.3.4.3 Minimum eccentricity
Figure 8.25 provides some guidance on
choosing an appropriate eccentricity that should be
taken into account for members typically encountered
in formwork construction. Where appropriate, larger
eccentricities should be considered.
It is necessary to determine the situation(s)
where eccentric actions/reactions have the most
adverse effect. In some cases:
(a) The maximum eccentricity may not occur under
maximum load (see Figure 8.25 (c), (e) and (j)).
In these situations the combined effect of partial
load and maximum eccentricity may be more
adverse then full load and less eccentricity; and
(b) The effect of eccentricity is more detrimental in
12/09/2016 7:17 am

Figure 8.25: Illustrations of eccentricities of actions
and reactions
one direction than another (see Figure 8.26).
Unless the applied forces on the members are
at a fixed eccentricity, the design eccentricity should
include provision for an unintentional eccentricity not
less than 5 mm.
(a) The effect of eccentric actions is more severe
when bearers are parallel to frames; and
08 - Falsework.indd 8:19
(a) The effect of eccentric actions is more severe when
bearers are parallel to frames.
(b) The effect of eccentric actions is less severe when
bearers run perpendicular to frames.
Figure 8.26: Effects of eccentric actions can be more
severe in one direction
(b) The effect of eccentric actions is less severe
when bearers run perpendicular to frames.
8.3.4.4 Rotational stiffness
The capacity of falsework may be overestimated
where a falsework base jack or base plate that bears on
a surface is considered to be a fixed (i.e. full moment)
connection.
It is not clear how to take account of the fixity
of connections at the base of falsework. Research
on different falsework and scaffold systems, from
different sources, all achieve good correlation between
the results of tests and analysis of structural models.
However, in each case the assumption about base fixity
8:19
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 differs; e.g. some researchers model the base as a pin
connection, while others model a rotational spring or
fixed connection.
In the absence of data on rotational stiffness or
fixity, for falsework intended to behave as a fully braced
frame, it would be conservative to model the falsework
base connection as pinned and eccentrically loaded,
see Figure 8.41.

8.3.5 Spigot connections

Figure 8.27: Falsework failure at a spigot joint during
testing (Tayakorn and Rasmussen 2009)
The connection of falsework standards using
spigots may be a cause of failure, see Figure 8.27.
Spigot joints are a possible source of failure due
to eccentricity, angular change and bending weakness
in vertical falsework members. The possible detrimental
effects of spigot joints can be reduced by careful
consideration of their location.
Connections in compression members should
be located:
(a) At points of minimum bending, see Figures
8.28(a) and (b); and
(b) In a manner and position where the detrimental
effects of angular change are prevented or
minimised, see Figure 8.28.
Figure 8.28(a) depicts the preferred option for
locating connections in compression members, with
the height staggered and two horizontal braced points
above and below. Where this is not possible, equalise,
as much as is practical, the length of the compression

(a) Good practice (b) Good practice (c) Bad practice

Figure 8.28: Examples of good and bad practice in locating connections in compression members

8:20
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:20 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 Figure 8.29: Eccentricities arise at spigot joints Figure 8.30: Angular imperfections at joints

Figure 8.32: Initially

Figure 8.31: Spigot structural model (Tayakorn and out-of-straight slender
Rasmussen 2009) compression members

member above and below the connection, as shown in
Figure 8.28(b).
Figure 8.28(c) is an example of bad practice. The
connections are located in a position and in a manner
that permits and accentuates the detrimental effects
of angular change, as well as where bending moments
may arise.
prop inners) that have inbuilt clearances for assembly,
angular imperfections may occur, see Figure 8.30.
The effects of this imperfection can be minimised by
increasing the lap or detailing close fitting collars and
spacers to reduce the diametral clearance.
The angular imperfection can be calculated
using Equation 8.8 (ECS 2004)

§ G  G RG ·
8.3.5.1 Eccentricity WDQ IR ¨ LG ¸ (8.8)
¨ O ¸
Tolerances at joints in shores are also a potential ©  ODS ¹
source of eccentricities, see Figure 8.29. where,
d1id = internal diameter of outer member, mm;

8.3.5.2 Angular change at joints d2od = external diameter of inner member, mm; and
l2lap = length the inner member laps inside the outer
When tubular members such as the vertical
member, mm.
falsework members are joined using telescoping
components (e.g. spigots, base plates, screw jacks and

8:21
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:21 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 Figure 8.33: Column strength curves for shores complying with the different out-of-straightness tolerances
permitted in AS 4100 and AS 3610:1995
8.3.5.3 Structural model
Structurally, spigot connections in falsework
standards resist bending but do not to transfer axial
loads. This can be conceptually modelled as shown
in Figure 8.31 with the ends of the falsework standard
free to rotate and the spigot connected to the falsework
standards with pin-ended stiff links capable of
transmitting only lateral forces.
8.3.6 Out-of-straight compression members
In a compression member, the effect of an initial
out-of-straightness is to introduce additional bending
stresses that reduce the axial capacity of the member.
This is commonly called the P-δ effect.
A compression member with an initial out-of-
straightness is depicted in Figure 8.32.
In Figure 8.32, δo is the initial out-of-straightness
and δ is the deflection occurring under load. Where
the initial out-of-straightness (δo) is within specified
tolerances, design Standards implicitly take account of
these initial imperfections, thereby negating the need for
designers to consider their effects.
AS 3610 permits the use of out-of-straight
compression members that exceed the specified
tolerances in design Standards (e.g. AS 4100). To
avoid over-estimating the capacity of the compression
member, the effects of additional out-straightness must
be taken into account explicitly, see Section 8.4.2.
Figure 8.33 demonstrates the detrimental effects
8:22
Formwork Handbook
08 - Falsework.indd 8:22
of additional out-of-straightness. The capacity of a steel
48.3CHS4.0 formwork shores (a section commonly
used in falsework) calculated in accordance with AS
4100, which permits an initial out-of-straightness, δo
= L/1000, is compared to the capacity of the same
section with an initial out-of-straightness, δo = L/300,
which is permitted in AS 3610:1995.
8.3.7 Differential settlement and axial shortening
Differential settlement of the foundation material
(foundation stiffness) or differential axial shortening
(axial stiffness) may cause load redistribution between
adjacent falsework shores. The load will be redistributed
from the less stiff to the stiffer shore; i.e. the shore with
the least amount of settlement or axial shortening.
If adjacent shores are connected by horizontal or
diagonal bracing, additional axial forces and bending
moments are likely to arise in the bracing.
The capacity of the shore carrying the greater
than expected load or the bracing capacity may govern
design.
8.3.7.1 Differential settlement
Most commonly differential settlement occurs
where falsework bears on a foundation with uneven
compaction. Differential settlement will also occur in the
situations depicted in Figures 8.34 and 8.35.
In Figure 8.34, neglecting differential settlement
and the continuity of the primary and secondary beams,
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 Figure 8.34: Differential settlement due to the presence of concrete foundations
Figure 8.35: Load distribution due to beam flexural stiffness
the shores are equally spaced and could be expected
to carry approximately the same load. However, due
to differential settlement, the shore resting on the rigid
concrete foundation will carry a greater share of the
load than the adjacent shore bearing on an “elastic” soil
foundation.
Similarly, in Figure 8.35, due to differential
settlement, load will be redistributed from the shores
at the centre of the beam (where the beam deflection
is greatest) to the shores closer to the beams supports
(where the beam deflection is the least).
On uniformly compacted soil, it would be
reasonable to expect the effects of differential
settlement to be minor and therefore taken into account
by the strength load factor for primary members γd =
1.25, see Section 4.3.2.3.
Where uniform settlement does not occur, any
08 - Falsework.indd 8:23
expected difference in settlement must be explicitly
taken into account. Where the location of differential
settlement is not fixed, it should be considered to occur
where it would have the most detrimental effect.
For the situations depicted in Figures 8.34 and
8.35, differential settlement can be taken into account
by analysing models of the structure with:
(a) For Figure 8.34, vertical spring restraints whose
stiffness models the behaviour of the foundation
material; or
(b) For Figure 8.35, the falsework supported by the
beam.
8.3.7.2 Differential axial shortening
Where the axial stiffness of adjacent shores
differs and the stiffness of the primary beam permits,
load redistribution may occur such that a shore with a
8:23
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 Figure 8.36: Load redistribution due to differential axial shortening
greater axial stiffness will carry a greater share of the
load than an adjacent shore that is less stiff and would
otherwise shorten.
In the example depicted in Figure 8.36, part of
the falsework is supported by a previously poured slab
that acts as a rigid foundation. As a result, the adjacent
shores that differ significantly in length carry differing
loads. The shorter shore, which is more heavily loaded,
is three to four times as stiff as the tall lightly loaded
shore. A significant share of the load is redistributed
from the less stiff tall shore to stiffer short shore.
8.3.8 Knee buckling
Research (Ikäheimonen 1997) has shown that
knee buckling can occur when compressive stresses
between the top of the shore and the underside of
the bearer are high and the bearer is not adequately
restrained to prevent overturning, see Figures 8.37 and
8.38.
In Figure 8.37, the buckling load of shore and
bearer acting together may be considerably lower than
that of the shore itself.
8:24
Formwork Handbook
08 - Falsework.indd 8:24
In the case shown in Figure 8.38, where hinges
develop between the bearer and screw jack, the
capacity of the falsework is less than for falsework with
top restraint.
Knee buckling arises because the modulus
of elasticity of timber varies with angle and direction
of the annular growth ring gradient. Consequently,
when a timber is loaded perpendicular to the grain, the
deformation is non-uniform and the surface is distorted,
see Figure 8.39.
Importantly, tests show that knee buckling
can occur at bearing stresses less than permitted in
design standards. Thus, merely ensuring that a limit
states bearing violation will not occur is insufficient to
prevent knee buckling. In addition, timber that is out-of-
square may cause an initial set or out-of-straightness,
which makes the formwork prone to knee buckling.
Furthermore, eccentric loading may also increase the
risk of knee buckling.
Knee buckling may be prevented by restraining
the bearer from overturning; e.g. where the bearer is
a close fit inside a “U-head” screw jack. Alternatively,
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 Figure 8.37: Euler buckling and knee buckling
(Ikäheimonen 1997)
Figure 8.39: Non-uniform deformation of timber
loaded at right angles to the grain (Ikäheimonen 1997)
knee buckling may be prevented by laterally bracing the
top of the shore.
In the absence of any preventative measures,
account should be taken of the lower buckling load
arising from knee buckling, see Figure 8.37. In Figure
8.40, to take account of knee buckling, an elastic hinge
is introduced to model the non-uniform deformation of
the bearer.
8.4 ANALYSING FALSEWORK STRUCTURES
Falsework is often a heavily loaded structure
with slender members. For a slender member subject
to an axial load, deformations increase instability
08 - Falsework.indd 8:25
Figure 8.38: Knee buckling of formwork frames with
extended screw jacks (Ikäheimonen 1997)
Figure 8.40: Models for Euler and knee buckling
(Ikäheimonen 1997)
and detrimental second-order effects. Second order
effects arise from loads acting on the falsework and its
members in their displaced and deformed configuration.
A plastic analysis takes into account material
non-linearity, which is not appropriate for falsework. It is
more appropriate for sway structures with high bending
moments and small axial loads. An elastic analysis is
appropriate for falsework structures that are intended to
be braced frames, primarily subject to axial loads and to
behave elastically at all times.
A first-order elastic analysis that ignores second-
order effects will underestimate the action effects in the
structure and over-estimate stability. Accordingly, AS
8:25
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 4100 requires that second-order effects be taken into Member axial compression
account. J G 1 G d I1 F NH O  (8.9)
An approximation of second-order effects
Member axial compression and bending
is possible by amplifying first-order moments.
Alternatively, a second-order elastic analysis that § 1G F 0 ·
J G ¨¨  P G ¸¸ d  (8.10)
accounts for geometrical non-linearity provides a
© I1 F O  I0 V ¹
conservative estimate of ultimate load. A more accurate
Section axial compression and bending
analysis is possible using an advanced analysis (Clarke
et al. 1992), but is not yet in general use. § 1G 0 ·
J G ¨¨  G ¸¸ d  (8.11)
© I1 V I0 V ¹
8.4.1 Structural models
In Equations 8.9, 8.10 and 8.11:
Readily available software packages make the
γd = strength load factor for primary members,
geometrical elastic second-order analysis of falsework
γd = 1.25, see Section 4.3.2.3;
structures feasible and practical. In this way it is simple
Nd = strength limit states design axial
to explicitly take account of the effectiveness of bracing,
compression in the member, determined
joint rotational stiffness, axial shortening, differential
after taking account of second-order
settlement, the behaviour of spigot connections, etc.
effects;
A more accurate assessment and understanding
φ = capacity reduction factor for the particular
of the behaviour and action effects will result from 3D
action effect;
structural models of falsework. Where the falsework
arrangement and loading is regular, analysis of a series Nc(ke l) = nominal member capacity as a function of

of representative 2D frames in both directions is a the member effective length;

reasonable and practical approach. In some situations, ke
uncertainty associated with the accuracy of a 2D l =
analysis and the importance of the falsework, may Nc(l)
warrant more rigour and performing a 3D analysis.
Superposition of amplified first order moments Md
with the moment diagram and action effects
(determined from second-order analysis) is a useful
method of taking account of the effects of imperfections
(such as end eccentricity of reactions at the base Ns
and loads at the top of falsework, and member out-
of-straightness greater than permitted in design Ms
standards). This avoids complicating frame models with cm
imperfections that may be random in nature and whose
effect is difficult to model accurately.
8.4.2 Calculating falsework member capacity
FP
For practical reasons of robustness and
telescoping, compact hollow sections are the most In Equation 8.12,
common column sections used in formwork falsework. βm
Accordingly, the effects of local, distortional and
flexural-torsional buckling can be safely neglected.
Falsework compression members are subject
to the combined effects of axial compression and
bending; therefore they must satisfy each of the
following criteria:
= member effective length factor;
member length;
= nominal member capacity as a function of
the member length l;
= maximum strength limit states design
bending moment along the length of a
member, determined after taking account
to second-order effects;
= nominal section axial capacity,
see Equation 8.14
= nominal section moment capacity;
= factor for a braced member subject to
end moments only that takes account
of unequal bending moments, given in
Equation 8.12;
  E P d  (8.12)
= ratio of the smaller to the larger bending
moment at the ends of the member.
If the moments are equal and in opposite
directions, βm = –1;
If the moments are equal but in the same
direction, βm = 1; or
For unequal end moments, –1 < βm < 1.

8:26
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:26 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 8.4.2.1 End eccentricity and member
out-of-straightness
Equation 8.13 provides a conservative estimate
of the nominal member axial compression capacity of
an out-of-straight and eccentrically loaded falsework
member (Ferguson 2003). Equation 8.13 takes account
buckling load as a function of member effective length
Nomb( ke l), and recalculating cm based on a bending
moment diagram that superimposes the bending
moments due to out-of-straightness and eccentricity
with those from the structural analysis of the 2D or 3D
model.
of the load-moment interaction and amplifies the ª 1    K 1 RPE N H O º
first-order effects of member out-of-straightness and 1 F N H O  « V »
¬  ¼ (8.13)
eccentricity to approximate second-order effects
­°ª 1 V    K 1 RPE N H O º 

½°
 1 V 1 RPE N H O ¾
(Timoshenko and Gere 1961).
®« »
Equation 8.13 is a useful method of taking °̄¬  ¼ °¿
account of the second-order effects of end eccentricity
In Equation 8.13,
and out-of-straightness without the need to include
Ns = nominal section capacity, given in
them in 2D or 3D structural models. The value of Nc(ke l)
Equation 8.14 for compact sections;
can be substituted into Equation 8.9.
Nomb( ke l) = member elastic buckling capacity as
Equation 8.13 can also be used to determine
a function of member effective length,
the value of the nominal member capacity as a function
see Equation 8.1; and
of the member length Nc( l), used in Equation 8.9. This
η = section parameter given in
is achieved by substituting the elastic buckling load
Equation 8.15.
as a function of member length Nomb( l) for the elastic

(a) Eccentricities on the same side.

(b) Eccentricities on the opposite side.

Figure 8.41: An eccentrically loaded pin-ended strut

8:27
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:27 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 °ª     u º

1V $Q I \ (8.14) ­ 
½
°
®« »   u ¾ LQN1
In Equation 8.14, °̄¬  ¼ °
¿
An = net area of the cross-section, in mm2; therefore
and
Nc(1500) = 58.2 kN
fy = yield stress of the member, in MPa.
Substituting into Equation 8.9, γd = 1.25, Nd = 40 kN,
G R  FP H$Q
K (8.15)
6[
In Equation 8.15,
δo = permitted initial out-of-straightness, in
mm;
cm = factor for a braced member subject to
end moments only that takes account
of unequal bending moments, given in
Equation 8.12;
e = largest end eccentricity (e1 or e2), in
mm, see Figure 8.41; and
Sx = plastic section modulus, in mm3.
8.4.2.2 Example
To demonstrate taking account of additional
out-of-straightness and end eccentricities, consider the
following example:
■ Determine the suitability of a 1.5 m long
falsework shore whose section is 48.3 x 4.0
CHS G250, given the results of a second-order
elastic analysis and rational buckling analysis
show a design axial force Nd = 40 kN, negligible
bending moments, and an effective length
of 1.5 m;
■ Assume equal opposite end eccentricities of
5 mm and a permitted out-of-straightness
of l/300; and
■ The member must satisfy Equation 8.9,
φ = 0.9, Nc(1500) = 58.2 kN
1.25(40) ≤ 0.9(58.2)
50.0 ≤ 52.7, OK
By way of comparison and to demonstrate the
degrading effects of end eccentricity and additional
out-of-straightness, the capacity in axial compression
of a concentrically loaded 48.3 x 4.0 CHS G250 with
an effective length of 1.5 m and out-of-straight less
than l/1000 is 79.5 kN versus 52.7 kN calculated
herein.
8.4.3 Falsework member column effective length
Accurately determining the effective length of
falsework compression members is critical to avoid
over-estimating falsework capacity.
In frames that are fully braced, the effective
length factor for compression members ke = 1.0, see
Figures 8.9 and 8.10. In sway frames, the effective
length factor for compression members ke ≥ 1.0, see
Figures 8.42 to 8.46.
The previously mentioned software packages
that can be used for the geometrical elastic second-
order analysis of falsework structures also provide the
ability to carry out a rational elastic buckling analysis of
the falsework that will determine the falsework buckling
load factors, buckling mode shapes and member
effective lengths.
Making an accurate initial estimate of the
J G 1 G d I1 F NH O . member effective length is useful for preliminary
Substituting into Equation 8.15, δo = 1500/300 = design and set out of the falsework. To this end, BSI
5 mm, e = 5 mm, cm = 0.60 – 0.4(-1.0) = 1.0, An = 557 5975 (BSI 2008) provides the guidance for commonly
mm2 and Sx = 7,870 mm3, gives: encountered situations. Initial estimates should be
verified by checking the member effective lengths
K
   u  u   determined by a rational buckling analysis.

Substituting into Equation 8.13, η = 0.83, Ns = 250(557) 8.4.3.1 Estimates of column effective
= 139 kN and Nomb(1500) = 121 kN, gives: length in sway frames
BSI 5975 provides the following guidance for
ª     u º
1 F  « » estimating effective length of falsework compression
¬  ¼ members.

8:28
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:28 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 Figure 8.42: Effective length of members in top restrained frames with central pinned bracing

Figure 8.43: Effective length of members in top restrained frames with pinned bracing at the base

Figure 8.44: Effective length of members in freestanding frames with central pinned bracing

Figure 8.45: Effective length of members in freestanding frames with pinned bracing at the base

8:29
Formwork Handbook

08 - Falsework.indd 8:29 12/09/2016 7:17 am


Figure 8.46: Effective length of members in
freestanding frames with pinned bracing
Top restrained falsework
For a top restrained frame with central pinned
bracing, as shown in Figure 8.42, the effective length of
the compression member ke l = l.
For a top restrained frame with pinned bracing at
the base, as shown in Figure 8.43, the effective length
of the compression member ke l = 0.85[l – (x/2)].
Freestanding falsework
For a freestanding frame with central pinned
bracing, as shown in Figure 8.44, the effective length of
the compression member ke l = l – (x/2).
For a freestanding frame with pinned bracing at
the base, as shown in Figure 8.45, the effective length
of the compression member ke l = 2l – x.
For a freestanding frame with pinned bracing,
as shown in Figure 8.46, the effective length of the
compression member is the greater of, ke l12 = l2 + 2 l1;
ke l3 = l3; or ke l45 = l4 + 2 l5.
8.4.4 Falsework frame buckling
For fully braced falsework (e.g. Figures 8.9 and
8.10) the buckling load factor of the whole frame (λc) is
the lowest buckling load factor (λm) of all compression
members, where for each member
1 RPE
OP (8.16)
1G
8:30
Formwork Handbook
08 - Falsework.indd 8:30
For falsework that can sway, the elastic buckling
load factor (λc) for the whole frame is the lowest of all
the elastic buckling load factors for each storey (λms),
where for each storey
§ 1 RPE ·
¦ ¨© O ¹
¸
OPV (8.17)
§1 ·
¦ ¨© O G ¸¹
For example, Equation 8.17 would be used to
calculate the elastic buckling load factor of the top and
bottom row of screw jacks shown in Figure 8.46.
Using Equations 8.16 and 8.17, an estimate of
the elastic buckling load factor for the whole frame can
be determined based on initial estimates of column
effective length, using guidance similar to shown in
Section 8.4.3.1.
It is useful to compare the expected elastic
buckling load factor for the whole frame (λc) (calculated
in accordance with Equations 8.15 and 8.16) with the
elastic buckling load factor determined by a rational
buckling analysis. The elastic buckling load factor
determined by a rational analysis (λc) should be greater
than or equal to the lowest elastic buckling load of
all the braced members (λm) and the lowest elastic
buckling load factor for each storey (λms), as applicable.
When the elastic buckling load factor determined
by a rational buckling analysis is less than the expected
elastic buckling load factor, it is indicative of one of the
following:
(a) Underestimating member effective lengths;
(b) A previously unidentified member buckling first;
(c) The whole frame buckling in an unexpected
manner; or
(d) Errors in the structural model.
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 REFERENCES
Bragg, S. L. (1975). Final report of the Advisory
Committee on Falsework. London, Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office: 151.
BSI (1995). BS 5975:1996 Code of practice for
Falsework. London, British Standards Institution.
BSI (2008). BS 5975:2008 Code of practice
for temporary works procedures and ther permissible
stress design of falsework. London, British Standards
Institution.
Clarke, M. J. and R. Q. Bridge (1994). Lateral
bracing force and stiffness requirements for axially
loaded columns. Australasian Structural Engineering
Conference, Sydney, Australia, The Institution of
Engineers Australia.
Clarke, M. J., R. Q. Bridge, et al. (1992).
“Advanced Analysis of Steel Building Frames.” Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 23: 1-29.
ECS (1997). prEN 12810-2 Facade scaffolds
made of prefabricated elements – Part 2: Methods of
particular design. Brussels, European Committee for
Standardization.
ECS (2004). BS EN 12812 Falsework –
Performance requirements and general design.
Brussells, European Committee for Standardization.
Ferguson, S. A. (2003). Limit states design of
steel formwork shores, University of Western Sydney.
Godley, M. H. R. and R. G. Beale (1997). “Sway
stiffness of scaffold structures.” The Structural Engineer
75 (No. 1): 4-12.
Godley, M. H. R. and R. G. Beale (2001).
“Analysis of large proprietary access scaffold
structures.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, UK 146 (No. 1): pp 31-39.
08 - Falsework.indd 8:31
Hadipriono, F. C. and H.-K. Wang (1986).
“Analysis of causes of formwork failures in concrete
structures.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 112: 112–121.
Ikäheimonen, J. (1997). Construction Loads
on Shores and Stability of Horizontal Formworks.
Department of Structural Engineering. Stockholm, Royal
Institute of Technology: 161, 176.
McAdam, P. S. (1993). Formwork – A practical
approach. Brisbane, Stuart Publications.
SA (1995). AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1996). AS 3610 Supplement 2 – 1996
Formwork for concrete – Commentary. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (1996). AS/NZS 4600:1996 Cold-formed
Steel Structures. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1998). AS 4100:1998 Steel Structures.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
Tayakorn, C. and K. J. R. Rasmussen (2008).
Research Report No R893 Scaffold Cuplok Joint Tests,
University of Sydney
Tayakorn, C. and K. J. R. Rasmussen (2009).
Research Report No R896 Structural Modelling of
Support Scaffold Systems, University of Sydney
Timoshenko, S. P. and J. M. Gere (1961). Theory
of Elastic Stability. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Trahair, N. S. (1999). “Column Bracing
Forces.” Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
Transactions vol SE2 (no 2&3): pp 163-168.
8:31
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 9 methods for stripping horizontal forms. This is followed
Stripping Criteria
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The term “stripping” refers to the removal of
formwork after the concrete has set.
Stripping affects the surface finish quality,
durability and structural reliability of the concrete work.
Premature stripping may cause physical damage to the
surface finish, contribute to non uniformity of colour and
impede hydration. Structurally, early stripping may lead
to cracking, increased long term deformations, overload
and possibly collapse.
For practical and economic reasons, stripping
times need to be as short as possible. Therefore, this
Chapter focuses on minimum stripping times that
satisfy structural requirements. The guidance in this
Chapter may be inappropriate for architectural concrete
and does not fully address or take account of all
matters relating to curing or protection of the exposed
concrete surface.
The Chapter starts by explaining different
Figure 9.1: Single-stage stripping (SA 1995)
Figure 9.2: Two-stage stripping leaving undisturbed shores (SA 1995)
09 - Stripping Criteria.indd 9:1
with guidance based on the requirements set out in
AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete (SA 1995) and
AS 3600:2009 Concrete structures (SA 2009), as well
as guidance on calculating the minimum early-age
concrete strength required for stripping that conforms
to the requirements in AS 3600.
9.2 METHODS FOR STRIPPING
HORIZONTAL FORMS
9.2.1 Single-stage stripping
In single-stage stripping the forms and shores
are removed over large areas, allowing the concrete to
span between the permanent supports in the manner
intended in the project design, see Figure 9.1. Once the
forms and shores are removed, the concrete will carry
its own weight and any superimposed construction
loads; e.g. workman and equipment, stacked materials,
etc.
9.2.2 Two-stage stripping
For economic reasons, some formwork systems
allow the forms to be removed before the shores (two-
stage stripping), see Figure 9.2.
9:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 Figure 9.3: Two-stage stripping by backpropping (SA 1995)
Alternatively, a similar result can be achieved by
“backpropping”. The term “backpropping” refers to the
procedure of installing additional shores (backprops)
prior to removing small areas of the formwork, thereby
preventing the concrete from carrying load, as shown in
Figure 9.3.
Either way, the benefit of two-stage stripping
is the early recovery of formwork without letting the
concrete carry its own weight or any construction load,
because until the formwork shores or backprops are
eventually removed the weight of the concrete and
any superimposed construction load is carried by the
shores.
9.3 MINIMUM STRIPPING TIMES
For economic and practical purposes, stripping
times need to be as short as possible.
The project designer should specify the
minimum stripping times.
In the absence of any specified stripping times,
AS 3600 and AS 3610 provide guidance on minimum
stripping times. However, much of the guidance in AS
3610 is impractical and out-of-date.
Structurally, formwork should not be stripped
until the concrete has attained sufficient strength
and stiffness to support its own weight and any
superimposed loads, safely and without damage or
detriment to its intended use (SA 2009).
The minimum stripping time is usually
determined by calculating the minimum early-age
characteristic concrete strength the in-situ concrete
is required to attain taking into account the pace of
construction, imposed loads, ambient temperatures
and early-age strength gain characteristics of concrete.
9:2
Formwork Handbook
09 - Stripping Criteria.indd 9:2
Post-tensioned concrete is often initially partially
stressed after 2 or 3 days; however, it should not be
stripped until fully stressed.
Where colour control is specified, it is advisable
to strip forms on different elements at the same age
and as early as is permissible.
9.3.1 Development of concrete strength with age
The development of concrete strength with age
varies with the type of cement, grade specified and
ambient temperature, see Figures 9.4 and 9.5, as well
as Table 9.1.
Compared to normal-class concrete, the rate of
strength gain is reduced in concrete that incorporates
higher contents of supplementary cementitious material
such as fly ash; e.g. “Green Star” products.
9.3.2 Minimum stripping times for vertical forms
The minimum stripping times for vertical forms
(side forms for footings, walls, columns slabs and
beams) may be based on achieving the minimum
average concrete compressive strength specified in
Table 9.2. Extra care is needed if vertical formwork is
stripped within 18 hours after casting.
Table 9.1: Early-age mean strengths for normal-class
concrete (SA 1997)
Average 7-day
Grade designation compressive strength
(MPa)
N25 12
N32 16
N40 20
N50 25
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 Figure 9.5: Typical compressive strength development
of Portland cement (SA 1996)

Figure 9.4: Typical development of concrete strength

with age (Guirguis 1998)
9.3.3 Minimum stripping times for horizontal
forms and removal of shores
AS 3600 permits formwork to be removed when
the concrete member has attained sufficient strength to
safely support, without detriment to its intended use, its
own weight and any currently or subsequently imposed
actions, providing:
(a) Formwork supports are removed to a planned
sequence that will not subject the concrete
structure to any unnecessary deformation,
impact or eccentric loading; and
Table 9.2: Minimum compressive strength of concrete
for stripping vertical forms (SA 1996)
Average compressive
Surface finishes
strength MPa
Classes 1, 2 and 3 5 account of the appropriate characteristic
Classes 4 and 5 2 strength of the concrete determined from the
(b) Concrete is cured for the specified period or
attains the minimum strength specified in Table
9.3, for the applicable exposure classification.
Curing is achieved by the application of water to,
accelerated curing of, or the retention of water in, the
freshly cast concrete. It should commence as soon as
practicable after the finishing of any unformed surfaces
has been completed.
Where formwork is stripped before the end of
the specified curing period, exposed surfaces shall
be cured until at least the end of the specified curing
period.
In addition, AS 3600 requires, where applicable:
(a) For reinforced beam and slab soffit formwork
where control samples are available:
(i) A minimum of 3 days between casting and
before commencement of stripping; and
(ii) The member to remain uncracked taking

Table 9.3: Minimum strength and curing requirements for concrete (SA 2009)
Exposure Minimum Minimum initial Minimum average compressive
classification f’c curing requirement strength at time of stripping forms or
(MPa) removal from moulds
(MPa)
A1 20 Cure continuously for
15
A2 25 at least 3 days
B1 32 20
B2 40 Cure continuously 25
C1 50 for at least 7 days
32
C2 50

9:3
Formwork Handbook

09 - Stripping Criteria.indd 9:3 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 Table 9.4: Minimum times for stripping of forms Table 9.5: Minimum times before removal of supports
between undisturbed shores (SA 2009) from slabs and beams not supporting structures above
(SA 2009)
Period of time before
Average ambient Average ambient Period of time before
stripping normal-class
temperature over the temperature over the removal of formwork
concrete with specified
period (T) period (T) supports from rein-
early-age strength
°C °C forced members
Days
Days
T > 20 4
20 ≥ T > 12 6 T > 20 12

12 ≥ T > 5 8 20 ≥ T > 12 18
12 ≥ T > 5 24

average strength of control samples taken,
cured, see Sections 9.4 and 9.5.
(b) For stripping soffit forms between undisturbed
shores under normal class reinforced concrete
slabs:
The minimum period of time after casting and
before commencement of stripping forms only
(i.e. leaving the shores undisturbed) should not
be less than specified in Table 9.4.
The values in Table 9.4 only apply providing both
the following criteria are satisfied:
O 
d less than 5° C. Increase the periods by half a
greater than that which would occur if the
design serviceability load were applied to the
member when the concrete has attained its
required design strength, see Section 9.4; or
(ii) In the absence of early-age strength data,
the period of time after casting the concrete
is not less than that given in Table 9.5.
The values in Table 9.5 only apply providing
the imposed construction load is not greater
than 2.0 kPa.
The periods in Table 9.5 shall be increased
if the average temperature over the period is
GF G F   day for each day the daily temperature was
A
where
l = span between formwork shores,
in mm; and
dc = overall depth of the concrete
section, in mm.
B the imposed construction load is not
greater than 2.0 kPa.
The periods in Table 9.4 shall be increased if the
average temperature over the period is less than
5° C. Increase the periods by half a day for each
day the daily temperature was between 2° C and
5° C; or by a whole day for each day the daily
average temperature was below 2° C.
(c) For removing formwork supports under slabs or
beams not supporting structures above:
(i) Calculations based on known or specified
early-age strengths that demonstrate the
concrete has gained sufficient strength so
that the degree of cracking or deformation
that will occur, then or subsequently, is not
9:4
Formwork Handbook
09 - Stripping Criteria.indd 9:4
between 2° C and 5° C; or by a whole day
for each day the daily average temperature
was below 2° C.
(d) For removal of multistorey shoring under slabs
and beams:
(i) Calculations that demonstrate that the
magnitude of cracks and deflections in
all supported and supporting floors and
beams, under the current and subsequent
imposed loads, will not impair the strength or
serviceability of the completed structure; and
(ii) A minimum elapsed time of 2 days after
placing of concrete before removal of any
shores directly or indirectly supporting the
concrete.
(e) For removal of forms and formwork shores under
prestressed concrete slabs and beams:
The strength of the concrete in the member and
the number of tendons stressed are such as to:
(i) Provide the necessary strength to carry
its own weight and any currently or
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 subsequently imposed actions; and for the weight of formwork erected on top of the
(ii) Meet the associated serviceability and other concrete (Gf ) and an allowance for imposed actions
limit state requirements. from workers and equipment on top of the formwork
(Qw) would need to be taken into account in determining
9.4 CALCULATING THE MINIMUM EARLY- the most adverse combination of concurrent imposed
AGE STRENGTH FOR STRIPPING actions (Qv).
During construction, the appropriate ultimate
9.4.1 Stripping the forms only design action combination is the most adverse of:
For reinforced concrete, soffit forms may be :G *F  4Y N3D (9.1)
stripped from between undisturbed supports (shores,
:G *F N3D (9.2)
columns, walls, etc) providing the concrete remains
Where Qv < 0.1Gc; Equation 9.2 governs.
uncracked. The minimum concrete strength required
Consider a slab with a depth dc metres and width b
before stripping can be determined conservatively by
metres, that spans continuously one-way over rows of
assuming:
undisturbed shores spaced equally l metres apart. The
(a) The concrete is un-reinforced;
maximum design bending moment (above the shores) is
(b) After the forms are removed, the concrete spans
Md, and may be determined using Equation 9.3:
one-way continuously between undisturbed rigid
formwork supports; and
:G EO 
0G  N1P (9.3)
(c) The concrete is subject to a uniformly distributed 
load. To satisfy strength limit states
In practice, formwork supports may only be 0 G d I0 XR (9.4)
considered rigid if supported on an extremely stiff where, Muo is the ultimate strength in bending. To
foundation; e.g. ground slab or raft. In multistorey prevent a slab from cracking, that is un-reinforced for
construction, when the formwork supports do not negative bending above the shores
extend to the ground, this assumption may not be valid 0 G d I0 XR PLQ II
FI = u  (9.5)
unless the props are supported on an extremely stiff
In Equation 9.5,
floor; e.g. plant room slab. Slabs and beams connected
φ = capacity factor for bending (0.6);
by multistorey shoring share load and, therefore, may
f’cf = characteristic flexural tensile strength of the
be already under stress prior to stripping, which is not
concrete, in MPa; and
taken into account in the following method.
Z = section modulus of the uncracked section
The analysis assumes the concrete member, of
(Z = bdc2 /6), in m3
depth dc metres, is un-reinforced. Furthermore, after
dc = depth of the slab, in metres
the forms are removed the concrete spans one-way
Substituting for Md into Equation 9.5 yields
continuously between undisturbed rigid formwork
:G EO  u    I FI EG F u 

 
supports and is subject to an imposed vertical action
from construction activity, Qv, and the self-weight of the d (9.6)
 
concrete, Gc.
or
The imposed action from construction activity 
(Qv) is that determined from the most adverse § : ·§ O ·
If

FI t ¨ G ¸¨¨ ¸¸ 03D (9.7)

combination of concurrent imposed actions acting ©  ¹© G F ¹
directly on the concrete surface, including where At 28 days, assuming standard curing
applicable:
(a) Workers and equipment, Qw;
If FI
 I F
03D (9.8)

(b) Stacked materials applied directly to the Therefore, Equation 9.7 can be written in terms
concrete surface, Qm; and of the characteristic compressive strength f’c as
(c) Other vertical loads, Qx.  
§: · § O ·
If construction for a subsequent level has If t ¨ G ¸
F

¨¨ ¸¸ 03D
(9.9)
commenced prior to formwork removal, an allowance ©  ¹ © GF ¹

9:5
Formwork Handbook

09 - Stripping Criteria.indd 9:5 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 :
Assuming the relationship between tensile and d  (9.11)
compressive strength holds true for concrete less than :VHU
28 days old, Equation 9.9 can be applied to determine and
the required early-age characteristic compressive 
: § I
·
strength at the time of stripping. Importantly, the early- d ¨¨ FH ¸¸ (9.12)
:VHU © I
F ¹
age characteristic compressive strength should not
be confused with the early-age mean grade strength of In Equations 9.11 and 9.12, W is the unfactored
all the results, fcm. construction load on the slab, given by
To avoid any confusion, the notation f’ce will be : *F  4Y N3D (9.13)
adopted for the early-age characteristic compressive
where
strength in Equation 9.10 and rewritten as:
Gc = weight of the concrete slab, in kPa; and
 
§: · § O · Qv = sum of the most adverse concurrent
If FH
t ¨ G ¸ ¨¨ ¸¸ 03D (9.10)
©  ¹ © GF ¹ construction loads on the slab, in kPa.
Issues relating to determining f’ce are discussed later. In Equations 9.11 and 9.12, Wser is the unfactored
design service load on the slab, given by
Design Example :VHU *F  *VHU  4VHU N3D (9.14)
What is the minimum early age characteristic where
compressive strength that concrete in a 150 mm thick Gc = weight of the concrete slab, in kPa;
flat suspended slab must reach before the forms could Gser = permanent actions for services, partitions,
be removed between undisturbed shores spaced ceilings, floor treatments, etc; and
continuously at 2.1 m centres? Qser = occupancy live load.
If Qv = Qm = 5.0 kPa, the most adverse design
Nevertheless, it is prudent to also ensure that
action would be:
strength limit states are not violated and Equations 9.15
:G *F  4Y   
and 9.16 should also be satisfied.

 u  u    u   N3D :G

:G d  (9.15)
:XOW
The early age characteristic compressive
:G I5XH
strength must reach d (9.16)
  :XOW I5X
§: · § O ·
If FH
t ¨ G ¸ ¨¨ ¸¸   
©  ¹ In Equations 9.15 and 9.16,
© GF ¹
Wd = strength limit states construction load on
 
§  · §  · the slab, given by the most adverse of
If FH
t ¨ ¸ ¨ ¸ t  03D
©  ¹ ©  ¹ combination from either Equation 9.1
or 9.2; and
9.4.2 Stripping formwork supports under Wult = strength limit states service design load,
reinforced concrete which is usually given by the most adverse
To determine the most appropriate criteria of:
for stripping formwork supports under flat reinforced :XOW *F  *VHU   4VHU (9.17)
concrete slabs up to 300 mm thick, Beeby (2000)
investigated the most severe effects of bending, shear, :XOW *F  *VHU  (9.18)
deflection and cracking. The results of the research φRue = early-age design capacity; and
demonstrate that cracking governs, which is consistent φRu = design capacity
with the requirements of AS 3600. Essentially, Equation
6/08/15 4:29 PM 9.11 prevents the load

For flat reinforced concrete slabs, formwork on the slab exceeding the unfactored design service
may be stripped providing the following inequalities are load. Equation 9.12 limits the extent of cracking to that
satisfied: implicit in the concrete design. In doing so, they satisfy

9:6
Formwork Handbook

09 - Stripping Criteria.indd 9:6 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 the requirements specified in AS 3600. Equation 9.15 governed by
prevents the load on the slab exceeding the service 
§ I
FH ·
strength limit states design load and Equation 9.16 ¨¨ ¸¸ 
prevents the early-age loading exceeding the early-age I

© F ¹
design capacity.
:G 
Importantly, Equations 9.11, 9.12, 9.15 and 9.16  d  2.
are not applicable to the first stage of “two stage” :XOW 
stripping, where only the forms are removed leaving all
the formwork supports undisturbed and supported on a 9.4.3 Stripping formwork supports under
rigid foundation. prestressed concrete
Strength rather than cracking may govern
Design Example
the minimum early-age concrete strength required
What is the maximum construction load a
before stripping formwork supports under prestressed
N32 flat reinforced concrete suspended slab could
concrete slabs. In this case, only Equations 9.11, 9.15
support if stripped when the characteristic early age
and 9.16 need be satisfied.
strength reaches 20 MPa? The slab is 250 mm thick
and designed for an imposed floor live load of 3.0 kPa
9.5 ASSESSMENT OF CONCRETE
and dead load of 1.5 kPa for services, partitions and STRENGTH AT EARLY AGE
ceilings.
The early-age characteristic compressive
Assume the density of reinforced concrete is 25
strength f’ce is determined by sampling, curing and
kN/m3.
 testing concrete from which a lower bound 95%
: § I
·
d ¨¨ FH ¸¸   confidence limit is chosen as the nominal characteristic
:VHU © I
F ¹ strength.


 u   4Y §  ·
d¨ ¸ 9.5.1 AS 3600
 u      ©  ¹ Clause 17.6.2.8 of AS 3600 requires:
(a) Taking control test-samples of each concrete
  4Y
d    grade placed on any one day at a minimum
 frequency of one sample for each 50 m3, or part
Therefore, thereof;
4Y d  u     (b) Storing and curing the samples under conditions
similar to those of the concrete in the work;
4Y d    d  N3D (c) Testing at least two samples from each grade for
strength at the desired time of stripping; and
By observation the unfactored load inequality
(d) Assessing the early-age strength of the concrete
:
d 1.0 is also satisfied. on the basis of the average strength of the
:VHU samples tested at that age.
Check the strength limit states inequality Where control samples have been taken, cured
and tested in accordance with AS 3600, the mean
:G
≤ 1.0 is satisfied compressive strength of the specimens at that age can
:XOW
be determined. In order to obtain an estimate of the
:G  u    u 
characteristic compressive strength at that age, the
:XOW  u      u 
mean strength must be reduced to take account of the
variability and uncertainty of the test methods.
:G 
 d  2. For example, AS 1379 (SA 1997) requires when
:XOW 
assessing production control that:
Check the strength limit states inequality If FP t I
F N F V (9.19)
:G I5XH
d is satisfied, by assuming strength where,
:XOW I5X

9:7
Formwork Handbook

09 - Stripping Criteria.indd 9:7 12/09/2016 7:17 am

 fcm = mean grade strength of all results for the grade
kc = assessment factor determined from the
number of controlled grade samples
s = standard deviation for the grade being
assessed.
As a guide, for controlled grades, typical values
for kc vary from 3.2 for 4 or less samples to a minimum
of 1.25 for 15 or more samples, see Table 7 in AS 1379.
The value for the standard deviation (S) is calculated,
except when the number of sample test strengths is
less than 5, where the value should not be less than
3 MPa.
9.5.2 Other methods of assessing early-age
compressive strength
Economies of early stripping may warrant
adopting more accurate methods of assessing concrete
strength. In this regard, guidance can be found in the
Concrete Institute of Australia’s Current Practice Note
22 “Non-destructive Testing of Concrete” (CIA 2008).
9:8
Formwork Handbook
09 - Stripping Criteria.indd 9:8
REFERENCES
Beeby, A. W. (2000). ECBP Task 4 Report –
Early Striking and Backpropping (Report BR 394).
London, BRE.
CIA (2008). Current Practice Note 22 – Non-
destructive Testing of Concrete.
Guirguis, S. (1998). Cements – Properties
and Characteristics. Sydney, Cement & Concrete
Association of Australia.
SA (1995). AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1996). AS 3610 Supplement 2 – 1996
Formwork for concrete – Commentary. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (1997). AS 1379:1997 Specification and
supply of concrete. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2002). AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural
design actions – Part 0: General principles. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2002a). AS/NZS 1170.1:2002 Structural
design actions – Part 1: Permanent, imposed and other
actions. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2009). AS 3600:2009 Concrete Structures.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
12/09/2016 7:17 am
 10
Multistorey Shoring
10.1 INTRODUCTION
In multistorey construction, rarely does one floor
have sufficient strength to support the weight imposed
by the construction of the next floor. Overloading can
be avoided by sharing the construction load down
to a rigid foundation or between a sufficient number
of suspended floors. This is achieved by installing
multistorey shores between the floors.
In practice, often one or two floors of formwork
are used in conjunction with several floors of multistorey
shores. Figure 10.1 depicts an example from a recent
project showing how multistorey shoring was specified.
The project designer is responsible for
specifying the minimum number of floors of formwork
and multistorey shores, and the load distribution
between the floors relative to the type of formwork,
timing and sequence of construction (SA 2010).
However, this can only be determined and specified
after the construction contractor has informed the
project designer of the details of the proposed
Figure 10.1: Example of multistorey shoring with one floor of formwork and three floors of shores
10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:1
construction method, schedule, formwork details and
shore layout.
After the project designer has specified the
load distribution between the floors, the formwork
designer is responsible for ensuring the formwork and
the shores themselves are not overloaded (SA 1996).
It is necessary to obtain project designer approval for
any changes to the proposed formwork and multistorey
shore layout.
10.1.1 Significance of multistorey
shoring design
Of prime importance is avoiding the under-
design of the multistorey shoring. Too few floors of
multistorey shoring or too few shores on each floor
would result in overload, unacceptable cracking and
risk structural failure. When considered in isolation,
the risk of under-design might warrant a conservative
approach and simply specifying: longer curing periods
prior to stripping and loading, more floors of formwork
and multistorey shoring, and higher capacity shores.
However, there is a significant economic benefit to
(without increasing the floor cycle time) reduce the
number of floors of formwork and multistorey shores, as
well as to reduce the number of shores on each floor.
Doing so reduces the cost of construction and shortens
the construction period.
10:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:30 am
 Examples of construction cost savings that
result from minimising multistorey shoring, include:
less labour; reduced quantity of formwork and shoring;
reduced cost of perimeter screens covering fewer
floors; and reduced construction delay as subsequent
trades can follow closer to the “wet head” without
obstruction from the presence of multistorey shores.
Over the construction period of a high rise building,
the cost benefits of having one less floor of multistorey
shoring or reducing the floor cycle by one day can
be measured in the many tens, if not hundreds, of
thousands of dollars.
The rigour and effort invested in the design
of the multistorey shoring system should be
commensurate with the consequence of failure and
potential cost benefit.
10.1.2 Current design guidance in
Australian Standards
10.1.2.1 AS 3600:2009
The Australian Standard for concrete structures,
AS 3600:2009 (SA 2009), requires the number of
floors of formwork and multistorey shores or the load
distribution between the floors to be calculated, but
provides no guidance on how this is achieved.
In addition, AS 3600:2009 specifies:
(a) Where “backpropping” is used, the procedure
shall comply with AS 3610:1995;
(b) Before removing supports from under a storey,
all supported floors above shall be checked by
calculation for cracking and deflection under the
resulting loads; and
(c) No formwork supports or multistorey shoring
shall be removed within 2 days of the placing of
any slab directly or indirectly supported by the
supports or shoring.
10.1.2.2 AS 3610:1995
The Australian Standard for formwork, AS
3610:1995 (SA 1995), sets out rules to determine the
minimum capacity of multistorey shoring, specifically:
(a) Where the lowest level of multistorey shoring
is seated on a rigid foundation, the minimum
capacity of the shoring shall not be less than the
sum of the total weight of the suspended floor
systems and imposed construction loads for all
the levels above the shoring; or
10:2
Formwork Handbook
10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:2
(b) Where the lowest level of multistorey shoring
is seated on a suspended floor structure, the
minimum capacity of the shoring shall not
be less than twice the sum of the weight of
heaviest single supported floor above the lowest
level of multistorey shoring and the imposed
construction loads on that floor.
Implicit in this requirement is that the lowest level
slab should also be designed to carry twice the sum
of the weight of heaviest single supported floor above
the lowest level of multistorey shoring and the imposed
construction loads on that floor
For economic reasons, in practice, rarely is this
ever followed.
10.1.3 Guidance provided in the literature
10.1.3.1 Problems with past practice
Assuming infinite shore stiffness underestimates
the load carried by the upper floors
Of particular concern, is the knowledge that
estimates of the load distribution between floors by
assuming the axial stiffness of the shores is infinite
will underestimate the load carried by the upper floors
(Beeby 2000). This is significant because the upper
floors are the youngest, least capable and at the greater
risk of overload.
Figure 10.2 compares the load distribution, with
one or two levels of reshores and equal slab stiffness,
based on site measurements and predictions assuming
infinite shore stiffness and that the shore layout is
equivalent to a uniformly distributed load. A much larger
proportion of the load was found to be supported
by the uppermost slab and a smaller proportion was
transmitted to lower slabs by the reshores.
When reshoring additional floors of multistorey
shoring have little effect
Another significant finding was that by taking
account of the effective axial stiffness of the shoring,
little benefit is gained by increasing the number of floors
of reshores.
Thinning out multistorey shores on lower levels is
counter-productive
The load carried by the upper floors will be
further increased if the number of multistorey shores
on lower levels is reduced, see Figure 10.3. Although
justified by the reduction in force carried in the shores
12/09/2016 7:30 am
 Figure 10.2: Indicative discrepancy in load distribution (Beeby 2000)

Figure 10.3: Example of “thinning” multistorey shoring

on lower levels, the consequential reduction in axial 10.1.3.2 Recent guidance predicting
stiffness of the shoring will increase the share of the load distribution
load carried by, and may contribute to the overload of, There is evidence and guidance in the literature
the floors above. (Beeby 2001; Moss 2003; Park et al. 2011) that a
reasonable estimate of the share of the construction
Conclusions
load carried by each floor connected by multistorey
Based on these findings, the share of the load
shores can be determined by taking account of the:
carried by the uppermost slab supporting the formwork
(a) Method and sequence of stripping and shoring;
will be larger than previously thought and such that
(b) Flexural stiffness of each floor at time of loading;
it may often be significantly overloaded in particular,
(c) Effective axial stiffness and layout of the
when:
formwork and multistorey shores on each floor;
(i) Multistorey shoring is sparse and heavily loaded;
and
(ii) Floor to floor heights vary, as shore stiffness is
(d) Preload in multistorey shores.
directly proportional to length; or
There is also guidance on assessing the ability of
(iii) Shores are made from less stiff materials; e.g.
slabs and beams to carry the construction loads (Beeby
aluminium is approximately one third the stiffness
2001) by considering the:
of steel, but some alloys have a comparable
(a) Magnitude and location of the construction
strength to steel.

10:3
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:3 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 Figure 10.4: Multistorey shoring with one floor of formwork and two floors of reshores
Figure 10.5: Multistorey shoring with three floors of “undisturbed” formwork
loads, including loads from multistorey shoring;
(b) Magnitude and location of the in-service design
loads; and
(c) Floor construction cycle time relative to early-age
concrete strength gain.
Other factors that influence the multistorey load
distribution include concrete shrinkage, creep and
ambient temperature change (McAdam and Behan
1990).
The ACI Guide for Shoring/Reshoring of
Concrete Multistorey Buildings (ACI 2005) also provides
useful information.
10.1.4 Guidance provided herein
This Chapter explains the factors that influence
the design of multistorey shoring, and introduces and
discusses several methods for estimating the load
distribution between the floors connected by multistorey
shoring and the load in the multistorey shores
themselves. In addition, explanations are provided on
the different methods to determine the load distribution
10:4
Formwork Handbook
10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:4
for “reshoring” and “undisturbed” shoring. Special
situations that need to be addressed are highlighted
and the Chapter concludes with a discussion on
assessing the capacity of slabs to carry loads at an
early-age.
10.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DESIGN
OF MULTISTOREY SHORING
10.2.1 Method and sequence of
stripping and shoring
There are two methods of multistorey shoring:
reshoring or undisturbed shoring.
In Figure 10.1, it is not apparent, without more
information, whether the project designer intended
specifying reshoring or undisturbed shoring.
10.2.1.1 Reshoring
Reshoring is the most common method adopted
for multistorey shoring; primarily, because it minimises
the load distributed to the lower floors and therefore
12/09/2016 7:30 am
 minimises the amount of shoring required.
Figure 10.4 shows the sequence of construction
with one floor of formwork and two floors of reshores.
If additional formwork is available, it is not necessary
to wait until at least Day 3 to strip and recycle the
formwork, forming the new slab could commence on
Day 1 using the additional formwork.
Reshoring is characterised by:
1. Removing large areas of formwork thereby
allowing the slab to relax, support its self-weight
plus any imposed construction load and span
as-designed between its permanent supports, as
shown in Figure 10.4 on Day X; and then
2. Installing new shores under the slab.
Reshoring causes the newest (uppermost)
slab at an early-age to carry its self-weight and any
construction loads imposed at the time the formwork is
removed and any addition construction loads imposed
up to the time of reshoring. After reshoring, all slabs in
the system carry the entirety of their own self-weight
and a share of any subsequent construction load; e.g.
the load from the newly placed slab.
For typical floors on a multistorey structure, if
reshoring is adopted, the uppermost (youngest and
least capable) slab, connected by multistorey shoring,
carries the greatest share of load from the construction
of the next floor.
Post-tensioning has a similar effect to reshoring;
i.e. leaving the slab carrying its own weight without
disturbing the formwork shores.
The Commentary to AS 3610:1995 (SA 1996)
warns that reshoring is a hazardous operation and
AS 3610:1995 does not provide any guidance, other
than to warn that it requires close attention to the early
development of concrete strength.
10.2.1.2 Undisturbed shoring
Undisturbed shoring describes the situation
when the slabs remain supported continuously.
The simplest approach is to have multiple levels
of formwork shores, which remain undisturbed until it is
time for the lowest level to be removed and recycled to
be used again, see Figure 10.5.
Figure 10.5 shows the sequence of construction
with three floors of formwork. If additional formwork
1
The term “backpropping” is often used to describe any type of multistorey shoring. Herein
“backpropping” refers to only the shores installed as shown in Figure 9.3. It does not refer to reshores.
10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:5
is available, it is not necessary to wait until Day 3 to
strip and recycle the formwork, and forming the new
slab could commence on Day 1 with the additional
formwork.
Undisturbed shoring also applies where:
(a) For reasons of economy, some formwork
systems allow the forms to be removed, leaving
the shores undisturbed (two-stage stripping), as
shown in Figure 9.2; or
(b) Stripping and backpropping1, where shores
are installed prior to removing small areas of
the formwork, thereby preventing the slab from
relaxing, as shown in Figure 9.3.
Compared to reshoring, using undisturbed
shoring on typical floors will generally result in the
lowest (oldest and most capable) slab, connected
by multistorey shoring, carrying the greatest share of
the load (Grundy and Kabaila 1963). All slabs carry a
portion of their own self-weight plus a share of the self-
weight of each of the slabs above and any construction
loads. Only the lowest slab in the system carries the
entirety of its own self-weight.
10.2.2 Flexural stiffness of each floor
at time of loading
The elastic flexural stiffness of each concrete
slab (Sc) is a function of its effective second moment
of area, modulus of elasticity, span and support
conditions, see Equation 10.1. Importantly, the modulus
of elasticity varies with concrete age.
(FM ˜,HI
6F (10.1)
[ ˜OF
where
Ecj = mean modulus of elasticity of the concrete at
the relevant age;
Ief = effective second moment of area of the
concrete section;
ξ = factor for the slab continuity and support
conditions; and
lc = concrete slab span.
10.2.2.1 Effective second moment of area
For reinforced concrete, the second moment
of area will change with the onset of cracking. Long-
10:5
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:30 am
 term effects of creep and shrinkages can be neglected ρ = density of concrete (for normal weight
because of the relatively short construction time. concrete 2400 kg/m3); and
For a rigid foundation, such as a thick concrete fcmi = mean value of the in situ compressive
raft, the second moment of area approaches infinity. strength of concrete at the relevant age.
For beams with reinforcement ratios Ast /bd ≥ Without testing, the mean modulus of elasticity
0.005, AS 3600 specifies an effective second moment of concrete determined using Equations 10.4a or 10.4b
of area given by: may vary up to ±20% of the actual value.
 If the concrete modulus of elasticity is
§ 0FU ·
,HI ,FU   ,  ,FU ¨ ¸ d, (10.2) determined using Equations 10.4a or 10.4b:
© 0GV ¹ (a) It would be prudent to determine the sensitivity
where of load distribution to variations in the concrete
Icr = second moment of area of a cracked section modulus of elasticity by calculating the effects
with the reinforcement transformed to an assuming 0.8Ecmj to 1.2Ecmj;
equivalent area of concrete; (b) At serviceability limit states, a load distribution
I = second moment of area of the uncracked based on the mean modulus of elasticity should
concrete section about the centroidal axis; be acceptable; and
Mcr = bending moment causing cracking of the
(c) At ultimate limit states, adopt the most adverse
section; and
load distribution resulting from assuming the
Mds = maximum bending moment at the section,
concrete modulus of elasticity at either end of
based on the construction load.
the range of 0.8Ecmj to 1.2Ecmj.
For beams with reinforcement ratios Ast /bd <
0.005, Ief is still calculated by Equation 10.2, but cannot
10.2.2.3 Span and support conditions
exceed 0.6I.
The flexural stiffness of a concrete slab will
Alternatively, the following method (Bischoff
depend on its span, continuity and support conditions;
and Scanlon 2007) has been used to determine the
e.g. simple supported, continuous, fixed, etc.
second moment of area of flat plate slabs with low
For typical floors, the span and support
reinforcement ratios (Park et al. 2011):
conditions vary from bay to bay on each floor, but,
,FU
,HI d , generally, are the same from floor to floor. Accordingly,

§ ·
0FU § ,FU · (10.3) the multistorey load distribution may vary from span to
 ¨ ¸ ¨  ¸
© GV ¹
0 © , ¹ span. For example, corner and edge slabs, which are
less stiff due to their edge support conditions, with the
An average value of Ief for the beam or slab is
same span and same shore layout as the internal slabs,
required. This can be determined from the values at
will have a higher shore to slab stiffness ratio and hence
the critical sections based on the averaging procedure
allow a greater amount of the construction load down to
specified in AS 3600 (Clause 8.5.3.1).
the lower slabs.

10.2.2.2 Concrete modulus of elasticity For one-way slabs, beams and simple two-way
slabs, it is possible to develop simple expressions for ξ lc
The concrete modulus of elasticity increases
for use in Equation 10.1. However, this is not practical
with age. Unless determined by testing in accordance
for more complex slab and beam arrangements.
with AS 1012.17, the mean modulus of elasticity (within a
range of ±20%) is specified in AS 3600 as:
10.2.3 Effective axial stiffness of shores

(FM U  ˜ I FPL ZKHQI ”03D (10.4a)


FPL
From Day 1 (the first day after a slab is poured)

U  ˜ I FPL  ZKHQI !03D

construction loads are applied to the uppermost
(FM FPL (newest) slab culminating in the pouring of the next
(10.4b) floor on Day T. During this time, the multistorey shoring
where arrangement (similar to that depicted in either Figure
Ecj = mean modulus of elasticity of the concrete at 10.4 or 10.5) can be represented by an idealised model
the relevant age; shown in Figure 10.6.

10:6
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:6 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 In Figure 10.6, multistorey shores are where
represented by springs. The variables Sp1 to Sp2 φp = capacity reduction factor for shore axial stiffness
represent the effective axial stiffness of each respective that takes account of the detrimental effects of
level of multistorey shores. The flexural stiffness of imperfections;
each concrete slab sharing load is represented by the In the absence of tests to confirm the actual
variables Sc1 to Sc3, respectively. The construction stiffness of formwork or multistorey shores, ϕp
load imposed on the top slab to be shared by the ≤ 0.80;
multistorey shoring (see Section 10.2.4) is represented Ss = axial stiffness of a shore, see Equation 10.6;
by the variable W1. This may comprise both point and and
uniformly distributed loads. The variables Wp1 and Wp2 Sf = axial stiffness of any formwork or packing
represent share of W1 carried by each respective level between the top or bottom of the shore and the
of multistorey shores and Wc1 to Wc3 represents the concrete, see Equation 10.7.
share of W1 transferred to each respective concrete
(V ˜ $V
slab by the multistorey shores. 6V (10.6)
This arrangement is repeated in Figure 10.10 OV
and more complex arrangements can be seen in where
Figures 10.11 to 10.13. Es = modulus of elasticity of the shore material;
As = cross-sectional area of the shore; and
10.2.3.1 Single shore ls = length of the shore.
The effective axial stiffness of a single formwork or (I ˜ $I
multistorey shore (Sp) given in Equation 10.5 6I (10.7)
OI
takes account of:
(a) The reduction in stiffness caused by formwork, where

packing or other material between the top and/
or bottom of the shore and the concrete; and
(b) The reduction in stiffness caused by the
inclination and other shore imperfections.
IS
6S
 
 (10.5)
6V 6I
Figure 10.6: Idealised model of one floor of formwork
(not shown) and two floors of multistorey shoring
Ef = modulus of elasticity of the forms or other
material between the top and/or bottom of the
shore and the concrete;
The range of the mean modulus of elasticity
perpendicular to the grain falls between (BS
2008), for:
(i) Softwood timber, 230 MPa
to 530 MPa; and
(ii) Hardwood timber, 630 MPa
to 1330 MPa.
Af = bearing area of the forms or other material; and
lf = thickness of the form or other material.
The presence of softwood forms between the
shores and concrete can reduce the effective axial
stiffness of a steel shore to approximately 30% of its
axial stiffness based on the shore section only
(Fang et al. 2001).
In addition, Fang et al. found the presence
of imperfections, such as inclination, reduces the
theoretical shore stiffness and also needs to be
taken into account. Failure to do so may lead to
underestimation of the load carried by the uppermost
slabs.
The effective axial stiffness of shores will also be
less where there is high-strutting to the floor above; e.g.

10:7
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:7 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 Figure 10.7: One level of formwork and three levels of Figure 10.8: As per Figure 10.7 except the lower two
reshores all on a 5 x 7 grid floors of reshores are on a 5 x 4 grid

entrance foyers, plant rooms, etc. Aluminium and timber
shores may have significantly less axial stiffness than
steel shores.
10.2.3.2 Multiple shores
On any one level, the effective axial stiffness
of the multistorey shores as a group is a function of
the axial stiffness of each shore and the shore layout.
This can be demonstrated by observing the change in
load distribution in the following four design examples;
in particular, the share of the load carried by the
uppermost slab, see Table 10.1.
Design Example 1 – Multistorey load distribution
assuming infinite shore stiffness
This design example calculates the load
distribution assuming infinite shore stiffness.
Consider the load distribution for the situation
depicted in Figure 10.7. In this situation, 35 number
Table 10.1: Load distribution in multistorey shoring
taking account of shore axial stiffness and layout
3.25m tall steel shores are spaced evenly at 1.2 m in
one direction and 1.8 m in the other. Each shore has
a cross-sectional area of 574 mm2. The shores are in
direct contact with the 250 mm thick concrete slabs,
which are continuous on all four sides and span 8 m
in both directions. The characteristic compressive
strength of the concrete in each slab at the time of
loading is, from top to bottom, 20 MPa, 25 MPa, 32
MPa and 32 MPa.
Neglecting cracking and assuming infinite
shore stiffness, an analysis of this arrangement shows
the share of the load (applied to the top floor) carried
by each floor is 0.236, 0.251, 0.257 and 0.257, top to
bottom.
Design Example 2 – Effect of axial shore stiffness
on multistorey load distribution
This design example calculates the load
distribution taking account of the actual shore stiffness.
In the absence of any specific guidance on the
effective axial stiffness of the shores, it is possible to
take account of shore imperfections by adopting a

Design Example reduced cross-sectional area for each shore (as per
Load
Ratio Equation 10.5); i.e. the effective cross-sectional area of
1 2 3 4
each shore, Ase = φp × 574 mm2 = 0.80 × 574 mm2 =
Wc1/W1 0.236 0.404 0.423 0.496
459 mm2.
Wc2/W1 0.251 0.250 0.273 0.278 Thus, neglecting cracking and taking account of

Wc3/W1 0.257 0.188 0.173 0.140 the shore stiffness, reanalysing shows the share of load
(applied to the top floor) carried by each floor is 0.404,
Wc4/W1 0.257 0.159 0.131 0.087
0.250, 0.188 and 0.159, top to bottom.

10:8
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:8 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 
6I
  
 
ª    ˜º ª˜    ˜º ª˜    ˜º
« » «
¬  ¼ ¬ 
6I N1PP
The share of load carried by the uppermost slab
increased by a factor of 1.71 (0.404/0.236).
Design Example 3 – Effect of a “thinned” shore
layout on multistorey load distribution
This design example compares the effect on
load distribution of taking account of the shore stiffness
and “thinned” shore layout.
On the lower two levels, the shores are “thinned”
out from a grid of 5 x 7 to a grid of 5 x 4, as shown
in Figure 10.8. Reanalysing the arrangement shows
the share of the load (applied to the top floor) carried
by each floor is 0.423, 0.273, 0.173 and 0.131, top to
bottom.
The share of load carried by the uppermost slab
increased by a factor of 1.79 (0.423/0.236).
The increase in load carried by the uppermost
slab depends on revised shore layout because
removing shores near the centre of the slab increases
the load on the uppermost slab more so than removing
those near the slab’s supports.
Design Example 4 – Effect of the presence of soft
wood formwork on load distribution
This design example takes account of softwood
timber formwork remaining in place between the top of
the shores and the concrete slab; i.e. the shores were
relaxed allowing the slab to deflect before being reset
without removing the formwork.
Consider the formwork is constructed from F14
17 mm plywood, 95 x 65 LVL joist at 400 mm centres
and 150 x 77 LVL bearers spanning 1.2m between and
bearing on shores with a 150 x 150 end plate.
Using Equation 10.6, the axial stiffness of a
single formwork shore is:
 ˜ 
6V

6V N1PP
Based on a mean modulus of elasticity
perpendicular to the grain of 400 MPa (BS 2008) and an
10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:9
» « »
 ¼ ¬  ¼
   
effective bearing area calculated at the centre of each
member assuming a 45° load distribution, the effective
compressive axial stiffness of the formwork, considering
the stiffness of the plywood, joist and bearer, is given by
the formula shown above.
Using Equation 10.5, the effective axial stiffness
of a single formwork shore taking into account the
presence of the formwork is:

6S
 

 
Taking account of the presence of formwork
between the top of the shores, the share of the load
(applied to the top floor) carried by each floor is 0.496,
0.278, 0.140 and 0.087.
The share of load carried by the uppermost slab
increased by a factor of 2.10 (0.496/0.236).
It is useful to represent the effective axial
stiffness of a level of shores as a multiple of the elastic
flexural stiffness of the 28-day slab flexural stiffness, see
Section 10.3.1.
For example, the results from Design Examples
1 to 4 have been calibrated using the relative stiffness
method presented in Section 10.3.1.3 and the effective
axial stiffness each level of shores relative to the 28-day
slab flexural stiffness presented in Table 10.2.
In the worst case, neglecting the effective axial
shore stiffness could underestimate the load carried by
the uppermost slab by 50%.
10.2.4 Preload in multistorey shores
It is normally assumed that shores (reshores and
backprops) are installed with zero preload. The effect
of excessive, or predetermined, tightening of the shores
is beneficial as it increases the load in slab below and
decreases the load in the slab above; i.e. move load
from the slab above to the slabs below.
When reshoring, preloading will result in a more
even distribution of the share of load between the
supporting slabs (BRE 2004). Accordingly, there may be
10:9
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:30 am
 Table 10.2: Axial stiffness of each level of shores (a) The weight of the formwork and multistorey
relative to the 28-day slab flexural stiffness shores, Gf (see Section 4.2.1.1); and
Stiffness Design Example (b) Imposed actions from:
ratio 1 2 3 4 (i) Workers and their equipment on
the formwork, Qw;
Sp1/Sc28 ∞ 3.6 3.6 1.9
(ii) Stacked materials, Qm (see Section 4.2.3.2);
Sp2/Sc28 ∞ 3.6 2.1 1.1 or
(iii) Construction equipment that may be
Sp3/Sc28 ∞ 3.6 2.1 1.1
present, Qx (see Section 4.2.3.5).
Loads Qw and Qm are not considered to act
merit in taking preload into account in determining the concurrently at the same location.
load distribution between slabs; however, in practice, For the weight of workers and their equipment
the magnitude of preload in shores is difficult to control (Qw), it is recommended (SA 1995) to allow, acting
and measure. concurrently:
■ 1.0 kPa acting on the soffit formwork,
10.2.5 Construction loads prior to or during concrete placement;
To ascertain the load on each floor at the ■ 1.0 kPa acting on the uppermost
relevant time (see Figure 10.9), it is necessary to take concrete slab; and

account of:
■ 0.25 kPa for all other slabs carrying
a share of the load.
(a) The self-weight of concrete floors, Gc (see
The weight of construction material or
Section 4.2.1.2);
equipment stacked on soffit formwork or on any of the
(b) The imposed construction loads on each floor,
slabs carrying a share of the load is likely to increase
Qv; and
the number of floors of shoring and must be taken
(c) The load transferred to each floor through the
into account. This may be achieved economically
multistorey shores.
by limiting the magnitude of the load from stacked
materials and locations where stacking material is
10.2.5.1 Imposed construction load permitted.
The imposed construction load on any floor may Additional multistorey shoring may be required
include: to share the load imposed by construction equipment,

Figure 10.9: Different multistorey shoring load situations

10:10
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:10 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 such as loading platforms, forklifts, elevated working
platforms, perimeter screens, personnel and material
hoists, formwork hoists and concrete pump booms.
Where the location of the construction equipment is
fixed, specific shoring may be introduced to share the
imposed load; otherwise, the load from construction
equipment should be considered to act concurrently
with other construction loads and in the most adverse
location.
10.2.6 In-service design floor load
During their service life, structural floors are
designed to carry their self-weight and imposed
permanent and variable actions.
During construction, under the effects of
construction loading the structure should not suffer any
detrimental effects nor be subject to any greater risk of
failure than would occur if the in-service design floor
load were applied once the concrete has reached full
strength.
The project designer is responsible for
specifying the in-service design loads. For floors in
concrete multistorey buildings, the un-factored design
service load follows the format given by Equation 9.14
and the strength limit states design load follows that
given by the most adverse of Equations 9.16 or 9.17.
10.2.7 Floor construction cycle time
The timing of construction activities, and
consequently loading, relative to the rate of gain of
early-age concrete strength is of critical importance.
World-wide, floor cycles commonly vary between
2 days (Ferguson 2000) to 2 weeks. In Australia,
compliance with AS 3600 effectively limits the minimum
floor cycle to 4 days (see Figures 10.4 and 10.5), as
shores must remain undisturbed for 2 days after placing
concrete.
During a floor-to-floor cycle of T days, critical
load situations arise that must be assessed, namely:
1. Day 1 to Day T-1 (other than the day on which
the concrete is placed), additional construction
loads may occur at any time (see Figure 10.7),
including:
(a) Stacked material on newly placed or
intermediate floors; and
(b) Loads due to commencing construction
of the next floor; e.g. erecting formwork or
perimeter screens.
10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:11
2. Day 3 to Day T-1, due to removal of, disturbing,
or installation of formwork shores or multistorey
shores; and
3. Day T, casting a new slab.
For each situation, assess and determine:
(a) The early-age concrete modulus of
elasticity for each floor sharing the
construction load; and
(b) The construction load on each floor and, if
applicable, formwork erected for the next
floor, see Figure 10.7.
10.2.8 Other factors
Other factors that influence the multistorey
load distribution include concrete creep and ambient
temperature change.
These factors should be taken into account
when assessing the load distribution and capacity of
slabs to carry construction loads.
10.2.8.1 Concrete creep
Concrete creep causes a continuous process
of load redistribution upwards as the new slab gains
strength (stiffness). The magnitude of redistribution may
cause the load in the top floor to increase by 10% to
20% (McAdam and Behan 1990; Duan and Chen 1995).
10.2.8.2 Ambient temperature change
Concrete strength gain
The rate of gain of strength of concrete is
reduced in cold temperatures. At an early age,
reduced concrete strength impairs the capacity of
slabs to carry load and reduces the flexural stiffness
of slabs. Accordingly, the load distribution and
multistorey shoring required will vary with ambient
temperature and may require change over the
construction period.
Multistorey shore load
A rise in temperature, relative to that on the day
of the pour of a new slab, will cause the supporting
shores to expand. The expansion is restrained by the
slabs and columns, and the load in the slab below
increases, while the load in the slab above decreases
(McAdam and Behan 1990). A drop in temperature will
have the reverse effect.
10:11
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:30 am
 Figure 10.10: One level of multistorey shoring

Figure 10.11: Two levels of multistorey shoring

10.3 METHODS FOR CALCULATING LOAD (a) It is appropriate for one-way and two-way
DISTRIBUTION IN MULTISTOREY reinforced concrete slabs with beams, as well as
SHORING
beams that behave elastically; e.g. slabs up to
There are several methods recommended in the 350 mm thick and not heavy stiff beams.
literature for calculating the load distribution in multistorey (b) It is useful for reshoring, but less so for
shoring. Three methods are discussed herein, namely: undisturbed shores;
1. Relative stiffness method; (c) If the effective axial stiffness of each floor of
2. Slab shore interaction method; and shores is not known, which is usually the case,
3. Finite element analysis. application of this method relies on making an
All the methods are suitable for both reshores accurate assumption or estimate of the effective
and undisturbed shores. axial stiffness of each level of shores relative to
the flexural stiffness of the slabs; e.g. in terms
10.3.1 Relative stiffness method of a multiple of the flexural stiffness of the slabs
The Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and Falsework at 28 days; e.g. as per the example in Section
(CSG 2003) presents simplified formulae to calculate 10.2.3.2 where Sp = 0.8Sc28; and
the load in each level of shoring based on the flexural (d) The actual load in individual shores is not known,
stiffness of the slabs and effective axial stiffness of the only the total load in the level of shores, which
level of shores. may lead to underestimating the load in the
Unfortunately, the use of this method has heaviest loaded shores.
limitations: For the purposes of simplifying the formulae

10:12
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:12 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 Figure 10.12: Three levels of multistorey shoring

provided in Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and Falsework, The share of W1 transferred to the top slab is
it is useful to define a “relative stiffness term” for slab 1 given by:
to 2, K12, and for slab 2 to 3, K23, and so on as: :F :  :S (10.13)
6F 6F The share of W1 transferred to the second
.   (10.8)
6F 6S (bottom) slab is given by:
:F :S (10.14)
6F 6F
.   (10.9)
6F 6S
10.3.1.2 Two levels of multistorey shores
6F 6F For systems with two levels of multistorey
.   (10.10)
6F 6S shoring (see Figure 10.11), the load in the top level of
6F 6F multistorey shoring, Wp1, and the load in the second
.   (10.11) level of multistorey shoring, Wp2, is given by:
6F 6S
:
:S
6 F
10.3.1.1 One level of multistorey shores
6 F (10.15)
For systems with a single level of multistorey . 
.
shoring (see Figure 10.10), the load in the multistorey
:S
shoring, Wp1 is given by: :S (10.16)
: .
:S (10.12)
. The share of W1 transferred to the top slab is

In Equation 10.12, W1 is the construction load given by Equation 10.13.

on the top slab to be shared by the multistorey shoring. The share of W1 transferred to the second slab
is given by:
W1 will be the sum of the construction load from the
formwork shores and any imposed construction load :F :S  :S (10.17)
acting on the top slab. The share of W1 transferred to the third (bottom)

10:13
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:13 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 Figure 10.13: Four levels of multistorey shoring

slab is given by: the second slab is given by Equation 10.17. The share of
:F :S (10.18) W1 transferred to the third slab is given by:
:F :S  :S (10.22)
10.3.1.3 Three levels of multistorey shores The share of W1 transferred to the fourth
Based on the same theory, for systems with (bottom) slab is given by:
three levels of multistorey shoring (see Figure 10.12), the
loads in the respective level of multistorey shoring, Wp1, :F :S (10.23)
Wp2, and Wp3, are given by:
10.3.1.4 Four levels of multistorey shores
:
:S Based on the same theory, for systems with four
6 F
levels of multistorey shoring (see Figure 10.13), the loads
6 F
.  in the respective level of multistorey shoring, Wp1, Wp2,
6 F (10.19) Wp3, and Wp4, are given by:
6 F
.  :
. :S
6 F
:S
:S 6 F
6 F . 
6 F (10.24)
(10.20)
6 F
.  6 F
. . 
6 F
:S 6 F
:S (10.21) . 
. .
The share of W1 transferred to the top slab is
given by Equation 10.13. The share of W1 transferred to

10:14
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:14 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 :S multistorey shore at the point where the shore is
:S located; and
6 F
δB = Deflection of the slab at the bottom of the
6 F
.  (10.25) multistorey shore at the point where the shore is
6 F
located.
6 F The deflection of the slab at the top of each
. 
. shore (δA) is equal to the sum of the deflections that

:S arise from the point load from each individual formwork
:S or multistorey shore on the level above and any other
6 F
(10.26) construction loads acting downward on the top of the
6 F
.  supported slab, less the reduction in deflection that
. arises from the sum of the effects of the point load from
:S each individual multistorey shore on the same level as
:S (10.27) the shore in question, acting upward on the underside
.
of the supported slab.
The share of W1 transferred to the top slab is
The deflection at the bottom of each shore
given by Equation 10.13.
(δB) is equal to the sum of the deflections in the slab
The share of W1 transferred to the second slab
supporting the shore that arise from the point load from
is given by Equation 10.17.
each individual multistorey shore on the same level
The share of W1 transferred to by the third slab
as the shore in question and any other construction
is given by Equation 10.22.
loads acting downward on the slab supporting the
The share of W1 transferred to the fourth slab is
shore, less the reduction in deflection that arises from
given by:
the sum of the effects of the point load from each
:F :S  :S (10 .28) individual multistorey shore on the level below the shore
The share of W1 transferred to the fifth (bottom) in question (where present), acting upward on the
slab is given by: underside of the slab supporting the shore in question.
Considering the axial load in every shore on
:F :S (10.29) each level of multistorey shoring results in a series of
complex simultaneous equations that can be solved
10.3.2 Slab shore interaction method using matrix methods.
The Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and Falsework The accuracy of this method depends on the
(CSG 2003) includes a spreadsheet for calculating suitability of the deflection coefficients used to calculate
the loads in multistorey shoring and the connected the slab deflection at each shore location. For two-
flat plate slabs. The spreadsheet takes account of the way slabs, using simple methods for estimating slab
interaction of slab flexural stiffness, shore axial stiffness deflections (e.g. Scanlon and Suprenant 2011) may
and preload based on methods for estimating load result in inaccurate estimates of load distribution,
distribution that have been previously investigated because although these methods may provide a
(Liu et al. 1985; El-Shahhat et al. 1992) and refined by reasonable estimate of the maximum deflection
Beeby (2001). Useful commentary on its use can be for a two-way slab, without adjustment, they can
found in Early age construction loading (BRE 2004). underestimate the deflection near the slab edges and
Using this method, for a given multistorey shore therefore the load in those shores.
layout, the axial load in each multistorey shore (Np) can The advantages of this method are that it is
be expressed as: suitable for:
1S 6S ˜G$  G% (10.30)
1. Situations where the layout of formwork shores
and/or multistorey shores differs from floor to
In Equation 10.30,
floor, see Figure 10.14; and
Sp = Effective axial stiffness of each individual
2. One-way slabs and beams, as well as simple
multistorey shore, see Equation 10.5;
rectangular two-way flat slabs; and
δA = Deflection of the slab at the top of the

10:15
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:15 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 Figure 10.14: The layout of formwork shores and multistorey shores differ from floor to floor
3. Programming in computer spreadsheets or
worksheets that, once written, allow for rapid
and efficient analysis of different multistorey
shoring arrangements.
10.3.3 Finite element analysis
Historically, the emphasis of researchers has
been to seek simple methods for determining the
multistorey load distribution. In principle, there is
nothing wrong with such an approach providing the
simplified methods did not tend to underestimation in
a manner that would increase the risk of failure beyond
acceptable limits. However, there is evidence that, for
reshoring in particular, the load carried by the upper
floors may have been significantly underestimated.
Work Health and Safety Regulations place clear
obligations on project designers to minimise risks to the
health and safety of those involved during construction.
In doing so, it is reasonable that workers constructing
the structure should not be put at any greater risk from
structural failure than those who will later occupy the
building. Accordingly, the level of rigour and level of
reliability appropriate for the design of the structure to
resist multistorey loading should be no less than for
the design of the structure to resist the loadings it will
experience during its working life.
There can also be a significant economic
benefit to adopt more rigorous methods of analysis
that optimise multistorey shoring, see Section 10.1.1.
As stated earlier, the rigour and effort invested in the
10:16
Formwork Handbook
10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:16
design of the multistorey shoring system should be
commensurate with the consequence of failure and
potential cost benefit.
Given the ready availability of software for
finite element analysis (FEA) and its growing use for
the design of multistorey structures, it would seem
reasonable that the load distribution and effects of
multistorey shoring also be analysed using FEA.
The advantages of this approach include:
1. Direct comparison of the in-service and
construction design action effects;
2. More closely simulates the actual structural
arrangement, than idealised models; and
3. Most importantly, provides an increased level of
certainty.
Figure 10.15 shows an example of the output
from a finite element analysis of the accumulated
deflection on a portion of the lowest level (4th floor) slab
supporting undisturbed multistorey shoring.
10.4 ANALYSIS METHODS FOR RESHORES
VS UNDISTURBED SHORES
10.4.1 General
When loads are applied to, or removed from, a
floor connected by multistorey shoring, load is shared
between the connected floors. The load in the floors
and multistorey shores accumulate with each loading
event. For each event, the share of the load in the floors
and multistorey shores can be determined based on the
12/09/2016 7:30 am
 Figure 10.15: Slab deflections under staged construction loads from undisturbed multistorey shoring

Figure 10.16: Idealised model with both the top and intermediate floor loadings

relative stiffness of the floors and shores at the time of
each event.
Loads may be applied to any floor connected
by multistorey shoring, the most common case is
when loads are applied to the top floor and the load
is shared between the floors below, see Figure 10.6.
This may occur on any day of the floor cycle. However,
if an intermediate floor is loaded (e.g. with stacked
materials), the distribution of this load will change the
share of load carried by the slabs above and below the
floor.
In Figure 10.16, the intermediate floor is shown
carrying an additional construction load (W2) from
material stacked on the floor prior to pouring the next
slab. The load distribution for W2 must be determined
based on the time the load was installed and before
considering the distribution of W1.
Thus, it is necessary to sequentially determine
the distribution from each load event using the stiffness
of the concrete and shore layout at the time of loading.
10.4.1.1 Floor numbering
Note on Day 1 of any floor cycle, the newly
poured slab has some stiffness and is identified as
slab 1 in the multistorey arrangement (e.g. as shown
Figure 10.7) and the floors below are renumbered.
The numbering applies for all load events up to and
including the casting of the next floor. The day after the

10:17
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:17 12/09/2016 7:30 am


Figure 10.17: Idealised model of load effect of
stripping the lowest level of “undisturbed” multistorey
shoring (reproduced from second image from the left
in Figure 10.5)
next floor is poured, what was slab 1 becomes slab 2
and so forth.
10.4.2 Reshoring
As part of the reshoring process, the formwork
shores under the slab are removed and the uppermost
slab is allowed to relax and span as-designed. At
that time, load is no longer shared to the lower floors.
Therefore, each time reshores are installed the analysis
recommences, for each subsequent loading event
the loads are distributed and accumulate, until the
formwork shores are removed after pouring the next
slab.
10.4.3 Undisturbed shoring
When analysing undisturbed multistorey shoring,
it is necessary to determine the load distribution in
the slabs and multistorey shoring that accumulates
from each loading event throughout the time each
slab participates as part of the multistorey shoring
arrangement. This starts the day after a slab is poured
and continues until the day the slab is the lowest slab
connected by multistorey shoring and the multistorey
shores it supports are removed.
For a multistorey structure, it is necessary
to sum the calculated load distribution from each
load event slabs connected by multistorey shoring
10:18
Formwork Handbook
10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:18
experience, in order, and taking account of the stiffness
of the slabs and shores on each occasion loads are
applied or shores removed, from the start to the finish
of construction.
For typical floors, the loads in the slabs and
shores will converge and follow a pattern. Particular
attention must be paid to non-typical situations, see
Section 10.5.
In the case of undisturbed shoring, removing the
lowest level of shores, as shown on the left hand side
of Figure 10.17, can be simulated by loading the floor
previously supported by the removed shores with point
loads whose magnitude is equivalent to the load carried
by the shores before they were removed. This situation
is represented by an idealised model shown on the right
hand side of Figure 10.17.
10.5 SPECIAL SITUATIONS TO CONSIDER
10.5.1 Unloaded multistorey shores
Typically, multistorey shores carry compression
only. There are situations where an analysis of the
multistorey shoring system will show a level of shores in
tension. This situation may arise when:
(a) After installing reshores and:
(i) Loads that were present on the top slab,
before reshoring, are removed; or
(ii) The floor supporting the reshores, or a floor
below, is loaded;
(b) A floor connected by multistorey shoring, other
than the lowest level, is significantly stiffer than
the floors below (e.g. a floor with a thicker slab
or shorter spans).
This is not a problem providing the tension does
not exceed the accumulated compression or preload
in the shores. The latter case may be indicative of how
shoring beneath very stiff slabs may be ineffective.
Nevertheless, it is good practice to install
multistorey shores with a minimum preload to minimise
the risk of unloaded shores falling.
10.5.2 Onset of cracking
During construction, at some point, in slabs
sharing multistorey loading subject to increasing
loads, cracking will take place and reduce the flexural
stiffness of the slab. It may be prudent to be aware of
the magnitude of the load that will cause the onset of
12/09/2016 7:30 am
 cracking, so any change in flexural stiffness can be
introduced at the appropriate stage.
10.5.3 Foundations – settlement
Where multistorey shores are supported
directly on soleboards or temporary footings on a
soil foundation, the settlement characteristics of
the foundation need to be taken into account. Any
settlement will have a detrimental effect on the axial
stiffness of the shores.
10.5.4 Props not directly over each other
Where formwork shores or multistorey shores on
one level are not directly above the shores on the level
below, less load is transferred to the lower level than if
the props on different levels were aligned (Beeby 2001).
10.5.5 Shores at the centre of the slab carry
more load than those closer to the
supports
The load carried by multistorey shores is
greatest for the shores in areas where the slab
deflection is greatest; e.g. the centre of any span.
Conversely, the load in shores adjacent to rigid
supports such as columns and walls will carry the least
load. As a guide, for the cases analysed in Section
10.2.3.2, the heaviest load shore carries between 1.5 to
1.6 times the load carried by the shores for each level
(Wp) divided by the number of shores on each level.
Only analysis using the slab shore interaction
method or FEA will predict the load in each shore. Care
should be exercised when selecting multistorey shores
to ensure sufficient capacity to avoid overload.
10.6 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR
EARLY-AGE LOADING
Whichever method is used to estimate load
distribution in multistorey shoring, Equations 9.11, 9.12,
9.15 and 9.16 provide useful criteria for assessing early-
age loading, see Chapter 9.
10.6.1 Uncertainty
In assessing early-age loading due to
construction loads from multistorey shoring, it is
recommended consideration be given to the uncertainty
associated with the accuracy of the calculated load
distribution and the possible variation in magnitude of
the construction load.
Possible sources of variations in the estimated
load in multistorey shores may include, but are not
limited to:
(a) Inaccuracies in the simulated model of the
structure, including:
(i) Neglecting concrete creep;
(ii) Neglecting axial shortening of the columns;
(iii) Inaccuracy in estimating concrete modulus
of elasticity;
(iv) Variations between calculated and the actual
shore axial stiffness; and
(v) Variations between estimated and actual
foundation settlement characteristics.
(b) Changes in ambient temperatures;
(c) Level of site control over:
(i) The location of and magnitude of stacked
materials;
(ii) Variations in preload of shores at installation;
(iii) Unintentional removal or relocation
of shores;
(iv) Type of shores used versus that specified;
and
(v) Variations in shore layout.
10.6.2 Serviceability limit states
When assessing acceptance criteria at
serviceability limit states, the following combination of
actions are recommended:
For reshoring,
: *F4Y™:FN3D (10.31)
Note: prior to the installation of reshores below
the uppermost slab, any construction loads applied to
the floors below connected by multistorey shoring will
be shared and should be included in Qv.
For undisturbed shoring,
: ™:FN3D (10.32)
In Equations 10.31 and 10.32,
Gc = weight of the slab or beam being assessed;
Qv = share of imposed construction loads prior to
installation of reshores; and
ΣWc = share of multistorey construction loads,
accumulated up until that point of time, acting
on the slab or beam being assessed.
10.6.3 Ultimate limit states
When assessing acceptance criteria at ultimate
limit states, it is recommended that the multistorey

10:19
Formwork Handbook

10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:19 12/09/2016 7:30 am

 construction load be factored as a variable action
imposed on the slabs rather than a combination of
permanent and variable actions, using the following
combination of factored actions:
For reshoring,
Duan, M. Z. and W. F. Chen (1995). Effects
of Creep and Shrinkage on Slab-Shore Loads and
Deflections during Construction. Project Report: CE-
STR-95-24, Purdue University.
El-Shahhat, A. M., D. Rosowsky and W. F. Chen
:G *F4Y™:FN3D (10.33)
For undisturbed shoring,
:G ™:FN3D (10.34)
10.6.4 Acceptable overload
The acceptance or otherwise of the magnitude
of construction load from multistorey shoring is the
responsibility of the project designer.
A discussion and guidance on issues associated
with loading a slab to above the design service load in
the UK is presented in Appendix E of the Guide to Flat
Slab Formwork and Falsework (CSG 2003).
REFERENCES
ACI (2005). ACI 347.2R-05 Guide for Shoring/
Reshoring of Concrete Multistorey Buildings.
Farmington Hills, American Concrete Institute.
Beeby, A. W. (2000). ECBP Task 4 Report –
Early Striking and Backpropping (Report BR 394).
London, BRE.
Beeby, A. W. (2001). “Criteria for the loading of
slabs during construction.” Structures & Buildings 146
May 2001(2): 195:202.
Beeby, A. W. (2001). “The forces in backprops
during construction of flat slab structures.” Structures
& Buildings 146 August 2001(3): 307-317.
Bischoff, P. and A. Scanlon (2007). “Effective
Moment of Inertia for Calculating Deflections of
Concrete Members Containing Steel Reinforcement
and Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement.” ACI
Structural Journal 104 (No. 1): 68-75.
BRE (2004). Early age construction loading.
London, The Concrete Centre.
BS (2008). BS EN 338:2008 Structural timber:
Strength classes. London, British Standards.
CSG (2003). Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and
Falsework. Berkshire, Concrete Society on behalf of
Concrete Structures Group.
10:20
Formwork Handbook
10 – Multistorey Shoring.indd 10:20
(1992). “Improved Analysis of Shore Slab Interaction.”
ACI Structural Journal 89 (No 5 Sept-Oct): 528-537.
Fang, D.-P., H.-Y. Zhu, C.-D. Geng and X.-L. Liu
(2001). “On-Site Measurement of Load Distribution in
Reinforced Concrete Buildings during Construction.”
ACI Structural Journal 98 (No. 2): 157-163.
Ferguson, S. A. (2000). “A 2-day cycle using
timber formwork.” Concrete Vol. 34 (No. 3, March): 22-26.
Grundy, P. and A. Kabaila (1963). “Construction
Loads on Slabs with Shored Formwork in Multistorey
Buildings.” ACI Journal Proceedings V 60 (No. 12 Dec):
1729-1738.
Liu, X. L., W. F. Chen and M. D. Bowman (1985).
“Construction loads on supporting floors.” Construction
International (December): 21-26.
McAdam, P. S. and J. E. Behan (1990). Multi-
storey Formwork Loading (Technical Paper 7). Sydney,
Concrete Institute of Australia: 18 pages.
Moss, R. M. (2003). Best practice in concrete
frame construction: Practical application at St George
Wharf. London, BRE Centre for Concrete Construction.
Park, H.-G., H.-J. Hwang, G.-H. Hong, Kim,
Yong-Nam and J.-Y. Kim (2011). “Slab Construction
Load Affected by Shore Stiffness and Concrete
Cracking.” ACI Structural Journal 108 (No. 6): 679-688.
SA (1995). AS 3610:1995 Formwork for concrete.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (1996). AS 3610 Supplement 2 – 1996
Formwork for concrete – Commentary. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2009). AS 3600:2009 Concrete Structures.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2010). AS 3610.1:2010 Formwork for
concrete Part 1: Documentation and surface finish.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
Scanlon, A. and B. A. Suprenant (2011).
“Estimating two-way slab deflections.” Concrete
International (July): 29-34.
12/09/2016 7:30 am
 11
Concrete Finishes –
Identification of Defects
11.1 INTRODUCTION
The intent is to supplement those parts of
Australian Standard AS 3610.1:2010 (SA 2010) that
refer to the inspection, evaluation of the quality of finish
and defects visible following removal of the forms.
There often is a difference between the expectations
of the architect and what is achievable on site. In many
situations the initial reaction to a surface defect is to
focus on the quality of the formwork when site practices
may have resulted in the observed problem.
11.2 BLOWHOLES
The evaluation of blowholes can be very
subjective when comparing an actual surface with the
photographic charts published in AS 3610.1:2010 and
AS 3610 Supplement 1 (SA 1995). It is also important
to remember that the comparison of the charts with the
surface being evaluated must be at a viewing distance
11 - Concrete Finishes.indd 11:1
of not less than 2 m when determining if the number of
blowholes compares with required finish Class.
Where the number and size of blowholes
exceeds that permitted for the finish Class, repair
can often be effected by filling holes with a mortar
of matching colour. However, if the specified finish
is textured such as with sawn boards it is virtually
impossible to produce a good repair and particular
attention needs to be paid to the placing and
compaction of the concrete. The effect of blowholes in
a sawn board finish is illustrated in Figure 11.1. In this
instance the blowholes shown in Figure 11.1 do not
detract from the effect of the sawn board finish, but an
increase in their number would result in an unacceptable
appearance that could not be effectively repaired.
11.3 FACE STEPS
Typically, face steps permitted by AS 3610 for
Class 1, 2 and 3 are within a range of 1 mm to 5 mm.
Unacceptable face steps can be reduced by grinding
but a consequence is that the colour of the repair
compared to the concrete on either side may fall outside
the tonal range permitted for the specified Class. An
example of the result of grinding is shown in Figure 11.2.
Unintended consequences of grinding the
concrete surface can be an increase in the number
Figure 11.1: Acceptable blowholes
Figure 11.2: Face step reduced by grinding
11:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:35 am
 Figure 11.3: Acceptable quality repair
of face steps

Figure 11.4: Acceptable quality repair

of face steps

Figure 11.5: Measuring face steps

11:2
Formwork Handbook

11 - Concrete Finishes.indd 11:2 12/09/2016 7:35 am

 Figure 11.6: Honeycombing along the bottom edge of a
concrete beam
Figure 11.7: Poor compaction with board finish
of blowholes, which then may fall outside the range
permitted for the specified finish Class, or exposed
aggregate, which may be unacceptable if colour control
is specified. Little or no effort has been made to colour-
match the mortar used to repair the form tie holes in
Figure 11.2.
Repair of face steps when carried out properly
can result in an acceptable surface finish when the
concrete surface is new and when aged can be almost
impossible to detect. The photographs in Figures 11.3
and 11.4 are examples of face step repairs that were
considered acceptable for Class 2; i.e. without colour
control.
Face steps of less than 5 mm can be difficult
to measure with any degree of accuracy on the job.
A simple means is to use widow packers that have
stated thickness of 1.5 mm and 3.2 mm. An example
of measuring a rebate in a concrete surface is shown
in Figure 11.5. Here the blue packers used are marked
with a thickness of 1.5 mm. Some face steps can be
so large that repair to fit within the limits for Class 3 is
difficult if not impossible.
11 - Concrete Finishes.indd 11:3
11.4 HONEYCOMBING
Areas of concrete surface that are coarse and
stony are described as honeycombing. Honeycomb
defects often are initially blamed on poorly sealed
formwork joints. However, insufficient fine material in
the mix or incorrect aggregate grading, as well as poor
practices during mixing, placement and compaction
of the concrete can result in surface problems. The
photograph in Figure 11.6 shows honeycombing,
which could be the result of either: grout leakage from
the formwork joint; or concrete that has not been
adequately mixed when delivered to the formwork and
poorly compacted. The absence of darker concrete
around the edges (typical of loss of water or grout)
would suggest the latter. Apart from the surface
appearance there has to be concern of the extent of
the voids in the concrete and the detrimental effect on
durability regardless of a satisfactory surface repair.
Placing and compaction problems with textured
forms can be difficult if not impossible to repair.
The photograph in Figure 11.7 is the result of poor
compaction where repairing the surface to replicate the
sawn board finish will be very difficult.
11:3
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:35 am
 Figure 11.8: Debris left when formwork not cleaned
Figure 11.9: Rust stains left on the forms
Figure 11.10: Concrete surface damaged after
removal of the forms
Figure 11.11: Concrete surface contaminated after
removal of the forms
11:4
Formwork Handbook
11 - Concrete Finishes.indd 11:4
11.5 DEBRIS CONTAMINATION
Forms can be easily and economically cleaned
before the concrete is placed but it can be difficult
and expensive to repair the concrete surface following
removal of the forms. Some typical examples are shown
in Figure 11.8.
Such cleaning matters can be readily identified
before the concrete is placed. However, there is another
possible problem even when the form surface has been
cleaned of all debris. This results from debris such as
scraps of tie wire being left on a soffit form for some
period of time before being removed. The photograph in
Figure 11.9 shows rust staining of the form surface that
has subsequently imprinted on to the concrete surface.
In addition, the concrete shows shading resulting
from reinforcing mesh also being left on the form for
a period of time. These stain and shading marks are
of no consequence if the soffit is to be covered by a
suspended ceiling, plastered or painted; however, if
the soffit is to be left bare (i.e. colour control specified)
then such marking can be objectionable. Similar tie wire
stain marks can be seen in the earlier photograph that
showed rubbish left in the trough of the beam form.
11.6 OTHER COMMON DEFECTS
The photograph in Figure 11.10 shows damage
to a concrete wall surface that became evident after
removal of forms. The damage probably is the result
of rainwater leaking down between the form face and
the concrete before the concrete had set. If rain is
expected, steps must be taken to prevent a water build
up on the top exposed surface of a freshly poured wall.
Water blasting can remove the unsightly ridges resulting
in a textured finish, assuming that is acceptable for the
project.
12/09/2016 7:35 am
 Figure 11.12: Concrete surface stains
Figure 11.14: Poor formwork sealing results
in objectionable appearance.
The photograph in Figure 11.11 shows a
concrete surface that has been contaminated after the
forms have been removed. This is the result of poor
construction practices at higher levels of the building.
Depending on the type of contamination a repair of
the surface can be difficult or it may be impossible to
completely clean the marking resulting in a need to
paint the concrete as the only effective remedy.
Other stains can adversely mark a wall surface
and repair can present some problems. If the intended
finished surface is to have some form of texture that
may not be a problem. The photograph in Figure 11.12
shows unsightly white staining of the textured surface
which can be repaired by water blasting, if that does not
change the specified finish.
Dirty faces of wall forms will result in
objectionable appearance of the concrete following
removal of the forms. Problems such as the marking
in the photograph in Figure 11.13 can be very time
11 - Concrete Finishes.indd 11:5
Figure 11.13: Dirty faces of wall forms result in
objectionable appearance
consuming and costly to effectively remove. Where a
wall is specified as an exposed wall, care must be taken
to ensure that the forms are adequately cleaned before
being erected.
The final photograph in Figure 11.14 shows the
result of inadequate erection procedures, in particular
inadequate sealing between the soffit form and
concrete wall, accepting that the stair soffit off form
finish was generally Class 2.
REFERENCES
SA (1995). AS 3610 Supplement 1 – 1995
Formwork for concrete – Blowhole and colour
evaluation charts (Supplement to AS 3610:1995).
Sydney, Standards Australia
SA (2010). AS 3610:2010 Formwork for concrete
Part 1: Documentation and surface finish. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
11:5
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:35 am
 A of equipment; site conditions; environmental
Formwork Importance
A.1 LEVEL OF RISK
In structural design, structures or structural
elements in different situations need to achieve
the appropriate degree of reliability. Therefore, it is
necessary that account should be taken of:
■ The consequence of failure.
The risk of failure should be lower where the risk
of injury, economic, social and environmental
losses is greater.
■ The cause and mode of failure.
The risk of sudden collapse should be lower
than where collapse is preceded by some kind
of warning in such way that measures can be
taken to limit the consequences.
■ Factors affecting the risk of failure.
Factors such as: choice of the values of actions;
degree of structural integrity; accuracy of
structural models used; quality and durability
conditions; quality of workmanship; and
measures taken to reduce the risk of gross
human, design and construction errors.
■ The expense, level of effort and procedures
necessary to reduce the risk of failure.
To this end, the concept of level of risk is similar
to the philosophy of structure importance adopted in
AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural design actions Part 0:
General principles (SA 2002), is useful.
A low, ordinary or high level of risk for formwork
is comparable with structure importance levels 1, 2 or
3 in AS/NZS 1170.0, respectively. The concept of levels
of risk based on consequence of failure provides a
useful framework for specifying the annual probability
of exceedence of design events and also the obligation
and competence required to verify the formwork design
and inspect the formwork construction, see Sections
2.8 and 4.2.2.
Table A.1 provides guidance on selecting the
appropriate levels of risk for formwork in different
situations. Where there is a choice (or doubt) between
levels of risk, the highest level applies.
Amendment No 5 to AS/NZS 1170.0:2002

Table A.1: Level of risk for formwork in different situations

Level of Risk Consequence of failure Situations

Low Formwork, whose failure
poses a risk to few
people and has small
or negligible economic,
social or environmental
consequences
Ordinary Formwork not in other
levels of risk
High Formwork, whose
failure poses a risk to
people in crowds or
has great economic,
social or environmental
consequences.
Formwork to the sides of shallow footings and slabs.
Formwork for the side of small walls and columns, up to 2 m high.
Horizontal formwork that supports concrete whose soffit is less than
3 m above the lowest surrounding ground level and whose plan area
is less than 16 m2, providing the concrete to be placed has a volume
of not more than 2.5 m3.
Formwork in areas where access is prevented, such that few people
would be put at risk in the event of its failure.
When construction sites have been vacated.
All formwork not in other levels of risk.
Formwork on the perimeter of high-rise buildings in populated areas.
Formwork lifted over busy streets.
Bridge formwork spanning over major arterial roads.
Formwork in environmentally sensitive areas.
Suspended or cantilever formwork, e.g. formwork supported off
cantilever needles, climbform, slipform, jumpform, etc.
Formwork that would otherwise have an ordinary level of risk and
whose:
(a) mode of failure is sudden and without warning; or
(b) design, construction or materials are new, novel or unusual.

A:1
Formwork Handbook

Appendix A.indd A:1 12/09/2016 7:36 am

 specifies that construction equipment, such as REFERENCES
formwork falls into Structure Importance Level 2 and, SA (2002). AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural
accordingly, sets out the relevant annual probabilities design actions Part 0: General principles. Sydney,
of exceedence for ultimate limit states design. Such Standards Australia.
a broad approach would unnecessarily penalise
formwork that would otherwise have a low level of risk
and possibly tend to underestimation in the case of the
formwork has a high level of risk. Accordingly, the three
tier approach presented herein has merit.

A:2
Formwork Handbook

Appendix A.indd A:2 12/09/2016 7:36 am

 B research at the University of Birmingham to establish
Coefficients of Static Friction
B.1 INTRODUCTION
For reasons of economy and speed of
construction, instead of relying on positive connections,
the stability of temporary structures often relies only
on friction. Such structures include: demountable
grandstands, platforms, stages and towers; scaffold;
falsework; and formwork. In addition, during
construction (albeit for a short period) the stability of
permanent structures often depends on friction, e.g.
during the erection of precast concrete buildings.
Investigations and surveys into the collapse
of temporary structures used during construction
identified the lack of adequate provision for lateral
and longitudinal stability as a primary cause of failure
(Bragg 1975; Hadipriono and Wang 1986). The same
studies highlight the danger of using a multiplicity of
unconnected elements on top of each other, relying
only on friction for structural integrity.
Unfortunately, there is little guidance in the
literature on appropriate values for the coefficient of
friction between different materials. The information
available differs from source to source and its origin
is not often known. Prompted by the need for reliable
data, the UK Health and Safety Executive funded
Appendix B.indd B:1
practical values of the coefficient of friction for
commonly used materials in temporary works (Pallett et
al. 2000).
Based on data from 957 tests performed at
the university, calibrated limit states design resistance
values for coefficients of static friction μ for use with a
capacity reduction factor φ = 0.8 to achieve a target
reliability (safety) index β of 4.5 are shown in Table B1.
REFERENCES
Bragg, S. L. (1975). Final report of the Advisory
Committee on Falsework. London, Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office: pp 151.
BS (1996). BS 5975:1996 Code of practice for
Falsework. London, British Standards Institution.
Ferguson, S. A. and R. Q. Bridge (In
preparation). “Proposed static friction coefficients for
use in the limit states design of temporary structures.”
Hadipriono, F. C. and H.-K. Wang (1986).
“Analysis of causes of formwork failures in concrete
structures.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 112: pp 112-121.
Pallett, P., S. Williamson, et al. (2000). “Friction
resistance in temporary works.” Concrete 34 (No. 3,
Mar): 15-17.
Pallett, P. F., N. J. S. Gorst, et al. (2002). “Friction
resistance in temporary works materials.” Concrete 36
(No. 6, Jun): 12-15.
B:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 7:36 am
Appendix B.indd B:2
B:2
Table B1: Nominal design coefficient of static friction μ for use in limit states design

Formwork Handbook
SURFACE 1
Steel Alum. Timber Plywood Concrete
Plain Plain Galv. Prop. Prop. Soft wood Hard wood Proprietary Good one Combi ply Film faced Film faced Cast
SURFACE 2
Unrusted rusted painted waling Parallel Perp Parallel Perp beam side faced Finnish quality face

Plain unrusted 0.25 0.3 0.2 0.25 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.25 – – 0.05 –

Plain rusted 0.3 0.35 0.2 0.45 0.35 – – 0.4 – 0.35 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 –
Steel
Galvanised 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.2 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.3 0.15 – – 0.05 –

Proprietary painted 0.25 0.45 0.25 0.55 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.15 0.15 0.15 –

Aluminium Proprietary waling 0.2 0.35 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 –
Parallel 0.25 – 0.30 0.35 0.3 0.45 0.4 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.55
Softwood
Perpendicular 0.3 – 0.35 0.35 0.3 0.4 – 0.3 – 0.3 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.5
Timber Parallel 0.35 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.3 0.2 – – 0.15 0.4
Hardwood
Perpendicular 0.35 – 0.35 0.4 0.3 0.35 – 0.35 – 0.3 0.25 – – 0.15 0.5
Proprietary beam 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.35 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.2 – – 0.15 –

Good one side 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.25

Combi ply faced – 0.15 – 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.15 – – – 0.2 – – – 0.2
Plywood
Film faced Finnish – 0.15 – 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.2 – – – 0.2 – – – 0.2

Film faced quality 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 – – 0.1 0.15

Hardened Cast face – – – – – 0.55 0.5 0.4 0.5 – 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.15 –
Concrete
Trowelled face 0.4 0.55 0.2 0.45 0.35 0.75 0.55 0.5 0.5 0.45 0.25 – – – –

Soil Granular – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

12/09/2016 7:36 am
 C European
Recommended Reading
C.1 INTRODUCTION
To obtain a comprehensive understanding of
formwork design, in addition to the references cited
at the end of each Chapter, the following references
are recommended reading (sorted geographically,
alphabetically and chronologically).
REFERENCES
American
1. Hurd, M. K. (1995). Formwork for Concrete.
Farmington Hills, American Concrete Institute.
Australian
2. CCAA (2006). Guide to Off-form Concrete
Finishes. Sydney, Cement and Concrete
Association of Australia.
3. McAdam, P. S. and G. Lee (1997). Formwork –
A practical approach. London, E & EF Spon.
4. EWPAA (1993). Plywood in Concrete Formwork
Manual. Brisbane, Engineered Wood Products
Association of Australasia.
Appendix C.indd C:1
5. BS 5975:2008. Code of practice for temporary
works procedures and the permissible stress
design of falsework. London, British Standards
Institution.
6. CS (1999). Checklist for Erecting and
Dismantling Falsework. Berkshire, The Concrete
Society.
7. CS (2003). Checklist for Assembly, Use and
Striking of Formwork. Berkshire, The Concrete
Society.
8. CS (2012). Formwork – A guide to good
practice. Berkshire, The Concrete Society.
9. CSG (2003). Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and
Falsework. Berkshire, The Concrete Society on
behalf of Concrete Structures Group
10. DIN (2010). DIN 18218 Pressure of fresh
concrete on vertical formwork. Berlin, German
Standards.
11. ECS (2004). BS EN 12812 Falsework –
Performance requirements and general
design. Brussels, European Committee for
Standardization.
C:1
Formwork Handbook
12/09/2016 8:32 am
 Concrete Institute of Australia
CONCRETE INSTITUTE
of AUSTRALIA

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
Z36

Formwork Handbook
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

Z36

Formwork Handbook
Z36

Cover.indd 1 30/08/2016 12:11 pm