CONSTRUCTION L O A D ANALYSIS

FOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES

By Xila Liu, 1 Wai-Fah C h e n / M . ASCE,

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and M a r k D . B o w m a n / M . ASCE

ABSTRACT: A common practice in multistory reinforced concrete building con-

struction is to shore a freshly placed concrete floor on several previously cast
floors. The construction loads on the supporting floors may exceed the slab
design loads during maturity, especially when the design live load is small
compared with the dead load. A few studies have been conducted to analyti-
cally model the construction loading process. However, these early models are
based on a number of simplifying assumptions. The objective of this paper is
to develop a three-dimensional computer model which can be used to evaluate
the effect of variations of the foundation rigidity, column axial stiffness, slab
aspect ratio, and shore stiffness distribution on the values of the shore loads
and slab moments.

INTRODUCTION

A common practice in multistory reinforced concrete building con-

struction is to use shoring to support a freshly placed floor. The weight
of freshly placed concrete is carried by the previously cast floors, which
are shored or re-shored. If care is not taken during the construction phase,
the loads on the supporting floors may exceed the slab design loads
during maturity. This problem can be particularly troublesome w h e n the
design live load is small compared with the dead load (1,3).
Formwork should not be removed until the concrete attains a strength
sufficient to carry the construction loads. At present, most of the general
contractors responsible for removing concrete formwork are guided pri-
marily by construction experience, rather than by a rigorous analysis of
reinforced concrete structures. A few analytical studies, such as the de-
tailed analysis by Nielson (6) a n d the simplified m e t h o d by G r u n d y a n d
Kabaila (2), have been conducted to simulate t h e construction loading
process. However, none of these early studies have been adopted by
specification-writing bodies as the basis for developing rational design
procedures for formwork standards.
In 1983, a refined computer.model w a s developed (5) which is capable
of dealing with shore-slab interaction in a more realistic fashion than the
simplified method proposed by G r u n d y and Kabaila (2) in 1963. The
simplified method is based on two simplifying assumptions: All shores
are infinitely rigid and the stiffnesses of all slabs are equal. However,
for the refined computer model, the actual rigidity of shores a n d the
time-dependent variation in slab stiffness are considered in computing
'Research Asst., School of Civ. Engrg., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.
2
Prof. and Head of Struct. Engrg., School of Civ. Engrg., Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, Ind.
3
Asst. Prof, of Struct. Engrg., School of Civ. Engrg., Purdue Univ., West La-
fayette, Ind.
Note.—Discussion open until October 1, 1985. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
June 18, 1984. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.
I l l , No. 5, May, 1985. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/85/0005-1019/$01.00. Paper No.
19719.

1019

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 the slab and shore forces. Nevertheless, the refined method is subject
to the following limitations: (1) The shore-slab interaction is treated as
a two-dimensional in-plane problem; (2) the slabs behave only in an elas-
tic fashion; (3) the shores or reshores are assumed to be continuous uni-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

form elastic supports with finite axial stiffnesses; and (4) the foundation
is assumed to be rigid.
Based on the results of the refined computer model, it was found that
the Grundy-Kabaila simplified method accurately predicts the location
and construction step where the maximum slab moments and shore loads
occur. However, it was also found that the simplified method under-
estimates the actual load ratios. (Load ratio is defined as the value of
the slab moment or shore load in terms of the tributary slab dead load
(D) for one shore; each shore should carry a load of D at the level of
the freshly placed slab since the shores are uniformly distributed.) The
primary error in the simplified method arises from the assumption of
infinite axial stiffness of shores and reshores. However, the results of
the simplified method can still be reliably used if the predicted maxi-
mum slab and shore loads are corrected by a modification coefficient that
varies from 1.05 to 1.10 (5).
The first part of this paper discusses previous comparisons between
the 2-D refined computer model and the simplified method with the
results a three-dimensional computer model for slab-shore interaction.
The influences of foundation rigidity, column deformation, and slab as-
pect ratio are each examined using the 3-D model. Finally, the effect of
different shore stiffness distributions are explored.

THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL

Idealization of Slab-Shore System.—An idealized structural model is

shown in Fig. 1. A number of simplifying assumptions are made in con-

1800 |, 1500 |, I5O0 I 1500

6000

FIG. 1.—3-D Calculation Model (in Millimeters)

1020

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 ducting the refined analysis. First, the reinforced concrete slabs are as-
sumed to behave elastically and their stiffnesses are time-dependent. Slab
edges are either free or rotationally fixed but free to deflect (hereafter
labeled "fixed"). Second, the vertical deflection of the slabs at the slab-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

column joints are neglected. Third, the weight and structural details of
each floor are assumed to be similar. Fourth, the shores and reshores
are presumed to be continuous ideal elastic supports with equal axial
stiffnesses. The joints between the shores and the slabs are assumed to
be pin-ended connections. Lastly, the foundation is assumed to be rigid
and unyielding.

0.5

14 21
Age (Days)

FIG. 2.—Development of Ec and f'c with Age

Maximum Shore Load (Unit D)

Different
(I) C2) (3)
Boundary
Conditions Simplfied 2 - D Refined 3-D Refined
Method Method Method

oxiiwxyxYWv.

A'ilXXWfflWB
D////////////

A
7AV//////VSPB
DXkXXiOWWW/C

/
A'vxxyxwwxV'B

(//////////, c
k
V777777777f/*
Rotation Fixed ////// Free
/VXXXX
Deflection Free
A, B, C, D Fixed Points

FIG. 3.—Influence of Slab Boundary Condition on Maximum Shore Load

1021

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 Step Status of Structure and Load Distribution
Number Operation (Unit D Ratio of Slab Weight)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

V^W^V^4^\S\^WW-

YUAM/M/Uf4NUHtiuuzufy
Place Level 2

Y0.28'

\\\\V\\\V\\V\^V\\vA\^VVv.^

0.59 0.67
Remove First Level Shores IF
0.54 0.22 0.54

A
i733 y

Place Reshores Snug but

not Loaded

Place level 3 Concrete Wftttrzz fni iittrr>

1.08 1.08
=0
I
1 R A . 0 . 9 4 0.90lo.94
• o <H a it L i?l.60

^\Ws\W\\\^C\\\\Ws^^V^

Remove first floor reshores

0.06
I .1 6,,0.96 0.93
1.19
1.7 8^0-8^ 0.70 0.84,, 1.78

1022

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.
ezcu
(qeiS pspug-psxy) ponies sisAieuy psujjsa Aq siinssu psiB|no|eo---t? • g y
<]B|S peuopJCH |8«8T 6u!}BJS
qU|S p83B|d * | I | 6 8 J J
JB jjeddns piB|H \\\\\\\
t I I
. 9Q'Z „
•\ ,. E
i *• J'6'0* tj
, | C ; — V o o - i f oCOM
o-iVoo-ir26-o
3 |6A8|
qjeeueq sdjogsaj ||nd
\\\\\\\\\\\\N\N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I 3'I
13
MM tro 9E,OT*ro'iB I
t>6- I
o n 8 I M o r rs6M
sa-o
tywsh/wb;/»/b;/;;;fy 8J9JOUO0 t> |8A8| 30B|<J
I
13 * © m y
o o To i
^ r' » £Z-0
.Si'O z g - o
* 2 |3A8| m?9U3q 9J0tJB9y
\\\V\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V^\\\\\\
ZS'O £ Z ' 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 |9A8| jspun sejoqs snoujey

 Parameters and Calculations.—An example calculation similar to the
example in Ref. 5 was chosen, except that the example is extended from
a two-dimensional structural system to a three-dimensional situation. A
structural analysis program for the static and dynamic response of linear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

systems (SAP V2) was chosen for performing the refined analysis. Slab
dead load was the only loading condition considered in the present anal-
ysis.
The construction procedure for the example calculation consists of two
floors of shoring and one floor of reshoring, with a construction rate of
one floor per week. It is assumed that the shores and reshores are uni-
formly distributed throughout each floor that provides support for freshly
placed concrete floors.
The following properties were assumed in conducting the numerical
calculations: Modulus of elasticity for concrete, Ec = 3.5 X 104 MPa; 28-
day cylinder strength for concrete, f'c = 41 MPa; Poisson's ratio for con-
crete, vc = 0.2; modulus of elasticity for the wooden supports, Ew = 7.75
x 103 MPa; and the compression strength /„, and Poisson's ratio vw of
wood are 5.6 MPa and 0.3, respectively. The development of Ec and f'c
in terms of their 28-day values are shown in Fig. 2.
Numerical Results.—Four different slab boundary conditions are con-

AXIAL FORCE DISTRIBUTION IN SHORE I

•< 10 KN

MOMENT DISTRIBUTION IN SLAB I

i 1 0.1 KN-M

FIQ. 5.—Calculated Results in Step 2 by 3-D Refined Method

1024

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 sidered: A case free on all edges; a case fixed on all edges; and two cases
where the opposite edges are either fixed or free (see Fig. 3). The anal-
ysis was conducted for the first 10 construction steps for each of these
conditions; as shown in Refs. 3 and 4, it is only necessary to check the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

maximum loads up to Step 10 in order to achieve the absolute maximum

shore and slab loads. For convenience of comparison, the results given
by the 2-D refined method (5) are summarized in Fig. 4 in terms of D,
the slab dead weight for one shore.
The maximum shore loads were found to occur at Step 2 for the con-
struction procedure examined. Consequently, Step 2 has been selected
to illustrate the three-dimensional distribution of moments in Slab 1 and
the three-dimensional axial force distribution in shores at the ground
level for a slab with fixed edges (Fig. 5). It can be seen that the axial
shore forces at the ground level vary significantly more along the longer
edge (AB) than along the shorter edge (BC). A similar behavior is also
found in subsequent steps. For the moment distribution shown in Fig.
5 for Slab 1, it can be observed that the negative and positive values of
the moment Mx along edge AB are slightly larger than the values of the
moment My along edge BC. Also, the maximum positive moment Mx at
the middle of the slab is comparable with the maximum positive mo-
ments along edges AB and BC, although it is considerably greater than
the maximum positive moment My at the middle of the slab. For the

TABLE 1.—Comparison of Calculated Results for Fixed-Ended Slabs, by 3-D Re-

fined Method, with 2-D Refined Method (Unit D)
SLAB MC*/1ENTS SHORE LOAD
(MIDDLE F OINT) 2-D 3-D
3-D (3)
2-D, Maxi- Mini- Aver- Maxi- Mini- Aver- (7) J£L
Step Level Mx Mx My (4) mum mum age mum mum age (10) (12)
d) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1 0.28 0.26 0.30 1.08 1.83** 1.49 1.60 1.86** 1.20 1.54 0.98 1.04
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3, 4 1 1.33 1.30 1.34 1.02
2 0.67 0.70 0.66 0.96 0.54 0.22 0.43 0.81 0.19 0.49 0.66 0.88
5 1 1.54 1.50 1.54 1.03 0.44 0.24 0.31 0.48 0.07 0.28 0.92 1.11
2 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.00 0.94 0.90 0.93 0.98 0.89 0.94 0.96 0.99
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
6 1 1.75 1.72 1.75 1.02
2 1.19 1.20 1.19 0.99 0.84 0.70 0.79 0.95 0.67 0.81 0.88 0.98
3 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.86 0.93 0.96 0.95 0.99 0.92 0.95 0.94 1.00
7, 8 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1.63 1.62 1.63 1.01
3 0.37 0.38 0.36 0.97 0.73 0.57 0.68 0.87 0.57 0.71 0.84 0.96
9 1 1.21 1.22 1.21 0.99
2 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.00 0.25 0.14 0.17 0.26 0.04 0.15 0.96 1.13
3 0.88 0.84 0.85 1.05 1.18 1.10 1.13 1.19 1.03 1.11 0.99 1.02
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2.06** 2.06** 2.06 1.00
3 0.91 0.90 0.91 1.01 1.07 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.00
4 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.75 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00

1025

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 purpose of comparing different variables, the positive moments, Mx and
My, at the middle of the slab are used hereafter to evaluate the effect
of shoring on slab performance.
A comparison of the results of shore-slab interaction by the 3-D re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fined method and the 2-D refined method (5) is summarized in Table 1.
From this comparison, it is noted that both methods give the identical
location and construction step at which the maximum shore loads and
slab moments occur (denoted by ** in Table 1). The maximum predicted
shore loads given by the 3-D refined method were 2% greater than those
given by the 2-D refined method. However, both methods gave nearly
the same maximum slab moments.
A comparison of results given by the 3-D and the 2-D refined methods
for slabs free on all edges is summarized in Table 2. (The maximum
loads are denoted by ** in Table 2.) Again, both methods give the same
prediction for the construction step and location of the maximum slab
moments and shore loads. The maximum slab moment given by the
3-D analysis is nearly identical to that given by the 2-D analysis, and
the maximum shore load is only slightly greater for the 3-D analysis.
The maximum slab moments predicted by the 3-D refined method give
nearly the same values as obtained by the 2-D refined method for the
two remaining boundary condition cases examined. However, the 3-D
refined method gave a slightly larger maximum shore load than the

TABLE 2.—Comparison of Calculated Results for Free Slab, by 3-D Refined Method,
with 2-P Refined Method (Unit D)
SLAB MOMENTS SHORE LOAD
(MIDDLE POINT) 2-D 3-D
3-D (3) Aver- (7) (9)
2-D, Maxi- Mini- Aver- Maxi- Mini-
Step Level Mx My (4) mum mum age mum mum age (10) (12)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1 0.07 0.06 0.13 1.17 2.067** 1.79 1.88 2.074** 1.39 1.77 1.00 1.06
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3, 4 1 1.12 1.10 1.18 1.02
2 0.88 0.90 0.82 0.98 0.25 -0.01 0.16 0.64 -0.02 0.28 0.39 0.57
1 1.20 1.18 1.28 1.02 0.90 0.64 0.73 0.93 0.18 0.60 0.97 1.22
5 2 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.01 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.01
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 1.52 1.50 1.57 1.01
6 2 1.27 1.28 1.25 0.99 0.60 0.44 0.55 0.88 0.42 0.63 0.68 0.87
3 0.20 0.22 0.18 0.91 0.83 0.76 0.81 0.97 0.75 0.84 0.86 0.96
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7, 8 2 1.55 1.54 1.57 1.01
3 0.45 0.45 0.43 1.00 0.61 0.49 0.57 0.77 0.49 0.61 0.79 0.93
1 1.32 1.33 1.29 0.99
9 2 1.88 1.87 1.89 1.01 0.37 0.27 0.30 0.38 0.25 0.97 1.20
0.10
3 0.80 0.79 0.82 1.01 1.23 1.17 1.19 1.24 1.07 1.16 0.99 1.03
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2.02** 2.01** 2.02 1.00
3 0.90 0.90 0.91 1.00 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.00 1.02 0.98 1.00
4 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.89 0.93 0.90 0.92 0.98 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.99

1026

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 2-D analysis when the short edges are fixed and the long edges are free
(see Fig. 3). It can also be observed that the maximum shore loads given
by the 3-D analysis for the two boundary conditions with opposite types
of edge restraint (cases 2 and 3 in Fig. 3) fall in between the maximum
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

shore loads computed for slabs with either full or no edge restraint.

INFLUENCE OF FOUNDATION RIGIDITY

For the previous example calculation, it was assumed that the foun-
dation was rigid and unyielding. But in reality the foundation is not
always rigid. Basements, underground structures and ground-level slabs
are usually somewhat flexible and subject to differential settlements. In
fact, the first-story formwork and shores are often erected directly on
the overburden before casting the ground level slab.
A rectangular slab supported at each corner was selected as the foun-
dation model. The stiffness of the foundation was varied in order to

Mx (MIDDLE POINT)

FOUNDATION
RIGIDITY

My (MIDDLE POINT)

FOUNDATION
RIGIDITY
1 1— H—»_
I G 2G

MAX. SHORE FORCE

2D

FOUNDATION
RIGIDITY

FIG. 6.—Influence of Foundation Rigidity on Load Distribution at Step 2

1027

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 check the influence of foundation rigidity on the slab moments and shore
forces. The foundation rigidity is expressed as an even multiple of the
flexural slab stiffness, G, for each evaluation of the slab moments and
shore forces. The results calculated at Step 2 show (in Fig. 6) the influ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ence of foundation rigidity for a fixed-edge slab. It can be seen that de-
creasing the foundation rigidity enlarges the slab moments and reduces
the shore load.
The shore loads and slab moments calculated by the 3-D refined anal-
ysis for the first 10 construction steps of a fixed-edge slab system are
shown in Table 3 for foundation rigidities either equal to the slab stiff-
ness (G) or equal to infinity. It can be seen that a decrease of the foun-
dation rigidity reduces both maximum slab moments and maximum shore
loads (denoted by ** in Table 3). Note, however, that decreasing the
foundation stiffness increases the slab moments for a number of the con-
struction steps, despite decrease of the maximum values.
Although the maximum shore loads and slab moments are reduced
for finite foundation rigidities, the vertical slab displacements increase
significantly. For the previous example, the maximum vertical displace-
ment during construction at the middle of Slab 1 is 1.58 mm when the
foundation rigidity is infinite. However, if the rigidity of foundation is
the same as the slab stiffness (i.e., 1G), then the displacement at the
middle point becomes 2.80 mm—an increase of 77%. A decrease in the

TABLE 3.—Comparison of Calculated Results of Fixed-Edge Slab with those Con-

sidering Foundation Rigidity (Unit D)
SLAB MOMENT SHORE LOAD
(MIDDLE POINT) X 1G
CC 1G (5) Maxi- Mini- Aver-Maxi- Mini- Aver- (11)
Step Level My Mx (3) mum mum age mum mum age (8)
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1 0.26 0.30 0.56 0.58 2.15 1.86** 1.20 1.54 1.50** 1.14 1.33 0.81
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3, 4 1 1.30 1.36 1.41 1.44 1.08
2 0.70 0.66 0.59 0.56 0.84 0.81 0.19 0.49 0.83 0.33 0.57 1.02
1 1.50 1.54 1.74 1.76 1.16 0.48 0.07 0.28 0.24 0.04 0.14 0.50
5 2 1.09 1.08 1.05 1.05 0.96 0.98 0.89 0.94 0.99 0.94 0.97 1.01
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 1.72 1.75 1.86 1.87 1.08
6 2 1.20 1.19 1.11 1.10 0.93 0.95 0.67 0.81 0.98 0.83 0.90 1.03
3 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.57 0.99 0.92 0.95 0.99 0.96 0.98 1.00
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7, 8 2 1.62 1.63 1.60 1.62 0.99
3 0.38 0.36 0.41 0.39 1.08 0.87 0.57 0.71 0.87 0.53 0.69 1.00
1 1.22 1.21 1.22 1.21 1.00
9 2 1.94 1.94 1.92 1.93 0.99 0.26 0.04 0.15 0.26 0.04 0.15 1.00
3 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.88 1.04 1.19 1.03 1.11 1.15 1.05 1.09 0.97
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2.06** 2.06 2.04** 2.04 0.99
3 0.90 0.91 0.94 0.94 1.04 1.07 1.02 1.05 1.06 1.01 1.02 0.99
4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.00 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00

1028

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 foundation rigidity appears to influence slab displacements more than
it affects the maximum shore loads or slab moments.

INFLUENCE OF COLUMN DEFORMATION

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The vertical slab deflections at the column joints have been neglected
in the calculations described in the foregoing. In order to check the in-
fluence of this approximation, the axial stiffnesses for three different square
column sections were considered: 200 mm, 400 mm, and 600 mm.
A comparison of calculated results, with arid without vertical deflec-
tion of columns, is shown in Table 4 for fixed-edge slabs with 200 mm
X 200 mm columns. Note that consideration of the vertical slab deflec-
tions at the column joints has little effect on the slab moments and shore
loads. Both assumptions produce the same location and construction step
where the maximum slab moments and shores loads occur (denoted by
**), and nearly the same quantities. The differences in shore loads and
slab moments are even less pronounced for the 400 mm and 600 mm
square columns.
As shown in Fig. 7, a coefficient C was chosen to express the ratio of
concrete column axial stiffness to wooden shore stiffness. Note that, for
the three square column sections, consideration of the vertical deflec-

TABLE 4.—Comparison of Calculated Results of Fixed-Edge Slabs with those

Considering Columns (200 mm x 200 mm) (Unit D)
SLAB MOMENTS
(MIDDLE POINT) SHORE LOAD
Consider Not Column Consider Column
Not Column Column Deflection Deflection
Deflection Deflection (5) Maxi- Mini- Aver- Maxi- Mini- Aver- (11)
Step Level M, (3) mum mum age mum mum age (8)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1 0.26 0.30 0.24 0.28 0.92 1.86** 1.20 1.54 1.86** 1.24 1.56 1.00
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3,4 1 1.30 1.34 1.30 1.34 1.00
2 0.70 0.66 0.69 0.66 0.99 0.81 0.19 0.49 0.85 0.19 0.53 1.05
1 1.50 1.54 1.49 1.53 0.99 0.48 0.07 0.28 0.52 0.14 0.33 1.08
5 2 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.05 0.97 0.98 0.89 0.94 1.08 0.91 0.99 1.10
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 1.72 1.75 1.73 1.76 1.01
6 2 1,20 1.19 1.19 1.17 0.99 0.95 0.67 0.81 1.05 0.67 0.86 1.11
3 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 1.14 0.99 0.92 0.95 0.99 0.91 0.95 1.00
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7, 8 2 1.62 1.63 1.61 1.63 0.99
3 0.38 0.36 0.39 0.37 1.03 0.87 0.57 0.71 0.89 0.56 0.71 1.02
1 1.22 1.21 1.25 1.23 1.02
9 2 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.93 0.99 0.26 0.04 0.15 0.28 0.11 0.19 1.08
3 0.84 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.99 1.19 1.03 1.11 1.20 1.11 1.15 1.01
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2.06** 2.06 2.06** 2.06 1.00
3 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.07 . 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.06 1.07 1.02
4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.00 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.01

1029

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 MAX. SHORE FORCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

JS.=J£

-t— -t-
100 200 300

Mx (MIDDLE POINT)

Q»Jp

100 200

My (MIDDLE POINT)

SQUARE COLUMN DIMENSION

o 200 MM
« 400 MM
m 600 MM

COLUMN TO SHORE AXIAL

STIFFNESS RATIO
1 •—BD. c

300

FIG. 7.—Influence of Column Stiffness at Step 2

tions at the column joints increases the maximum shore force by only
0.4%. Also, consideration of the vertical deflections reduce the slab mo-
ments at the first floor by a maximum of 5% (for the 200 mm square
column); the slab moments increase quickly as C increases. Although
the foregoing observations were made for fixed-end slabs, a similar be-
havior was found also for slabs with free edges.

INFLUENCE OF SLAB ASPECT RATIO

Up to now, the slab-shore system has been confined to the idealized

structural model shown in Fig. 1. For the previous example, the slab
aspect ratio [the ratio of the length of the shorter edge to the length of
the longer edge (BC to AB)] was 0.6. Considering the slab aspect ratio
as a coefficient N with a maximum value of unity, the calculated results
for fixed-edge slabs are shown in Table 5. Note that a variation in the
aspect ratio from 0.6 to 1.0 does not change the results for the location
and construction step at which the maximum shore loads and slab rno-
1030

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 TABLE 5.—Comparison of Calculated Results of Fixed-Edge Slabs with Different
Slab Aspect Ratios (Unit D)
S U B MOMENTS SHORE LOAD
(MIDDLE POINT)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N = 0.6 N = 1.0
N = 0.6 N= 1.0 (5) (11)
Maxi- Mini- Aver- Maxi- Mini- Aver-
Step Level Mv (3) mum mum age mum mum age (8)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 0.26 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.92 1.86** 1.20 1.54 1.89** 1.44 1.62 1.02
2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 1.30 1.34 1.28 1.28 0.98
3, 4 2 0.70 0.66 0.72 0.72 1.03 0.81 0.19 0.49 0.58 0.16 0.42 0.72
1 1.50 1.54 1.48 1.48 0.99 0.48 0.07 0.28 0.52 0.23 0.34 1.08
5 2 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.00 0.98 0.89 0.94 0.95 0.89 0.93 1.07
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 1.72 1.75 1.71 1.71 0.99
6 2 1.20 1.19 1.21 1.21 1.01 0.95 0.67 0.81 0.85 0.65 0.78 0.89
3 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.08 1.14 0.99 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.91 0.94 0.97
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7, 8 2 1.62 1.63 1.61 1.61 0.99
3 0.38 0.36 0.39 0.39 1.03 0.87 0.57 0.71 0.76 0.56 0.68 0.87
1 1.22 1.21 1.23 1.23 1.01
9 2 1.94 1.93 1.93 0.99 0.26
1.94 0.04 0.15 0.28 0.13 0.18 1.08
3 0.84 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.99 1.19 1.03 1.11 1.20 1.09 1.13 1.01
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2.06** 2.06** 2.06 2.06 1.00
3 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.07 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.04 1.05 1.00
4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.00 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.95 0.97 0.99

merits occur (maximum values denoted by **). Moreover, the magnitude

of the maximum moment at Step 10 is not affected significantly by the
aspect ratio.
The maximum shore load at Step 2 increases by only 2% as a result
of varying the aspect ratio. The relationship between the increment of
the maximum shore load and the coefficient N is shown in Fig. 8. The

MAXIMUM SHORE FORCE

^FREE

2.0D- * * " ~*

ROTATION FIXED
'•9D ' DEFLECTION FREE " V -

/ ^ ^
I .8D

- — 1 , 1 1 »» fj
0.4 O.e 0.8 I .0

FIG. 8.™Influence of Slab Aspect Ratio N on Maximum Shore Force

1031

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 total difference in the computed maximum shore force for the aspect
ratios considered is around 3%. For free-edge slabs, variation of the slab
aspect ratio also increases the maximum shore load at Step 2. However,
as shown in Fig. 8, the incremental increase is much less than the in-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

crease for fixed-edge slabs—1% versus 3%.

INFLUENCE OF N O N - U N I F O R M SHORE DISTRIBUTION

In the three-dimensional model examined previously, the axial stiff-

nesses of shores and reshores were assumed to be uniformly distributed.
In fact, test data demonstrated that the modulus of elasticity of wood,
E„,, is quite variable. Hoyle, et al. (4) state that the modulus of elasticity
of wood can statistically be considered to be normally distributed; the
coefficient of variation of Ew in compression is generally between 0.17
and 0.19—a value much larger than the coefficient of variation for steel
and concrete.

^MAX. SHORE LOAD

D. 0.8H 0 . 8 1 / O.BK •

0.8$ i.ofl: i.ol i.ofl o.sE

o.sB 1.01 1.21 l.°pt O.BU

0.8g I.ofl I.ol I.Op 0.8l

A* 0.8|t 0.8@ 0.8]J •

'MAX. SHORE LOAD

D, J
\.z% \.zj i.ef .°
'•2.1 I .Of I .0% 1.0"! I .21

1.2 J I.Of 0.6$ I.Of I .2 J

i.°E i.ol i .of I.OH l.*I

2
A* I .2 J 1.2 '• 1

MAX. SHORE LOAD

.0

I.Of

1.0 ft

i.ofl

A*

FIG. 9.—Non-Uniform Shore Distributions

1032

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 Three non-uniform shore stiffness distributions were examined to
evaluate the significance of shore stiffness uniformity (see Fig. 9). For
shore distributions "A" and "B" [Figs. 9(A) and 9(b)], the axial shore
stiffnesses vary no more than one standard deviation from the mean
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

value, while for shore distribution "C" [Fig. 9(c)], the axial stiffness of
only the middle shore is two standard deviations greater than the mean
value. To be consistent with Hoyle, et al. (4) it was assumed that the
values of Ew for the shores and reshores are normally distributed with
a coefficient of variation for Ew of 0.20.
The shore loads and slab moments for fixed-edge slabs with non-uni-
form axial shore stiffness distributions "A" and "B" are shown in Tables
6 and 7, respectively. The slab and shore loads for a uniform shore dis-
tribution are also shown in each table. It was found that non-uniform
distributions of shore stiffnesses do not change the prediction for the
construction step and location where the maximum slab moments and
shore loads occur (denoted by **). The most significant difference in the
results was an increase of the maximum shore load at Step 2. There was
no increase of the maximum slab moment at Step 10. Also, note that
the maximum shore load for the "A" shore distribution occurred in the
middle of the slab, while for the "B" distribution it occurred at mid-
length of edges AB and CD (see Figs. 9 and 10).

TABLE 6.—Comparison of Calculated Results of Uniform Shore Stiffness with "A"

Distribution in Fixed-Edge Slabs (Unit D)
-1 SLAB MOMENTS
(MIDDLE POINT)
SHORE LOAD
"A"
"A" Uniform Distribution
Uniform Distribution (5) Maxi- Mini- Aver- Maxi- Mini- Aver- (11)
Step Level Mx Mx Mv (3) mum mum age mum mum age (8)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6). (7) (8) 0) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 0.26 0.30 0.27 0.37 1.04 1.86** 1.20 1.54 1.98** 1.38 1.57 1.06
2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 1.30 1.34 1.31 1.41 1.01
3,4 2 0.70 0.66 0.69 0.59 0.99 0.81 0.19 0.49 0.78 0.07 0.46 0.96
1 1.50 1.54 1.51 1.59 1.01 0.48 0.07 0.28 0.57 0.09 0.30 1.19
5 2 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.07 1.00 0.98 0.89 0.94 0.98 0.90 0.94 1.00
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 1.72 1.75 1.73 1.78 1.01
6 2 1.20 1.19 1.20 1.17 1.00 0.95 0.67 0.81 0.94 0.62 0.80 0.99
3 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 1.00 0.99 0.92 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.95 1.00
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7, 8 2 1.62 1.63 1.63 1.67 1.01
3 0.38 0.36 0.37 0.33 0.97 0.87 0.57 0.71 0.85 0.51 0.70 0.98
1 1.22 1.21 1.22 1.18 1.00
9 2 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.95 1.00 0.26 0.04 0.15 0.31 0.05 0.16 1.19
3 0.84 0.85 0.84 0.87 1.00 1.19 1.03 1.11 1.22 1.04 1.12 1.03
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2.06** 2.06 2.06** 2.05 1.00
3 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.92 1.00 1.07 1.02 1.05 1.08 1.02 1.05 1.01
4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 1.00 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.95 0.97 1.00

1033

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 TABLE 7.—Comparison of Calculated Results of Uniform Shore Stiffness with "B"
Distribution in Fixed-Ended Slabs (Unit D)
SLAB MOMENTS SHORE LOAD
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(MIDDLE POINT) "B"

"B" Uniform Distribution
Uniform Distribution (5) Maxi- Mini- Aver- Maxi- Mini- Aver- (11)
Step Level M, (3) mum mum age mum mum age (8)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 0.26 0.30 0.25 0.21 0.96 1.86** 1.20 1.54 2.03** 1.17 1.51 1.09
2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 1.30 1.34 1.29 1.26 0.99
3, 4 2 0.70 0.66 0.71 0.74 0.94 0.81 0.19 0.49 0.84 0.03 0.52 1.04
1 1.50 1.54 1.50 1.48 1.00 0.48 0.07 0.28 0.59 0.06 0.26 1.23
5 2 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.00 0.98 0.89 0.94 0.99 0.87 0.94 1.01
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 1.72 1.75 1.72 1.71 1.00
6 2 0.83
1.20 1.19 1.21 1.21 1.01 0.95 0.67 0.81 0.96 0.60 1.01
3 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 1.00 0.99 0.92 0.95 0.99 0.90 0.96 1.00
1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7, 8 2 1.62 1.63 1.62 1.60 1.00
3 0.38 0.36 0.39 0.40 1.03 0.87 0.57 0.71 0.89 0.49 0.73 1.02
1 1.22 1.21 1.23 1.23 1.01
9 2 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.00 0.26
1.94 0.04 0.15 0.32 0.04 0.15 1.23
3 0.84 0.85 0.84 0.83 1.00 1.19 1.03 1.11 1.23 1.03 1.11 1.03
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2.06** 2.06 2.06** 2.01 1.00
3 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.07 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.01 1.04 1.02
4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 1.00 0.99 0.05 0.97 1.00 0.94 0.98 1.01

The primary factor influencing the increase in the maximum shore load
at Step 2 is the shore stiffness distribution at the ground level. More-
over, the maximum slab moments appear to be insensitive to the shore
stiffness distribution. This same conclusion is true even when the shore
stiffness distribution changes at each level.
A third, more critical shore stiffness distribution [as shown in Fig. 9(c)]
was also considered. For comparison, the maximum shore loads at Step
2—the critical construction step—are shown in Fig. 10 for fixed-edge
slabs and for slabs with free edges for each of the three non-uniform
axial shore stiffness distributions. It can be observed that the maximum
shore loads of slabs with free edges are generally more sensitive to the
shore stiffness distribution than are fixed-edge slabs. In some extreme
cases, as for the " C " distribution in Fig. 9(c), the maximum shore load
may increase by as much as 20%. Consequently, the influence of shore
stiffness distribution appears to be more significant than the factors pre-
viously examined, namely, foundation rigidity, column deformation, and
slab aspect ratio.
A number of interesting questions might be raised from the structural
reliability point of view: What is the probability of various axial shore
stiffness distributions occurring? What is the probability of an increased
shore load occurring as a result of various combinations of the afore-
1034

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 Ma*lm!im Sh ore Load (Unit D)

Shore S t i f f n e s s
Slab B o u n d a r y

Distribution
(2) (3) (4)
Condition

Location of the Simplified 2 0 Refined 3D Refined 3D Refined

Max. Shore Load Method Method Method Method for (4)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for Uniform Non-Uniform (3)

Shore Shore
Distribution Distribution

A a r; 2.00 1 .83 1 .86 1.98 1 .06

D e f l e c t i o n Free
Rotation Fixed

B 2.00 1 .83 1.86 2.03 1.09

C 9
2.00 1 .83 1.86
3 2.13 1.15

/
//////// /
A
/ 2.00 2.07 2.07 2.29 I.I 1
y/ / / / / V / / /
/// /^ / / s
/
Free

B 2.00 2.07 2.07

/ 2.14 1.03
/
'///////
//
'/////// /
C ? 2.00 2.07 2.07 2.48 1 .20
/
/ ///////,
7 ^ V Y Rotation Fixed
Deflection Free

FIG. 10.—Comparison of Maximum Shore Loads

mentioned factors? What is the danger to the structure from an in-

creased shore load? Evaluation of these important considerations would
be quite useful, but such an evaluation requires a rigorous statistical and
mechanical analysis beyond the scope of the study reported herein.

CONCLUSIONS

A more realistic 3-D model was used to check the approximations of

the Grundy-Kabaila simplified method (2) and the 2-D refined method
(5). On the basis of the various factors examined for the 3-D model, the
following conclusions and observations can be stated:

1. The maximum slab loads given by the 2-D refined analysis and the
3-D refined analysis are nearly identical. The maximum shore load in-
creases slightly for the 3-D refined analysis.
2. Variations of the foundation rigidity affect slab displacements more
than the maximum shore loads and slab moments. When the rigidity of
foundation decreases, the maximum slab moments and the maximum
shore loads decrease.
3. The vertical deformation of columns can be neglected when com-
1035

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.

 TABLE 8.—Comparison of Maximum Load Ratio (Unit D)
Slab Moments Shore Loads
Boundary Simpli- 2-D 3-D - Simpli- 2-D 3-D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by The University of Queensland Library on 06/28/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

condition refined refined (3) (4) fied refined refined (8) (9)
fied
of slab method method method (2) (2) method method method (7) (7)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Fixed-edge 1.95 2.06 2.06 1.06 1.06 2.00 1.83 1.86 0.92 0,93
Free 1.95 2.02 2.01 1.04 1.03 2.00 2.07 2.07 1.04 1.03

puting the maximum shore loads a n d slab m o m e n t s .

4. The maximum shore load at Step 2 increases slightly as the slab
aspect ratio N increases. A change in the slab aspect ratio produces very
little increment in the maximum shore load for slabs with free edges.
For slabs with fixed edges the total increment of the maximum shore
load is 3% for the aspect ratios examined.
5. A summary of the most disadvantageous conditions reported herein
for the 3-D refined analysis is compared in Table 8 with the results cal-
culated in Refs. 3 a n d 5. In all cases examined, a modification coefficient
that varies from 1.05 to 1.10 could be u s e d to conservatively correct the
results of the Grundy-Kabaila simplified m e t h o d .
6. Non-uniform distributions of w o o d e n shore stiffnesses can signif-
icantly increase the maximum shore load at Step 2. More rigorous sta-
tistical and mechanical analyses are n e e d e d to more fully evaluate this
factor.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is based on work supported by the National Science Foun-

dation u n d e r Grant No. CEE-8406128 to P u r d u e University.

APPENDIX,—REFERENCES

1. Chen, W. F., and Liu, X. L., "Study of Concrete Framed Structures During
Construction," Structural Engineering Report CE-STR-82-41, Purdue University,
Dec, 1982.
2. Grundy, P., and Kabaila, A., "Construction Load on Slabs with Shored Form-
work in Multistory Buildings," Adjournal, Vol. 60, No. 12, Dec, 1963, pp.
1729-1738.
3. Hurd, M. K., "Formwork for Concrete," SP-4, 4th Ed., American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, Mich., 1979.
4. Hoyle, R. J., Jr., Galligan, W. L., and Haskell, J. H., "Characterizing Lumber
Properties for Research," Proceedings of the Metal Plate Wood Truss Conference,
Forrest Products Research Society, Madison, Wise, 1979.
5. Liu, X. L., Chen, W. F., and Bowman, M. D., "Load Distribution in Concrete
Framed Structure during Construction," Structural Engineering Report CE-STR-
83-38, Purdue University, Jan., 1984.
6. Neilson, K. E. C , "Load on Reinforced Concrete Floor Slabs and their De-
formations During Construction," Bulletin No. 15, Final Report, Swedish Ce-
ment and Concrete Research Institute, Royal Institute of Technology, Stock-
holm, Sweden, 1952.

1036

J. Struct. Eng. 1985.111:1019-1036.