ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 88-S37
Determining Shoring Loads for
Reinforced Concrete Construction
by Khalid H. Mosallam and Wai-Fah Chen
Determination of load distribution during construction is an impor-
tant factor in assessing the structural safety during the construction
of reinforced concrete structures. A simplified method was devel-
oped in 1963 for determining the construction loads imposed on slabs
andformwork. In 1985, a refined computer mode/for the analysis of
slab-shore systems under construction loads was developed by Liu,
Chen, and Bowman. The computer model has shown that the simpli-
fied method is adequate for practical use. The purpose of this paper
is, first, to improve the two-dimensional computer model developed
earlier by Liu, Chen, and Bowman by considering more construction
parameters and procedures, and second, to compare this improved
computer model with the simplified method. Furthermore, a simpli-
fied procedure to include the construction live load in the analysis of
construction loads is proposed.
Keywords: concrete construction; formwork (construction); loads (forces);
multistory buildings; reinforced concrete; shoring; structural analysis.
In a multistory flat-plate building construction, it is
common practice to support the freshly cast slab at a
particular floor level by a system of shores extending
one or more stories below. If the shoring system is not
designed with sufficient strength and stability to carry
the imposed loads, a collapse of the shoring system
and, possibly the structure it supports, may result.
Consequently, determination of load distribution dur-
mn
:115
~ compare this improved computer model with the sim-
I SHORE+ 1 RESHORI 2 SHORES+ I RESHORES 3 SHORES+ I RESHORES
TO TO TO
1 SHORE+ 5 RESHORES ZSHORES + 5 RESHORES 3 SHORES+ 5 RESHORES
Fig. 1-Seventeen different shoring-reshoring combi-
nations in flat-plate or flat-slab building construction
(Fattall983)
340
TECHNICAL PAPER
ing construction is one of the critical factors in assess-
ing the structural safety during the construction of re-
inforced concrete structures.
There is no well-defined or generally accepted proce-
dure for determining optimum shoring requirements in
which the partially erected concrete building is called
upon to resist the applied construction loads. The di-
versity of past practices is illustrated by the 17 different
shoring-reshoring combinations indicated in Fig. 1 (see
also Reference 1).
One of the most frequently used analysis methods in
practice to obtain construction load distribution be-
tween slabs and shores is the simplified method devel-
oped by Grundy and Kabaila in 1963. 2 In this method,
the deformations of concrete slabs were considered to
be elastic, the axial deformation of shores as well as
building columns were assumed to be negligible, and
the reactions of the shores were assumed to be uni-
formly (continuously) distributed. Recently, a refined
computer model for the analysis of slab-shore systems
under construction loads was developed by Liu, Chen,
and Bowman. 3 •4 They have shown that the simplified
method is adequate for practical use.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The objective of this paper is, first, to improve the
two-dimensional computer model developed earlier by
Liu, Chen, and Bowman by considering more con-
struction parameters and procedures, and second, to
plified method.
It has been found that the primary error in the sim-
plified method results from neglecting the change in
construction load distribution during the time period
ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No.3, May-June 1991.
Received May 7, 1990, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright© 1991, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright propri-
etors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the March-April 1992 A CI
Structural Journal if received by Nov. I, 1991.
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991
Khalid H. Mosallam is a graduate research assistant, School of Civil Engineer-
ing, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. He received degrees from
Marquette University and George Washington University and has several years
of experience in the construction industry.
ACI member Wai-Fah Chen is Professor and Head of Structural Engineering,
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University. He is a graduate of Cheng-
Kung University in Taiwan, Lehigh University, and Brown University. He has
taught at Lehigh and Purdue since 1966. He has received numerous awards, in-
cluding the 1984 U.S. Senior Scientist A ward from the Alexander von Hum-
boldt Foundation, the 1985 T. R. Higgins Lectureship A ward from the Amer-
ican Institute of Steel Construction, and the ASCE Raymond C. Reese Re-
search Prize and Shortridge Hardesty A ward.
between casting each consequent floor. Also, it was
found that the rigidity of foundation, the slab stiff-
ness, the boundary conditions of slabs, the nonlinear
behavior of wooden shores, and material creep have
little effect on the actual load distribution during con-
struction. Furthermore, a simplified procedure to in-
clude the construction live load in the analysis of con-
struction loads is proposed.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
A number of simplifying assumptions have been
made to predict the load distribution during construc-
tion using the present analysis. The basic assumptions
include the following:
1. The slabs and columns behave elastically and their
stiffnesses are assumed to be time-dependent.
2. The shores and reshores act as continuous uni-
form elastic supports with axial stiffnesses that are fi-
nite and time-dependent; the joints between the shores
and the slabs are pin-ended.
3. Stiffness of foundation is considered as a corre-
sponding equivalent slab stiffness.
In addition to the previous assumptions, it is further
assumed that columns are cast 1 week ahead of the
floor slab. This idealization of the construction proc-
ess, although a simplification of that process, actually
occurs in practice.
ANALYTICAL MODEL AND PARAMETERS
The two-dimensional (2-D) structural model used by
Liu, Chen, and Bowman4 is chosen to perform the cur-
rent analysis (Fig. 2). It is common in 2-D analysis of
flat slab to divide the flat slab into a number of slab-
.beam strips. The nominal strip cross section is a 35.4 x
7.1 in. (900 x 180 mm) rectangular section. The col-
umns have a 19.7 x 19.7 in. (500 x 500 mm) nominal
square cross section. The wooden shores have a 2 x 4
in. (50 x 100 mm) nominal rectangular cross section.
The construction gravity load is divided into dead
load and live load. The dead load is mainly the weight
of concrete slab. The live load is categorized into sus-
tained and extraordinary live loads. The sustained live
load includes the weight of forms/shores and reshores.
The extraordinary live load includes the construction
live load, such as the crew and power buggies. The
construction load is expressed in· terms of D, the weight
of freshly placed concrete slab for the tributary area of
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991
.,I
0
R.C.Siab-Beam
6000 - - - - !
R.C.Column Wooden Shore
Fig. 2-Two-dimensional structural model
a given shore. The sustained live load is taken as 0.1D,
accounting for the weight of forms and shores, and as
0.05D to account for the weight of the reshores. The
extraordinary live load is taken as 0.5D.
The modulus of elasticity Ec and the 28-day cylinder
strength of concrete!:, for both the floor and columns,
are 3.5 x 104 MPa (5.1 x 1()6 psi) and 41 MPa (6000 psi),
respectively. The modulus of elasticity for wooden
shores Ew and the compression strength of wood fw are
7.75 x 103 MPa (1.1 x 106 psi) and 5.6 MPa (810 psi),
respectively.
A simple structural analysis program for linear elas-
tic systems (SSTAN) is chosen for performing the pres-
ent analysis. SSTAN is a simplified version of the
general structural analysis program (SAP). Only con-
struction dead load is considered in the preliminary
analysis. The influence of construction live loads is
presented at the end of this paper. Since construction
load distribution changes during the time period be-
tween casting each consequent floor, it will be calcu-
lated twice: first at the beginning and then at the end of
each construction step. The variation of construction
load distribution is assumed to be linear from the be-
ginning to end of each construction step. The construc-
tion load distribution at each step results from super-
posing the additional load distribution to the existing
distribution. The existing load distribution is the one at
the end of the previous step. The additional load distri-
bution results from the step itself. It is assumed here
that the additional construction load carried by the
slab-shore system due to the removal of a story of
shores or reshores is equivalent to the process of apply-
ing a series of concentrated loads equal in magnitude
but opposite in direction to the loads in the shores or
reshores to be removed in that floor. In construction
steps where reshores are placed, the load distributions
for these steps are the same as those at the end of their
previous steps. 5
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
The three levels of shores, and the two levels of
shores and one level of reshores are two popular con-
struction procedures frequently used in multistory con-
crete building construction. These procedures are used
in the current analysis. Although the maxipmm shore
and slab loads occur during the first few construction
341
 2.5 ,.----,-----,---------,r--------,-----,----,
CONSTRUCTION LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS
........ First floor slab Numerical results and comparison
2.0 •••···· ~ .. ~ond floor slab The calculated results for the first three floor slabs of
_ Third floor slab Examples A and Bare shown in Fig. 3. The maximum
1.5 slab load ratio occurs on the third floor slab for Ex-
ample A, and on the second floor slab for Example B.
This ratio for a given age will be used for comparison
1.0
in subsequent analysis.
.... .... Construction load distribution due to dead loads only
s 0.5 as predicted by the simplified and present analyses are
';;; Example A: Three Levels of Shores compared in Tables 1 and 2 for Examples A and B, re-
1:1:
Q 0.0 !"'----,':------:"'------:",--------':---------'---='
spectively. The construction load distribution is also
~ 2.0 or--------=5r----;1or--~15"-----=;2o~--=;25'----;3o. shown in Fig. 4.
...l
... In Example A, from Table 1 and Fig. 4, for the en-
=
<
1i3 1.5
I
tire structural system, it can be observed that the sim-
plified method differs significantly from the present
analysis. It overestimates the maximum slab load by 66
percent and the maximum shore load by 99 percent.
1.0
The differences did not improve much when using the
,
j :··············· simplified method with variable slab stiffness. Both
,
0.5
, .··
,, .. Example B: Two Levels of Shores
methods agree on the location where the maximum
,''..... ··· and one Level of Reshores shore and slab loads occur. The maximum slab mo-
,,'.. ··· ment occurs in Level 3, while the maximum shore load
0.0 ""---'------:"--------'--------'-----'------' occurs in the first story of shores. However, the pres-
o 5 ro u w ~ ~
ent analysis shows that the maximum slab moment oc-
AGE(DAYS) curs at construction step 5 during casting of the fourth
floor, while the simplified method shows that the max-
imum slab moment occurs at Step 9 during casting of
Fig. 3-Loading histories for the first three floor slabs
the sixth floor. Also, the present analysis shows that the
maximum shore load occurs at construction step 2 dur-
steps, the analysis was extended to include the com- ing casting of the second floor, while the simplified
plete loading history of each slab. The previously men- method shows that the maximum shore load occurs at
tioned two construction procedures are briefly summa- construction step 3 during casting of the third floor.
rized in the following paragraphs. In Example B, Table 2 and Fig. 4 show the simpli-
fied method overestimating the maximum shore load by
Example A: Three levels of shores 32 percent and the maximum slab moment by 8 per-
The construction procedure for the three levels of cent. Again, both methods agree on the location where
shores consists of the following steps: the maximum shore and slab loads occur. However, the
1) Place Level 1 concrete. 2) Place Level 2 concrete. present analysis shows that the maximum slab moment
3) Place Level 3 concrete. 4) Remove shores under occurs at construction step 9 during casting of the
Level 1. 5) Place Level 4 concrete. 6) Remove shores fourth floor, while the simplified method shows the
under Level 2. 7) Place Level 5 concrete. 8) Remove maximum slab moment occurring at Step 10 during re-
shores under Level 3.. 9) Place Level 6 concrete. 10) Re- moval of the reshores under Level 2.
move shores under Level 4. Differences in the slab moments and shore loads pre-
dicted by the simplified and present analysis methods
Example B: Two levels of shores and one level of are largely related to variations in the assumptions.
reshores These assumptions are examined in the forthcoming
The construction procedure for the two levels of sections. For comparison purposes, the slab load his-
shores and one level of reshores consists of the follow- tory as predicted by the simplified method is also in-
ing steps: cluded.
1) Place Level 1 concrete. 2) Place Level 2 concrete.
3) Remove shores under Level 1. 4) Place reshores un- Influence of foundation rigidity
der Level 1. 5) Place Level 3 concrete. 6) Remove re- In the previous examples, to account for some pos-
shores under Level 1. 7) Remove shores under Level 2. sible differential settlements by the foundation, the
8) Place reshores under Level 2. 9) Place Level 4 con- foundation stiffness was considered as a corresponding
crete. 10) Remove reshores under Level 2. equivalent slab stiffness. On the other hand, the sim-
This procedure was repeated until the reshores under plified method assumes a rigid and unyielding founda-
Level 4 are removed (Step 18). The rate of construction tion. To check the influence of the foundation rigidity
was taken as one floor per week for the two examples on the slab moments and shore loads, the present anal-
considered in this study. ysis was repeated assuming infinite rigidity for the
342 ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991
 Table 1 - Comparison of construction load distributions (Unit D) with
different analytical methods for three levels of shores
Present
analysis
Simplified constant Present
method load analysis Comparison
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Col.l Col.2 Col.3 Col.4
Step Level p_ Mm~ p_ M'""" p_ Mm,. Col.s Col6 Col.5 Col.6
1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1* 2.00 0.00 1.76 0.43 1.51 0.86 1.32 0.00 1.16 0.50
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3 1 3.00 0.00 2.15 0.67 1.34 0.85 2.24 0.00 1.60 0.79
2 2.00 0.00 1.66 0.48 1.08 1.15 1.85 0.00 1.54 0.42
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
4 1 1.00 1.70 1.07 0.93 1.59
2 0.00 1.00 0.78 1.01 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.97 13.0 0.98
3 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.34 0.08 0.94 0.00 1.06 10.0· 0.36
5 1 1.33 1.91 1.29 1.03 1.48
2 0.33 1.33 0.94 1.34 0.32 1.36 1.03 0.98 2.94 0.98
3* 0.66 1.34 1.22 0.82 0.70 1.42 0.94 0.94 1.74 0.57
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
6 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1.44 1.80 1.07 1.34 1.68
3 0.44 1.45 0.87 1.09 .06 1.03 7.33 1.41 14.50 1.06
4 0.89 0.11 0.90 0.16 .09 0.94 9.89 0.12 10.00 0.17
7 2 1.78 2.02 1.28 1.39 1.58
3 0.77 1.78 1.01 1.42 0.33 1.35 2.33 1.32 3.06 1.05
4 1.55 0.45 1.43 0.64 0.71 1.41 2.18 0.32 2.01 0.45
5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
8 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3 2.03 1.93 1.05 1.93 1.84
4 1.03 0.71 0.95 0.94 0,07 1.02 14.70 0.70 13.6 0.92
5 0.74 0.26 0.88 0.18 0.10 0.93 7.40 0.28 8.80 0.19
9 3 2.36 2.15 1.27 1.86 1.69
4 1.36 1.04 1.13 1.27 0.34 1.34 4.00 0.78 3.32 0.95
5 1.40 0.60 1.41 0.66 0.72 1.40 1.94 0.43 1.% 0.47
6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
4 1.49 1.88 1.05 1.42 1.79
5 0.49 1.05 0.85 1.04 0.08 1.01 6.13 1.04 10.62 1.03
6 0.54 0.46 0.87 0.23 0.11 0.93 4.91 0.49 7.90 0.25
•step and level of maximum shore load or slab load.
M = slab load; P = shore load.

foundation. The analysis is shown in Fig. 5. It can be
seen that an increase of the foundation rigidity has
practically no effect on the maximum slab moment;
however, it increases the maximum shore loads by 11
percent for both cases. This indicates that the rigidity of
foundation has an insignificant effect on construction
load distribution.
Influence of slab boundary conditions
The vertical slab deflections at the column joints
have been considered in the present analysis. To check
the influence of neglecting the vertical deflections of the
slab at column joints, and to account for different ro-
tational restraints from the end of slab-beams, two
boundary conditions were considered: either clamped
along both edges or simply supported along both edges.
Analysis results are compared in Fig. 6. For both ex-
amples, it can be noted that slab load history of the
present analysis fits between the fixed-ended and sim-
ply supported slab load histories. In Example A, the
fixed-ended slab analysis overestimates the maximum
slab moment by 5 percent, and the maximum shore
load by only 1 percent. For the simply supported slab
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991
analysis, the maximum slab moment is about 2 percent
less than those calculated by the present analysis. On
the other hand, the maximum shore load is 68 percent
larger than the corresponding maximum shore load
given by the present analysis. The simply supported
slab analysis shows the maximum slab moment occurs
at Step 9, and the maximum shore load occurs at Step
3 (similar to the simplified method).
In Example B, Fig. 6 shows good agreement among
the load distributions for the present analysis, fixed-
ended slab analysis, and simply supported slab analy-
sis. However, the simply supported slab analysis over-
estimates the maximum shore load by more than 43
percent. Fig. 6 also shows that construction load distri-
butions as predicted by the simplified method and the
simply supported slab analysis are very close to each
other. It can therefore be concluded here that bound-
ary conditions have little effect on construction load
distribution, and that the fixed-ended slab assumption
is generally acceptable.
Influence of slab stiffness
The flexural stiffness of an uncracked se~ion is only
slightly affected by the percentage of steel and may be
343
 2.5 2.5 , . - - - - . , . - - - - r - - - . - - - - - , - - - - , - - - - - ,
t•a.•s.•a.•a.•a.·a.·"-·.11~
.....................
... ...
.
....
........ Simplified Method Ec = Const. c
c
I
I
........ Simplified Method
. .
2.0 •••••• Simplified Method Ec = Const. ? !! 2.0 •••••• Rigid Foundation ..
••• 0

__ ..."' .......................
...................
....
_ Present Analysis _ Present Analysis
...
!
~------ !
!
1.5 1
.J
!
!
!
1.5
.-. ..
r
r
r
:2 1.0 0 1.0
!-
<
~ ~
~
0.5 Example A: Three Levels of Shores Example A: Three Levels of Shores
Q 0.5
Q
< <
0
..l 0
..l 0.0 ~--!:--''-----:::':-----:::'::---='::----='=""---=.
=
<
10 25 30 ~ 2.0 0;.......--::;.5_ __,;10~-~1~5_ _-=;20~---=2:;:.5_ _....!130
..l ..l
<1:1
<1:1

~ 1.5 ;::;:
;:J ;:J 1.5
~
~
~
:.<:
< <
~ 1.0 ~ 1.0

Example B: Two Levels of Shores

Example B: Two Levels of Shores
0.5 and one Level of Reshores
and one Level of Reshores
0.5

10 15 20 25 30 0·0 o"----5........'---1-'-o---1..L5---2""o--.....,..25::-----='3o

AGE (DAYS)
AGE(DAYS)

Fig. 4-Comparison of present analysis with simplified Fig. 5-/nfluence of foundation rigidity on slab-load
method ratio

Table 2 - Comparison of construction load distributions (Unit D) with

different analytical methods for two levels of shores and one level of
reshores
Present
analysis
Simplified constant Present
method load analysis Comparison
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Col.l Col.2 Col.3 Col.4
Step Level pm~ M_ pm~ Mm~ pm~ Mm~ Col.5 Col6 Col.5 Col.6
1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1* 2.00 0.00 1.76 0.43 1.51 0.86 1.32 0.00 1.16 0.50
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3,4 1 1.00 1.42 1.07 0.93 1.33
2 0.00 1.00 0.56 0.66 0.06 0.97 0.00 1.03 9.33 0.68
5 1 1.00 1.00 0.62 1.60 0.39 1.32 2.56 0.76 1.59 1.21
2 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.09 0.72 1.41 1.39 0.71 1.35 0.77
3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
6 1 1.33 1.93 1.27 1.05 1.52
2 0.33 1.34 0.95 1.24 0.29 1.31 1.14 1.02 3.27 0.95
3 0.67 0.33 0.83 0.09 0.62 0.51 1.08 0.65 1.34 0.18
7.8 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1.50 1.65 1.47 1.02 1.12
3 0.50 0.50 0.73 0.39 0.50 0.59 1.00 0.85 1.46 0.66
9 1 1.34 1.22 1.22 1.10 1.00
2* 0.34 1.83 0.25 1.98 0.25 1.80 1.36 1.02 1.00 1.10
3 1.17 0.83 1.18 0.84 1.12 1.10 1.04 0.74 1.05 0.76
4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
10 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 1.95 2.10 1.63 1.20 1.29
3 0.95 0.94 1.07 0.89 0.75 0.91 1.27 1.03 1.43 0.98
4 0.89 0.11 0.98 0.04 0.62 0.51 1.43 0.21 1.58 0.08
*Step and level of maximum shore load or slab load.
M = slab load; P = shore load.

344 ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991

 2.5 ,-----.,.-----.,----,--~----,----,

•••••••• Simplified Method ........ Simplified Method E., = Const. r

•a.•a.•a.•ll&?&f&.IIU,
t
2.0 ---- Simply Supported Slab 2 •0 ...... Simplified Method E., :1- Const. ~ ~
•••••• Fixed- Ended Slab ---- Ec= Const. 1 t
_ Present Analysis E-'
c .,. CODSt • t ______ ---'
................... .c t
~

1.5 u J
•
~
c
c
c
c

Example A: Tbree Levels or Shores Example A: Three Levels or Shores

~ 1.5

~
:E 1.0

Example 8: Two Levels of Shores

0.5 and one Level of Reshores ,'I Example 8: Two Levels of Shores
0.5
.'
'
I

'
I
and one Level of Resbores

I
I
5 10 15 20 25 30 c
5 10 15 20 25 30
AGE (DAYS)
AGE(DAYS)
Fig. 6-lnfluence of slab boundary conditions on slab-
load ratio Fig. 7-Influence of slab stiffness on slab-load ratio

taken directly proportional to Ec. To check the effect of
assuming constant Ec on the construction load distribu-
tion, the construction load analysis was repeated con-
sidering the previous assumption. Analysis results are
compared in Fig. 7. It can be noted that by assuming
the constant Ec, the maximum slab moment increases by
7 percent for Example A, and decreases by 2 percent
for Example B. However, the maximum shore load de-
creases by 6 percent for both cases. This indicates that
assuming constant slab stiffness has little effect on
construction load distribution.
Influence of shore stiffness
Two basic assumptions are made in the simplified
method: Ec is constant and the shores have infinite
stiffness. The first assumption was shown to have little
effect on the construction load distribution. The sec-
ond assumption is powerful and important. Using the
assumption of infinite stiffness of shores for the fixed-
ended slab analysis, the results obtained are much
closer to those given by the simplified method (see Fig.
8). This is especially true for the reshoring example
(Example B). The present analysis can be used for ei-
ther steel or wooden shores. In both cases, the axial
shore stiffness is finite, as given by AE/L. However,
steel shores are more likely to be. stiffer than wooden
shores, and consequently, they approximate the as-
sumption of infinite shores stiffness more closely than
wooden shores.
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991
In Example A, Fig. 8 shows that an increase in shore
stiffness decreases the maximum slab moment by
roughly 3 percent; however, this maximum slab mo-
ment occurs at construction step 9 (similar to the sim-
plified method). Also, it increases the maximum shore
load by 98 percent, and this maximum shore load oc-
curs at Step 3 (exactly like the simplified method). In
Example B, the assumption of infinite shore stiffness
tends to increase the maximum slab moment by 7 per-
cent, and the maximum shore load by about 50 per-
cent. Based on these observations, it appears that the
increase in shore stiffness affects the maximum shore
load more than the maximum slab moment. Therefore,
the solution method that takes shore stiffness into ac-
count is theoretically more justifiable than the simpli-
fied method, which assumes an infinite shore stiffness.
Effect of neglecting the change In construction
load during construction cycles
One common assumption used in the simplified
method is that construction load will remain constant
during the period between pouring each of the two
consequent floors. This assumption has been adjusted
in the present analysis by calculating the construction
loa,d distribution twice, first at the beginning and then
at the end of each construction step.
To illustrate the influence of this assumption on the
load distribution, the present analysis will be reexam-
ined, neglecting the change in construction load distri-
bution during the time period between casting each
345
 2.5 2.5
........ Simplified Method ............................. ........ Simplified Method .........................
. . ------ Constant Load
~---------c
2.0 ••••·• Rigid Shore 2.0 :-t
''
1.5
_ Flexible Shore
r·····..r
~,
. 1.5
- Present Analysis
!
:

............... :·~-------- ..
I
I
I
r
····················'
!

I
I
''
''
'
I

..
I
' : I

..
0.....
0... 1.0
<
1.0
.~--------.J
I

<
::1:1
::1:1 !I
!I
Example A: Three Levels of Shores
0.5 Q 0.5 !I
Q
< < !I
jJ Example A: Three Levels of Shores
0
0 ..l t
..l I

=
<
5 10 15 20 25 30 = °
<
..l
0.0
2.5
5 10 15 20 25 30
..l
en ~-- ..·.a.·:.·:.::..·:::,~; en
1: ~
~ ;J 2.0
;J 1.5
~
.....
~
..... ~-- .... :.:~:.:::·~·~ :.<
:.< <
< ' ~ 1.5
~
1.0

1.0
I Example B: Two Levels of Shores
I
0.5 I and one Level or Reshores
I

-· . ..t 0.5
Example B: Two Levels or Shores
and one Level of Reshores

0.0 ... ~
,,''
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
AGE(DAYS)
AGE (DAYS)

Fig. 9-Effect of neglecting the change in construction

Fig. 8-/nfluence of shore stiffness on slab-load ratio load during construction cycles on slab-load ratio

consequent floor. Analysis results are compared in Ta- troduced by neglecting the change in construction load
bles 1 and 2 for Examples A and B, respectively. Anal- during construction cycles. This is a very important
ysis results are also compared in Fig. 9. finding, as it implies that one should be cautious when
Examining Table 1 and Fig. 9, it is clear that this as- using the simplified method for three levels of shores or
sumption has contributed to the major error in the more, since the relative errors are expected to be higher.
simplified method. If construction load is assumed to
remain constant during the period between pouring Influences of nonlinear behavior and material
each of the two consequent floors, the analysis will un- creep
derestimate the maximum slab moment by about 43 The nonlinear behavior of wooden shores and mate-
percent (Step 5), and overestimate the maximum slab rial creep have been neglected in the present analysis.
moment, in general, by 51 percent. Also, this analysis According to the conclusion of Zapata and Baiant in
will overestimate the maximum shore load by more Reference 6, the effect of creep is negligible for con-
than 42 percent. When compared with the simplified struction sequences without reshoring. Therefore, only
method, the relative error is less than -10 percent. the two levels of shores and one level of reshores ex-
In Example B, the relative errors introduced by this ample will be considered in this investigation.
assumption are + 17 percent for the maximum slab Accounting for creep and nonlinear behavior of
moment and + 16 percent for the maximum shore load. wooden shores-To account for creep deformation and
It is interesting to note that the same assumption has the nonlinear behavior of wood, the age-adjusted mod-
affected two construction procedures quite differently. ulus of deformation for wooden shores Ewv is used in
The three levels of shores construction procedure are the analysis. The age-adjusted modulus of deformation
affected more than the two levels of shores and one for wooden shores was developed by Liu and Chen. 7
level of reshores construction procedure by this as- Ewv can be calculated by
sumption. This is reasonable because when construc-
tion load is assumed to remain constant, the maximum (1)
slab moment occurs at the third construction cycle (at
an age of 21 days) for Example A, while it occurs at the
second construction cycle (at an age of 14 days) for Ex-
ample B. This suggests that the later the maximum slab where Ewv is the age-adjusted modulus of deformation
moment occurs in any construction procedure, assum- for wooden shores, E~ is the secant modulus of shores,
ing constant construction load, the larger the errors in- w1 is the axial shortening due to material, W 2 is the
346 ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991
bending shortening due to geometry, and <l>w1 is the creep
coefficient of wood.
Accounting for concrete creep-Herein, the age-ad-
justed modulus of concrete EcD is used in the present
calculations. The age-adjusted modulus of concrete
method was developed originally by Trost, 8 and im-
proved later by Bazant. 9 EcD can be calculated by

Shore Slab
(2) . . - - •1 Subroutine Subroutine

where EcDis the age-adjusted modulus of concrete, Etl is

the modulus of elasticity of concrete when load is first SST AN
applied, £ 28 is the 28-day modulus of elasticity of con-
crete, and </> 1 is the creep coefficient. Details of this de-
velopment for the parameters in Eq. (1) and (2) are
given by Liu and Chen. 7
Solution Algorithm- The finite element program es
SSTAN was chosen for performing the structural anal-
ysis. Two subroutines have been added to the program
to include the nonlinear behavior and material creeps.
Comparing with the elastic analysis, additional factors
that will influence the slab-shore system have been in-
cluded in each step, i.e., concrete creep, wood creep,
and shore out-of-straightness. The out-of-straightness
of each wooden shore is taken to be o = 5.6 mm (0.22
in.). Since SSTAN does not consider the second-order no
moment in a direct manner, an iteration procedure is
necessary. In every case, two subroutines for adjusting
the EcD and EwD have to be used with SSTAN all the
time. The flow diagram shown in Fig. 10 indicates
where iteration is needed. Output
A comparison of results by the present method con-
sidering material creep and shore bending shortening
with the previous elastic analysis is shown in Fig. 11. Fig. 10-Flow diagram for every case
The inclusion of the nonlinear behavior of wooden
shores and material creep does not change the location
and construction step at which the maximum shore load
and slab moment occur. In addition, the maximum
predicted shore load and slab moment were reduced by
about 5 and 3 percent, respectively.
Thus, it appears that the effects of nonlinear behav-
2.5 .---.-----.,-----.,----,-----,-----,
ior of shores and material creep on the construction 0
•••••• Nonlinear Behavior and Creep is Included
load distribution are practically negligible. A similar
conclusion was made by Zapata and BaZant. 6
§... 2.0 ......•. Simplified Method
_ Elastic Analysis

Influence of construction live load s~ 1.5

For the previous elastic analysis, only the construc- =
<
tion dead load was considered in the analysis to exam- til
::::J 1.0
ine the effect of several construction parameters and
assumptions on the load distribution. Although the
construction live load imposed on a temporary support ~
... 0.5
::::J
Example B: Two Levels of Shores
and one Level of Reshores
system is transient in nature, this short-term peak load
may be critical to the safety of the overall building. Ex- o.o o~~~5~'-----="1o::----:-'1s::-----::':20,-----2::::':5,-----::3o·
periences from structural collapses involving formwork
failures have shown that most of these failures oc- AGE (DAYS)
curred during concrete placement of the slabs, while
workmen and concrete equipment are still on top of the Fig. 11-lnfluences of nonlinear behavior of wooden
new deck. shores and material creep on slab-load ratio
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991 347
 3.5 , - - - - - , - - - - . - - - . - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - - , 3.0 r----.---.-------,------,-----,----,

........ Simplified Method L.L is not Included _ Present Analysis L.L is Included
3•0 ---- Simplified Method L.L is Included 2.5
........ Simplified Procedure
------ Present Analysis L.L is not Included ~ · · · · -- i_ _,
2.5 _ Present Analysis L.L is Included ~···················~ 2.0
~ ~
2.0 ~------ ~-_;·= ~

e·················...
I : '
~ 1.5
0 1.5 ~
~ 0
~~ 1.0
~
E:
< 1.0
~
Q
< 0.5 Example A: Three Levels of Shores Q 0.5
0
....l
< Example A: Three Levels of Shores
0
0.0 ....l

= 2.5 °
<
....l
5 10 15 20 25 30
=
<
10 15 20 25 30
Cll ....l
Cll
::; 2.0
2.0
;;, ::;
::;
......
;;,
~
::;
< 1.5 :;:; 1.5
::; <
::;
1.0
1.0

Example B: Two Levels of Shores

0.5 and one Level of Reshores Example B: Two Levels of Shores
0.5 and one Level of Reshores

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
5 10 15 20 25 30
AGE (DAYS)
AGE (DAYS)

Fig. 12-lnfluence of construction live load on slab- Fig. 13-Comparison of simplified procedure with
load ratio present analysis

Consequently, it may be advisable to incorporate
construction live load in computing the anticipated load
on shores and slabs of a multistory building, since this
will give better estimates of the maximum loads to
which slabs, shores; and reshores are subjected during
construction.
To include the construction live load in the analysis,
the following additional assumptions are made: 1) the
total weight of the forms, shores, and reshores are as-
sumed to be carried by the slab below; and 2) the con-
struction live load is applied on the uppermost slab in
the system only, and this load will be removed before
stripping and reshoring take place below. The simpli-
fied method uses similar assumptions; 10 however, for
the first assumption, the total weight of the forms,
shores, and reshores are assumed to act at the top of
shores and reshores.
Fig. 12 compares the analysis with and without the
inclusion of construction live load for the simplified
method, Example A and Example B. In Example A, by
including the construction live load in the analysis, the
maximum shore load and slab moment were increased
by 30 and 24 percent, respectively. For Example B, the
maximum shore load and slab moment were increased
by 30 and 16 percent, respectively. Similar comparisons
can be made for the simplified method. It can there-
fore be concluded here that construction live load must
be considered in the present analysis or when the sim-
plified method is used.
348
Since consideration of the construction live load does
not change the conclusion reached previously concern-
ing the location of the maximum loads, it is possible to
approximate the construction load distribution to sim-
plify the analysis. One approximation is given by
Sbarounis'' by adding 55/N psf (2633/N Pa) to the
maximum slab dead load, where N is the number of
floors in the supporting assembly. A better approxi-
mation is obtained by modifying the dead load analysis
each time the slab is cast. This simplified procedure is
explained in the following paragraphs.
From Table 1, the increases in construction slab load
distribution at Step 5 (casting the fourth floor) from the
previous step are 0.22, 0.33, and 0.48 for Slabs 1, 2,
and 3, respectively. The load factor is changing from
1.00 (dead load only) to 1.80 (dead load + live load +
three levels of shores). Multiplying the increases in
construction load distribution at Step 5 by a factor of
1.80 yields 0.40, 0.59, and 0.86. By adding the modi-
fied load distributions to Step 4 load distributions, one
obtains 1.47, 1.62, and 1.80 for Slabs 1, 2, and 3, re-
spectively. Similar calculations can be made for Steps 7
and 9 of Table 1 to obtain the complete loading histo-
ries for the first three floors. This procedure was re-
peated for Table 2 (Example B). Fig. 13 compares the
results of the present analysis considering the construc-
tion live load with the proposed procedure. Good
agreement among the load distributions can be gener-
ally noted.
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991
 As for the maximum shore load, since it always oc- DISCUSSION
curs in the first story of shores, it can be determined by It has been found that the computational errors in-
the simple relation troduced by the simplified method depend primarily on
shore stiffness and the change of construction load dis-
tribution during the time period between casting each
S = N*DL + LL + (N- 1) SL (S) ( 3) consequent floor. Nevertheless, an upper-bound esti-
L N*DL D
mate for the maximum slab moment and shore force
can always be obtained using the simplified method.
N the number of floors in the supporting assem- From our limited number of examples studied, it is not
bly when the maximum shore dead load occurs clear whether a situation exists where a lower-bound
maximum shore load to be calculated estimate can be found using the simplified method. If
maximum shore load resulting from dead load so, whatever the solution that considers the different
analysis only construction parameters is the correct one.
The relative error of the simplifed method differs
DL = construction dead load (in terms of D) from one construction procedure to another. In the
LL construction live load (in terms of D) present two examples, the comparison of the maximum
SL = the self-weight of all shores on one floor (in loads computed by the simplified method with that
terms of D) given by the present analysis using different assump-
tions is summarized in Tables 3 and 4. For the three
whenDL 1.0, LL 0.5, SL 0.1, Eq. (3) reduces levels of shores construction procedure, the simplified
method overestimates the maximum slab moment by
about 66 percent. This relative error can be divided into
to two parts, 51 percent due to neglecting the change of
construction load during construction cycles, and less
than 15 percent due to all other assumptions combined.
SL = N + 0.5 +~N- 1) 0.1 (SD) (4) For the two levels of shores and one level of reshores
construction procedure, the simplified method overes-
timates the maximum slab moment by only 8 percent.
For the preceding two examples with N = 2, SD = The relative error introduced by assuming constant load
1.51, and substituting in Eq. (4), SL = 1.97D, the same change during construction cycles is 17 percent, and all
value for the maximum shore load is obtained from the other combined assumptions tend to reduce the maxi-
analysis considering the construction live load. mum slab moment.

Table 3 - Comparison of maximum load ratios (Unit D) calculated by different methods for three levels
of shores
Present analysis assuming
Simplified Present Rigid Constant load Fixed-ended Simply E, = Rigid Construction live
method analysis foundation during construction cycles slab supported slab constant shores load included
(a) (b) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)' (a)'
Maximum slab load 2.36 1.42 1.41 2.15 1.49 1.39 1.52 1.44 1.76
Col. a-b
-- 66"7o - -0.7"7o 51"7o 5"7o -2"7o 7"7o - 3"7o 24"7o
Col. b
Maximum shore load 3.00 1.51 1.68 2.15 1.53 2.54 1.42 3.03 1.97
Col. a-b
99"7o - llO?o 42"7o l"lo 68"7o -6"7o 98"7o 30"7o
Col. b
*Compared with fixed-ended slab analysis.
'Represent more accurate analysis.

Table 4 - Comparison of maximum load ratios (Unit D) calculated by different methods for two levels
of shores and one level of reshores
Present analysis assuming
Simplified Present Rigid Constant load Fixed-ended Simply E, = Rigid Nonlinear behavior Construction live
method analysis foundation during construction cycles slab supported slab constant shores & creep included load included
(a) (b) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)* (a)' (a)'
Maximum slab load 1.95 1.80 1.80 2.10 1.75 1.83 1.77 1.87 1.75 2.08
Col. a-b
-- 8"7o - - 17"7o -3"7o 2"7o -2"7o 7"7o -3"7o 16"7o
Col. b
Maximum shore load 2.00 1.51 1.68 1.76 1.47 2.16 1.42 2.21 1.43 1.97
Col. a-b
-- 32"7o - 11"7o 16"7o - 3"7o 43"7o -6"7o 50"7o - 5"7o 30"7o
Col. b
*Compared with fixed-ended slab analysis.
'Represent more accurate analysis.

ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991 349

 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present numerical studies, the follow-
ing conclusions can be stated for the two examples
evaluated by the present and simplified methods:
1. The simplified method is adequate for predicting
the construction location of the maximum slab and
shore loads. However, it generally overestimates the
actual load ratios.
2. The primary error in the simplified method is from
neglecting the change in construction load distribution
during the time period between casting each conse-
quent floor. This error increases with increasing the
number of shores, and the simplified method becomes
unacceptable for more than three levels of shores. It is
therefore recommended to modify the simplified
method to take this assumption into consideration.
3. The assumption of infinite axial stiffness of shores
and reshores used by the simplified method affects the
maximum shore load more than the maximum slab
moment. This assumption becomes more significant
when using wooden shores. Thus, the solution method
considering shore stiffness is theoretically better justi-
fied than the simplified method that assumes infinite
shore stiffness.
4. The assumption of rigid foundation has little ef-
fect on the construction load distribution.
5. The assumption of equal slab stiffness has little
effect on the construction load distribution. This as-
sumption, in general, will increase the maximum slab
moment and decrease the maximum shore load in a rel-
ative sense.
6. The boundary conditions of the slab have, in gen-
eral little effect on the construction load distribution.
The fixed-ended slab assumption gives a better approx-
imation of the construction load distribution when
compared with the present analysis.
7. The nonlinear behavior of wooden shores and
material creep have little effect on the construction load
distribution.
350
8. The construction live load must be considered in
the analysis of construction loads. A procedure to in-
clude the construction live load is proposed. A good
agreement is generally observed between the analysis
considering construction live load and the proposed
procedure.
REFERENCES
1. Fattal, S. G., "Evaluation of Construction Loads in Multistory
Concrete Buildings (NBS BSS 146)," National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, D. C., Feb. 1983.
2. Grundy, Paul, and Kabaila, A., "Construction Loads on Slabs
with Shored Form work in Multistory Buildings," ACI JouRNAL,
Proceedings V. 60, No. 12, Dec. 1963, pp. 1729-1738.
3. Liu, Xila; Chen, Wai-Fah; and Bowman, Mark D., "Construc-
tion Load Analysis for Concrete Structrures," Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 111, No.5, May 1985, pp. 1019-1036.
4. Liu, X. L.; Chen, W. F.; and Bowman, M.D., "Shore Slab In-
teraction in Concrete Buildings," Journal of Construction Engineer-
ing and Management, ASCE, V. 112, No.2, June 1986, pp. 227-244.
5. El-Sheikh, M., and Chen, W. F., "Factors Affecting Construc-
tion Loads on Supporting Floors," Structural Engineering Report
CE-STR-88-28, Purdue University, West Lafayette, 1988, 33 pp.
6. Aguinaga-Zapata, Manuel, and B~ant, Zdeni!k P., "Creep De-
flections in Slab Buildings ands Forces in Shores during Construc-
tion," ACI JouRNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 5, Sept-Oct. 1986, pp.
719-726.
7. Liu, X. L., and Chen, W. F., "Effect of Creep on Load Distri-
bution in Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings During Con-
struction," ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 3, May-June 1987,
pp. 192-200.
8. Trost, H., "Implications of the Superposition Principle in Creep
and Relaxation Problems for Concrete and Prestressed Concrete
(Auswirkungen des Superpositionsprinzips auf Kriech - Und Relax-
ations-Probleme bei Beton and Spannbeton), Beton und Stahlbeton-
bau, V. 62, No. 10-11, 1967, pp. 230-238; 261-269. (in German)
9. BliZant, Zdeni!k P., "Prediction of Concrete Creep Effects Us-
ing Age-Adjusted Effective Modulus Method," ACI JouRNAL, Pro-
ceedings V. 69, No.4, Apr. 1972, pp. 212-217.
10. Hurd, M. K., Form work for Concrete, SP-4, 4th Edition,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1979, 464 pp.
11. Sbarounis, John A., "Multistory Flat Plate Buildings: Con-
struction Loads and Immediate Deflections," Concrete Interna-
tional: Design & Construction, V.6, No.2, Feb. 1984, pp. 70-77.
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1991