Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 36293638

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Shore overloads during shoring removal

M. Azkune, I. Puente , A. Santilli
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Civil Engineering, Tecnun (University of Navarra), Manuel de Lardizabal 13, 20018 San Sebastian, Spain

article

info

Article history:
Received 2 September 2009
Received in revised form
24 May 2010
Accepted 9 August 2010
Available online 9 September 2010
Keywords:
Shore removal
Multistory buildings
Flat concrete slabs
Overloads
Falsework
Concrete construction
Shoring
Reshoring

abstract
The considerable overloads originating during the shore removal process can affect the structural safety of
a multistory concrete building under construction. With an incorrect shoring removal reversal of stresses
may occur which can cause concrete cracking and excessive deflections. Moreover, excessive overloads
will damage the falsework, producing important economical losses due to its elevated cost.
A measured program has been conducted during the shore stripping at different building levels.
Results show that in general the Refined Method is adequate in a conservative form for the shore removal
procedure.
Then, the influence of different parameters such as concrete strength or steel reinforcement in
shore removal overloads was studied. The use of the actual concrete strength and modeling the steel
reinforcement produces a more accurate theoretical result. Nevertheless, these considerations do not
bring major changes (less than 4%).
Finally, shore overloads originating in five different shore removal procedures in a typical structure
have been compared, establishing some criteria for a safe shore stripping sequence. For example the best
stripping procedure found consists of removing shores by rows.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
For economic reasons, there is ever more pressure to construct
multistory concrete buildings at a faster pace. Thus, the strength
of a slab usually is not enough to support an upper floor when
it is cast. Consequently, self-weight of a newly poured slab is
distributed between lower partially hardened slabs interconnected
by shores and/or reshores.
Moreover, an excessive number of shored floors are not advisable. To keep the structure shored to the foundation would increase
construction costs considerably, due to the fact that the excessive
number of shores and falsework needed would be too high. This
procedure could also result in exceeding ultimate shore loads on
the lower floors.
The temporary supporting structure is removed when the slab
is sufficiently resistant which allows the liberated shores to be used
for the construction of upper floors. This reduces the number of
shores needed and allows work by other trades to proceed on the
lower floors.
Structural safety, however, is also of paramount importance.
Load carrying capacities of shores and slabs must not be exceeded.
A significant percentage of structural collapses during construction
is caused by excessive loads on both the shoring system and

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 943219877; fax: +34 943311442.

E-mail address: ipuente@tecnun.es (I. Puente).

0141-0296/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.08.007

interconnected slabs. The accidents that occurred in Cocoa Beach,

Florida in 1981 reported by Lew et al. [1] and in Fairfax County,
Virginia in 1973 reported by Carino et al. [2], where a large number
of workers lost their lives, are well known examples.
It is recognized that a detailed knowledge of shore-slab interaction may well have prevented some of these accidents. Nevertheless, due to factors such as the variable nature of concrete
properties, determining load values and distribution between
shores and slabs is complex.
Several research studies have been conducted to accurately determine the strength properties of a concrete building during construction. Concrete has been studied by authors such as Price [3],
Klieger [4], Gardner and Poon [5] or Carino et al. [6], who have analyzed the influence of factors such as curing temperature in concrete strength evolution.
The first known research paper on the subject of load estimation
was published in 1952 when Nielsen [7] presented a method which
was too complex to be used in practice. In 1963 Grundy and
Kabaila [8] developed the Simplified Method. This pioneering work
was based on the following assumptions, which make the method
clear and easy to apply:
1. Relative to the bending stiffness of slabs, the axial stiffness of
shores and reshores is assumed to be infinite.
2. Despite the fact that concrete properties vary with age, all slabs
are assumed to possess equal flexural stiffness.
3. The lowest level of shores or reshores is assumed to be supported on a completely rigid foundation.

3630

M. Azkune et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 36293638

This Simplified Method is the most widely used method in

the construction industry, and is also suggested in the shoring/
reshoring guide published by ACI Committee 347, 2R-05 [9].
Other theoretical models have been proposed in recent years.
In general, these models include modifications that try to improve
the results achieved by the Simplified Method, as well as to verify
the accuracy of this method. In 1985 Liu et al. [10] developed the
Refined Method. This finite element based computational method
proposes a more realistic model of the actual structure. However,
this method is cumbersome for practical use. Liu et al. [11]
compared on-site measurements with results obtained by both
the Simplified and the Refined Methods, and concluded that the
Refined one predicts more accurate values. Nevertheless, they
pointed out that the Simplified Method can be used if the results
for the maximum shore load and slab moments are corrected by a
modification coefficient that varies from 1.05 to 1.10.
Other models have been developed by Gardner [12], Stivaros
and Halvorsen [13], Chen and Mossallam [14], Mossallam and
Chen [15], El-Shahhat and Chen [16], Duan and Chen [17], Fang
et al. [18] and Miranda de Almeida et al. [19].
But the significant amount of theoretical research published
contrasts with the absence of detailed experimental data related
to the subject area. The first on-site measurements consisted of
measuring shore loads and comparing experimental data with the
Simplified Method. For example, Agarwal and Gardner [20], Lasisi
and Ng [21] and Moragues et al. [22,23] carried out these types
of measurements during the construction of high-rise concrete
buildings. Data collected in Agarwal and Gardner [20], Lasisi and
Ng [21] referred only to shores located at intermediate levels
of the building, and the authors concluded that the Simplified
Method acceptably predicts maximum shore and slab loads during
construction. On the other hand, Moragues et al. [22,23] measured
shore loads starting from the lowest level. They pointed out that
the Simplified Method overestimates the maximum shore and slab
loads in 77.5% and 36.4% respectively.
A recent extensive experimental work was carried out by
Puente et al. [24]. One hundred and two shores, distributed between three floors, were instrumented with strain gages. The
authors compared theoretical results proposed by different methods with field measurements. It was concluded that the Refined
Method proposed by Liu et al. [10] is the most accurate theoretical method, and that Duan and Chens [17] Improved Simplified
Method is a quite accurate method (with deviations lower than 15%
between theoretical and experimental values) which does not require structural analysis software.
These experimental data consisted of measuring shore loads after a construction step has been determined. Therefore, measurements do not show the evolution of loads during an operation or
during the time period between two consecutive operations.
Several measurements have been conducted to study the
load redistribution between two consecutive constructional steps.
Rosowsky et al. [25] and Fang et al. [26] obtained continuous
registers of shore loads during the curing process of concrete slabs.
In both research projects, it was concluded that load variations
during this period are mainly related to the continuous increase
in slab and beam stiffness.
Azkune et al. [27] also registered continuous measurements of
shore loads during the curing process of the slab. Nevertheless,
with respect to the previous authors, they pointed out that the
redistribution of loads in this phase, at least in time periods
no longer than a week, are mainly determined by ambient
temperature variations. Therefore, shore loads fluctuate according
to the temperature changes registered on-site. Finally, Azkune
et al. [27] proposed modified models which predict adequately the
load variations between consecutive steps.
With respect to measurements of dynamic loads, Rosowsky
et al. [25] and Azkune and Puente [28] measured shore loads during

the casting of the floor. In both cases loads were measured on

shores located underneath the slab which was being poured. The
registered peak loads were compared with the construction live
loads proposed by the ACI Committee 347 [29] and the European
UNE-EN 12812 [30]. It was concluded that both standards are
adequate and safe.
Rosowsky et al. [25] have collected experimental data during
the shore stripping process. The measurements consisted of
registering the redistribution of loads due to the removal of
several shores located on the same floor. They concluded that
shore removal originates considerable overloads on the remaining
shores.
During the shore stripping process of a slab, the load of a
removed shore is redistributed between the concrete structure
and the remaining shores. This redistribution may lead to abrupt
overloads that can cause damage to the shores, which would imply
important economical losses.
In the present work, on-site measurements have been carried
out during several shore stripping processes of slabs. The objective
of this work is to determine the magnitude of the shore overloads
during the shore removal process and to determine the factors that
affect the loads redistribution. Several shore removal procedures
are investigated and their effect on the shore overloads is
evaluated. The results of this study will help contractors develop
cost effective and safe shore removal procedures.
2. Field measurements
Field measurements were concentrated on shore load variations during the shore removal. Special attention was paid to
shores supported on the ground because experimental works such
as Moragues et al. [22] and Puente et al. [24] have shown that maximum shore loads take place at the bottom floor. Therefore, shore
loads were measured during the shore removal at the two lowest
levels of the studied building.
2.1. Construction site description
The measurements were conducted during the construction
of the Playa Gaztetape Building in Getaria, a city located on the
Basque coast in the north of Spain. The structure is a seven-story
flat slab type residential apartment building with four similar
levels underground parking. Floor to ceiling height is 2.65 m for the
garage levels, and 2.90 m for the residential floors. The total area is
1800 m2 per floor. Each parking floor was poured in 6 sections of
250 m2 plus a ramp zone. The residential floors were poured in 8
sections of similar area.
The thickness of the slab is 25 cm for all levels with a design
concrete strength of 25 MPa. The shores used were adjustable
steel shores with an allowable shore load of 18.5 kN. The planned
shoring scheme consisted of three levels of shores with no
reshores, with a construction cycle of one floor per eleven days.
The instrumented shores were arranged in two different sections of the parking floors in both cases, these shores were placed in
a five-column module, where concrete columns are 4040 cm. The
plain views of the two measurement sections are shown in Figs. 1
and 2. The arrangement of 34 instrumented shores is also included
in each figure. Shores on the far left and right sides of Row 1 were
not instrumented since the supporting shoring system at these areas consisted of more than one shore root.
2.2. Measurement system set up
Thirty four shores with strain gages were placed on the selected
floor. Four strain gages connected in a full Wheatstone bridge

ID
267962

Title
Shore overloads during shoring removal

http://fulltext.study/article/267962

http://FullText.Study

Pages
10