Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21322140

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

An experimental study into the evolution of loads on shores and slabs during
construction of multistory buildings using partial striking
Yezid A. Alvarado a , Pedro A. Caldern a, , Jose M. Adam a , Ignacio J. Pay-Zaforteza a , Teresa M. Pellicer a ,
Francisco J. Pallars b , Juan J. Moragues a
a

ICITECH, Departamento de Ingeniera de la Construccin, Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46071 Valencia, Spain

Departamento de Fsica Aplicada, Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, 46071 Valencia, Spain

article

info

Article history:
Received 14 July 2008
Received in revised form
15 December 2008
Accepted 17 March 2009
Available online 19 April 2009
Keywords:
Shoring
Load distribution
Clearing
Formwork
Multistory buildings
Concrete construction

abstract
This paper describes a full-scale test on a building constructed so as to enable study of the transmission of
loads between slabs and shores during the processes of shoring and striking. The experimental model
consisted of a 3-storey building with slabs made up of reinforced concrete. The structure was built
using a procedure which includes an intermediate stage during striking, known as clearing. This involves
removing the formwork boards and a certain number of shores before the pouring of concrete of the
uppermost slab. This operation helps optimise the construction process since most of the formwork and
shoring material is recovered in only a few days. The loads on the shores were measured by placing 3 strain
gauges on each one of them. The results obtained differ notably from those estimated by the simplified
methods commonly used. They show that, due to the clearing operation, the shores experience an average
unloading of up to 49%, transferring this load to the slab that has been subject to clearing. In the stages
that follow the hardening of the concrete, the spread of the loads among the shores is not uniform as the
shores furthest away from the columns suffer more loading than the rest.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Every year sees the construction thousands of square metres
of building structures and slabs using successive levels of shoring.
This system is based on resting the auxiliary shoring structures
on recently poured slabs. In this way, the weight of each new
concreted slab is distributed, via the shores, among the slabs of
lower floors. In Spain, for example, during 2006, 161136800 m2 [1]
of slabs were built using this construction process. To do this work,
all construction systems use a similar process, which consists of a
formwork surface onto which concrete is poured. The formwork
surface is supported by beams and telescopic metal shores. The
savings in time and cost of these construction systems stem mainly
from the possibility of recovering most of the components used
in the shortest possible time. In this way, the total number of
elements used (shores, beams, square metres of formwork boards)
is kept to a minimum.
In Spain, with this objective in mind, a method known as
clearing (or partial striking) is used. The technique consists of
removing the formwork and 50% of the shores which hold up the
slab, a few days after the pouring of concrete. This means a notable

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34963877562; fax: +34963877568.

E-mail address: pcaldero@cst.upv.es (P.A. Caldern).

0141-0296/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.03.021

reduction in the amount of material needed for formwork and

shoring. The technique is very economical and also makes for a
rational construction process. Fig. 1 shows the clearing process
underway for a construction cycle. It shows clearing of a first slab
and also a second slab completely shored up. Fig. 2 shows the
mechanism which allows the formwork board to be removed while
the slab continues to be shored up.
The condition for using the minimum amount of elements is
to be able to remove the shores from the whole structure, or
at least part of them as quickly as possible. The time scale for
striking depends on several factors, namely: the system and the
construction process used; the particular characteristics of the
structure to be built (type of concrete and design loads); and
the ambient conditions prevailing during the work (temperature
and humidity). Determining the timescale of striking is a complex
process as attested by two facts:
(1) Striking is usually studied by international standards and
recommendations [24] in a very similar way and with very
conservative criteria.
(2) A considerable percentage of building collapses happens
during shoringstriking [57].
The first research work carried out to determine the load borne
by slabs and shores during the building process was published in
1952 by Nielsen [8]. In 1963, Grundy and Kabaila [9] developed

Y.A. Alvarado et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21322140

2133

Notations
C

Cmax

CmD&C
CmG&K
CmM
Qmed
qmed
qservice
Pmax

max

Loading coefficient corresponds to the ratio between the total measured loads on the shores and
the estimated self-weight of the slab they support.
Loading coefficient corresponds to the ratio between the load taken by the most heavily loaded
shore and the estimated weight of its slab tributary
area.
Loading coefficient obtained by the application of
the methodology proposed by Duan and Chen.
Loading coefficient proposed by Grundy and Kabaila.
Loading coefficient proposed by Moragues et al.
Average load per square metre on shores.
Average load per square metre on slabs.
Service load of slabs.
Maximum shore load.
Vertical displacement of slabs.

a simplified method, easy to apply, which was based on the

hypothesis that: the stiffness of the shores is infinite with respect
to that of the slabs; all the slabs have the same stiffness; and the
foundation is infinitely stiff.
Modifications of the Grundy and Kabaila [9] method have been
proposed by Mosallam and Chen [10] and Duan and Chen [11].
Mosallam and Chen [10] took into account both the real stiffness
of the floor slab according to concrete age, and the redistribution
of loads during the construction process. Furthermore, Duan and
Chen [11] included the stiffness of the shoring in their model.
Subsequent publications have considered complex numerical
models in 2 and 3 dimensions [1218], seeking to represent the
different variables which interact during the construction process.
However, experiments validating this research are minimal. In
1974 Agarwall and Gardner [19] performed experimental research
to study the validity of the simplified method of Grundy and
Kabaila [9]. They concluded that the method was appropriate for
their particular case study.
Subsequent experimental research based on the instrumentation of buildings during construction has measured the distribution of loads between shores and slabs [20,19,2123], but the clearing technique, has received little attention to date. Only Moragues
et al. [12,20] have studied the effect of clearing in the transmission
of loads during the construction of slabs. From the measurements
obtained by these authors it can be concluded that the simplified
method of Grundy and Kabaila [9] cannot be applied to clearing.
In all the experimental studies relating to the matter, it can be
seen that taking readings on an actual building site is a complex
task, subject to uncertainties since it involves adapting the entire
organisation and monitoring that an experimental study requires
to the building work schedules. A full-scale experimental study on
a building constructed expressly as a specimen is the ideal way
to work. The building work construction schedule is thus adapted
to the demands of the study and not vice-versa. This methodology
allows both the number and quality of monitored variables to be
increased and the effects of each of them to be studied separately.
This paper describes and comments on the construction of a
full-scale experimental building, erected on the facilities of the
Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH) at the
Technical University of Valencia. The sole purpose of this building
was to study the shoringbuilding structure combination during
the slab shoring/striking process.

Fig. 1. The clearing process.

Fig. 2. Mechanism for removing formwork boards.

2. Description of the building under study

The experimental building comprises three 0.25 m thick RC
floor slabs, with a 6.00 m clear span between columns. The
slabs were supported on rectangular section columns, cantilevered
1.80 m. The height between floors was 2.75 m. Fig. 3 shows a view
of the experimental model.
Due to soil conditions, the foundation of the building was
a 0.40 m thick reinforced concrete slab, with a ground plan of
10.20 m and 9.40 m.
The concrete used for construction of all the elements of the
building had a characteristic compressive strength of 25 MPa. The
structure was designed to sustain gravitational loads, including the
self-weight of the structure, dead loads and live loads according to
Eurocode No. 1 [24].
3. Experimental study
3.1. Construction process
The building construction process followed nine steps:

Step 1: Casting of Level 1 (see Fig. 4). Measurements were taken

in 80 of the shores supporting Level 1.

Step 2: Clearing of Level 1 (see Fig. 4). Measurements were taken

in the 32 shores supporting Level 1.

2134

Y.A. Alvarado et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21322140

Step 9: Striking of Level 2 (see Fig. 6). Measurements were taken

in the 32 shores supporting Level 3.

Fig. 3. Experimental model.

Step 3: Casting of Level 2 (see Fig. 4). Measurements were taken

in the 32 shores supporting Level 1 and in 48 of the shores

supporting Level 2.
Step 4: Clearing of Level 2 (see Fig. 5). Measurements were
taken in the 32 shores supporting Level 1 and in the 32 shores
supporting Level 2.
Step 5: Striking of Level 1 (see Fig. 5). Measurements were taken
in the 32 shores supporting Level 2.
Step 6: Casting of Level 3 (see Fig. 5). Measurements were taken
in the 32 shores supporting Level 2 and in 48 of the shores
supporting Level 3.
Step 7: Clearing of Level 3 (see Fig. 6). Measurements were
taken in the 32 shores supporting Level 2 and in the 32 shores
supporting Level 3.
Step 8: Load in Level 3 (see Fig. 6). Measurements were taken in
the 32 shores supporting Level 2 and in the 32 shores supporting
Level 3.

The Level 3 slab had a uniformly spread load applied using

plastic pools filled with water to simulate the loads due to the
construction of an additional floor slab.
To perform the process of clearing, a system of shoring was used
which consisted of steel straining pieces supported by shores of the
same material (see Fig. 2). Straining pieces sustain the formwork
boards and are divided into primary and secondary straining
pieces. The primary straining pieces sustain the formwork boards
which are on a pivoting mechanism. When the mechanism is
worked, the formwork boards can be removed without the need
for the straining pieces to be taken away. The formwork boards
rest directly on the secondary straining pieces. These can then be
removed at the same time as the formwork boards.
Hence, the clearing process consists of removing the formwork
boards, the secondary straining pieces and the shores these rest
on. At this point, the slab is shored up by the primary straining
pieces which transmit the load to the shores which have not been
removed.
Fig. 7 shows a diagram of the straining pieces and shores
arranged on each of the floors. The solid line represents the primary
straining pieces, while the broken line indicates the secondary
straining pieces.
Construction of the building involved the use of 116 shores for
each of the floors shored up. In addition, 106.20 m of straining
pieces were used as well as 81 m2 of formwork boards for slabs.
3.2. Instrumentation
A total of 80 shores were instrumented. Three strain gauges
were placed on each of them, set at an angle of 120 and at a height
of 1.25 m. from the base of the shore (see Fig. 8(a)). The average
deformation value of the three gauges was used to establish the
load that each of shores would be subjected to during the building
of the structure.

Fig. 4. The construction process (1).

Y.A. Alvarado et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21322140

Fig. 5. The construction process (2).

Fig. 6. The construction process (3).

2135

2136

Y.A. Alvarado et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21322140

Fig. 7. System of straining pieces and shores: (a) Level 1; (b) Levels 2 and 3.

Fig. 8. Measuring instruments: (a) Strain gauges; (b) Cables of strain gauges to acquisition equipment; (c) LVDTs.

3 of the shores were used as a reference, with the aim of

measuring the effect of ambient temperature on the shores, the
strain gauges and the data acquisition equipment. These shores
were not part of the shoring system of the building.
The strain gauges placed on the shores were protected against
possible knocks and humidity. The 3 gauges on each shore were
connected to a device which transferred the measurements to
a data acquisition system. Finally, these data were stored on a
computer.
During the shoring of the first slab, all of the shores under
the slab area were instrumented. During shoring of slabs 2 and
3, 48 instrumented shores per floor were installed, set up on
the primary straining pieces and on 2 secondary straining pieces.
During the clearing stage, all of the shores under the slab area were
instrumented.

7 LVDTs were installed between each of the slabs, in order to

ascertain the deformations caused by the construction process.
Fig. 8(c) shows one of the LVDTs arranged under the slabs.
To connect all of the measuring instruments to the data
acquisition modules, 3669 m of cable were used (see Fig. 8(b)), of
which 2739 m were used to connect the gauges, 693 m to connect
the LVDTs and 237 m to connect the thermocouples.
3.3. Data recording
To read the measurements taken by the instrumentation equipment, 40 data acquisition modules were used. The data compiled by the acquisition systems were treated with the aid of
2 computers, equipped with software developed by ICITECH
personnel. One of the computers recorded the data relating to:

Y.A. Alvarado et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21322140

2137

Table 1
Calibration of the measuring system used in the shores.

E (GPa)

Shore 1

Shore 2

Shore 3

Shore 4

Shore 5

Mean

Standard deviation

213.72

213.72

215.91

213.05

208.71

213.02

2.64

Table 2
Loads on shores at each construction stage.
Step

Stage of
construction

Level

1
2

Casting level 1
Clearing level 1

Casting level 2

Clearing level 2

Striking level 1

Casting level 3

Clearing level 3

Load in level 3

Striking level 2

1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3

Table 3
Loads on slabs at each construction stage.

Qmed
(kN/m2 )

Location of
maximum
shore load

Pmax (kN)

5.46
2.86
5.60
4.02
4.06
4.54
2.89
5.50
3.92
3.59
3.66
4.72
4.15
3.40

18
28
18
27
35
45
35
18
35
28
35
28
35
28

7.71
7.94
8.62
12.78
12.44
13.00
7.89
8.84
11.40
12.09
10.19
16.12
11.25
10.87

time, deformation of gauges, displacements in LVDT and temperature in thermocouples. The screen of the other computer showed
different graphs, which reflected, in real time, the load values per
shore, the temperature in the concrete, the ambient temperature
and the deformation of the slabs. This equipment was installed in
a second building, located next to the test building.

Step

Stage of construction

Level

qmed (kN/m2 )

qmed /qservice

1
2

Casting level 1
Clearing level 1

Casting level 2

Clearing level 2

Striking level 1

Casting level 3

Clearing level 3

Load in level 3

Striking level 2

1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2

0.17
2.76
0.06
7.16
1.58
5.13
2.76
8.52
0.11
7.22
9.59
2.03
5.58
9.31
6.54
6.20
9.81
7.90
9.02

0.01
0.18
0.00
0.46
0.10
0.33
0.18
0.55
0.01
0.46
0.61
0.21
0.36
0.60
0.68
0.40
0.63
0.82
0.58

Table 4
Maximum vertical displacements of Level 2 floor slab from step 4 to step 9.

max (mm)

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

Step 8

Step 9

0.88

1.20

4.40

4.00

4.20

5.07

3.4. Laboratory tests

To assess the accuracy and so validate the use of the strain
gauges on the shores, 5 shores were tested under an axial
compression load to obtain the elasticity modulus of the steel of
each shore. No significant differences were found. The mean value
of the elasticity modulus was 213.02 GPa with a standard deviation
of 2.64 GPa (see Table 1).
Tests were performed on the concrete of each of the slabs in
order to evaluate the evolution of the compressive and tensile
strength, as well as elasticity modulus of specimens cured under
building site conditions. The specimens were made at the precise
moment the concrete of the slabs was poured. These specimens
were cured in exactly the same conditions as the concrete of the
slabs used on the building.
4. Results
4.1. Summary of the results
16905 readings were taken during the construction of the
building. The readings were taken every 5 s during the critical
stages of the test i.e. the clearing and the pouring of concrete of
the slabs. Additionally, readings were taken every 5 min in the
intermediate stages between those mentioned above.
Table 2 shows the results obtained in each of the stages of
construction. For each slab, the table shows:
(1) Average load per square metre (Qmed ) on the shores, obtained
as the sum of the loads of the instrumented shores, divided by
the total area of the instrumented slab.
(2) Maximum shore load (Pmax ) and its location (according to
Fig. 7).
Additionally, Table 3 shows:
(1) Average load per square metre (qmed ) on the slabs, obtained as
the difference between the self weight of the slab (in kN/m2 )
and the average load taken by the shoring (in kN/m2 ).

(2) Ratio between the average load on each slab (qmed ) and its
service load (qservice ). Values of qservice were 15.64 kN/m2 for
Levels 1 and 2, and 9.64 kN/m2 for Level 3.
Finally, Table 4 shows the maximum vertical displacements
(max ) of Level 2 measured by the corresponding LVDTs during the
building construction process.
4.2. Distribution of loads on shores
Loads on the shores after casting should be, theoretically,
related to the tributary area of each shore because the slabs do
not have any stiffness at the time of their casting. However, real
site conditions make that not all the shores are equally fitted to
their corresponding upper and bottom slabs and, therefore, some
differences appear between the expected and the real distribution
of loads on the shores. Real loads on the shores after slab casting
are shown in Figs. 9(a), 10(a) and 11(a) using isolines.
Loads on the shores after clearing are shown in Figs. 9(b), 10(b)
and 11(b). These figures demonstrate that clearing produces a
redistribution of the loads: part of the loads are taken by the slabs
and the rest by the remaining shores. Loads in the individual shores
remaining after clearing increase, but the total load taken by the
shoring after clearing is lower than the total load taken by the
shoring before clearing (see Table 2).
4.3. Analysis of the results
From the Qmed values included in Table 1, it is clear that, when
each slab is poured, the total load is transmitted to the shores. For
example, when slab 1 was poured, the Qmed was 5.46 kN/m2 . This
value only differed by 3% from the theoretical self-weight of the
slab (5.64 kN/m2 ). Similarly, the Qmed registered during pouring of

2138

Y.A. Alvarado et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21322140

Fig. 9. Isolines of loads on shores (kN). (a) Casting of Level 1; (b) Clearing of Level 1.

Fig. 10. Isolines of loads on shores (kN). (a) Casting of Level 2; (b) Clearing of Level 2.

slab 2 was 5.60 kN/m2 , differing less than 1% from the theoretical
self-weight of the slab. Furthermore, the Qmed measurement on
pouring slab 3 was 5.50 kN/m2 . This value differed by 2% from its
theoretical self-weight. This gives a clear idea of the accuracy of the
readings obtained during the test.
Tables 2 and 3 show how clearing produces a redistribution
of the loads acting on the shoring and on the floor slabs, the
slabs taking an important part of the loads that were previously
supported by the shoring. Specifically:

in relation to its self-weight and the shores took on 51% of this

load.
(2) On clearing the second slab, with the first slab supporting the
shores, the second slab took on 28% of the load in relation to its
self-weight and the shores took on 72% of this load.
(3) Finally, on clearing the third slab, with the second slab
supporting the shores, the third slab took on 36% of the load
in relation to its self-weight and the shores took on 64% of this
load.

(1) Once clearing of the first slab was completed, with the shores
supported by the foundation, the slab assumed 49% of the load

Table 3 shows, for each floor slab, the ratio between the loads
supported at each stage of the construction process and the service

Y.A. Alvarado et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21322140

2139

Fig. 11. Isolines of loads on shores (kN). (a) Casting of Level 3; (b) Clearing of Level 3.

load. This ratio is always lower than one. Therefore, loads acting on
the slabs during the construction process were never bigger than
their corresponding service loads. Specifically, maximum loads due
to the construction process in Level 1, 2 and 3 floor slabs, were
of 63%, 58% and 82% of their respective service loads. Maximum
loading during construction occurred:
(1) For the first floor slab, when an additional load was applied on
the Level 3 (step 8 described in Section 3.1).
(2) For the second and third floor slabs, when Level 2 was struck
(step 9 described in Section 3.1).
Maximum vertical displacement (max ) of Level 2 was 5.07 mm
(see Table 4). It was measured when this slab was struck. This value
represents a 70% of the maximum elastic displacement of this slab
under service loads obtained with a finite element analysis of the
structure [18]. Hence, no damaging displacement appeared in the
slab due to clearing.
Table 5 shows a comparison between the loading coefficients
obtained in each stage during the construction of the building
and coefficients proposed in other research [9,11,12]. The first
loading coefficient (Cmax ) corresponds to the ratio between the load
taken by the most heavily loaded shore (Pmax ) and the estimated
weight of its slab tributary area. The second loading coefficient
(C ) corresponds to the ratio between the total measured load on
the shores and the estimated self-weight of the slab they support.
For comparative purposes, the loading coefficients proposed by
Grundy and Kabaila (CmG&K ) [9], Duan and Chen, (CmD&C ) [11] and
Moragues et al., (CmM ) [12] are also shown. It is noteworthy that:
(1) The improved simplified method by Duan and Chen [11]
enables clearing to be considered by reducing shores stiffness
properly,
(2) The coefficients proposed by Moragues et al. [12] consider the
clearing stage and the real stiffness of the slabs and shores.
The simplified method of Grundy and Kabaila [9] does not
consider the intermediate clearing stage. However, it is so
widely used [25], which it is interesting to compare the loading
coefficients it proposes with those obtained from experimental
study.

Table 5
Experimental loading coefficients (Cmax ) and (C ), versus coefficients given by
Grundy and Kabaila (CmG&K ) [9], Duan and Chen, (CmD&C ) [11] and Moragues et al.,
(CmM ) [12].
Step

Level

Cmax

CmG&K

CmD&C

CmM

1
2

1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3

1.20
0.80
1.34
1.12
1.09
1.01
0.69
1.38
1.00
1.22
0.89
1.62
0.99
1.10

0.97
0.51
0.99
0.72
0.72
0.81
0.51
0.98
0.70
0.64
0.65
0.84
0.74
0.60

1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
0.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.66
0.83
1.25

1.00
0.61
1.00
1.21
0.55
0.94
0.19
1.00
0.57
0.47
0.36
0.92
0.53
0.71

1.00
0.67
1.00
1.14
0.67
1.06
0.33
1.00
0.63
0.70
0.60
1.08
0.75
0.71

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

As can be observed in Table 5, there is a great difference

between the maximum and average loading coefficients. This is
basically due to the fact that the load on each of the shores depends
on its position in the slab and the corresponding tributary area,
which means that different loading values are produced on each
of the shores.
The estimations made by Grundy and Kabailas method [9]
cannot be accepted since they do not consider the intermediate
clearing stage. In this stage there is a clear spread of the loads,
resulting in the slabs taking on part of their self-weight and the
loads found on them.
The simplified method by Duan and Chen [11] provides either
conservative or unsafe values depending on the construction
stage considered. As it enables the stiffness of the shores to be
considered, it reflects the load transfer associated to the clearing
operation.
The coefficients proposed by Moragues et al. [12] in most of
the cases are conservative. Their method does reflect important
load transfer from the shores to the slabs produced by the clearing
process. However, in the striking stage of the first slab, the
loading coefficient underestimates the loads measured on the

2140

Y.A. Alvarado et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 21322140

shores between slabs 1 and 2. Furthermore, with regard to the

maximum load, in some of the stages, the value of the maximum
load measured experimentally is also underestimated.
5. Conclusions and future work
This paper presents the results of an experimental study designed to analyse the transmission of loads during the construction
of cast in place RC floor slabs. The experiment involved the construction of a full-scale 3-storey building.
During the stages of shoring and striking, an intermediate
stage known as clearing was added. This involved removing
the formwork and 50% of the shores so that the slab would
assimilate part of its self-weight and the live loads present on it.
This operation reduces the use of shores, formwork boards and
straining pieces, with the consequent cost saving for the building
work that this entails.
Study of the average load on the shores shows that, due
to clearing, floor slabs take a load representing an important
percentage of their self-weight. The simplified methods normally
used for evaluating loads on shores during the process of shoring
and striking do not enable this reduction to be evaluated.
Further research work will be focused on determining the
influence of environmental effects (temperature, humidity) on
the distribution of loads among floor slabs and shoring systems
during construction process. The importance of this effect has been
addressed by previous work from Azkune et al. [26].
Acknowledgements
The authors would like express their gratitude to the Spanish
Ministry for Science and Technology for funding the project
(BIA2004-02085) as well as to the companies Alsina Formworks,
Copasa, Lafarge, and Ros Casares.
References
[1] Asociacin de Empresas Constructoras de mbito Nacional. Informe Anual de
la Construccin 2006. Madrid; 2006 [in Spanish].
[2] ENV 1992-1-1 (Eurocode No. 2). Design of concrete structures. Part 1: General
rules and rules for buildings. 1991.
[3] CEB-FIB Model Code 90. Laussane; 1991.

[4] ACI committee 347 guide to formwork for concrete (ACI 347-2). Detroit:
American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[5] Kaminetzky D, Stivaros P. Early-age concrete: Construction loads, behavior,
and failures. Concr Int 1994;16(1):5863.
[6] Kaminetzky D. Design and construction failures: Lessons from forensic
investigations. New York: MacGraw-Hill; 1991.
[7] Epaarachchi D, Stewart M, Rosowsky D. Structural reliability of multistory
buildings during construction. J Struct Eng 2002;128(2):20513.
[8] Nielsen K. Loads on reinforced concrete floor slabs and their deformations
during construction. Final report, 15. Stockholm: Swedish Cement and
Concrete Research Institute. Royal Institute of Technology; 1952.
[9] Grundy P, Kabaila A. Construction loads on slabs with shored formwork in
multistory buildings. ACI J Proc 1963;60(12):172938.
[10] Mosallam KH, Chen WF. Determining shoring loads for reinforced concrete
construction. ACI Struct J 1991;88(3):34050.
[11] Duan MZ, Chen WF. Improved simplified method for slab and shore load
analysis during construction. Project report CE-STR-95-24, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Ind.
[12] Moragues JJ, Catal J, Pellicer E. An analysis of concrete framed structures
during the construction process. ACI Concr Int 1996;18(11):448.
[13] Liu XL, Chen WF, Bowman MD. Construction load analysis for concrete
structures. J Struct Eng 1985;111(5):101936.
[14] Stivaros PC, Halvorsen GT. Shoring/reshoring operations for multistory
buildings. ACI Struct J 1990;87(5):58996.
[15] Mossallam KH, Chen WF. Determining shoring loads for reinforced concrete
construction. ACI Struct J 1991;88(3):34050.
[16] El-Shahhat M, Chen WF. Improved analysis of shoreslab interaction. ACI
Struct J 1992;89(50):52837.
[17] Fang DP, Zhu HY, Geng CD, Liu XL. Structural analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings during construction. ACI Struct J 2001;98(2):14956.
[18] Alvarado Y. Numerical study of construction process of concrete framed
structures using the clearing of shores. Internal Report ref. 1940/65. 01/2007.
Technical University of Valencia.
[19] Agarwall RK, Gardner NJ. Form and shore requirements for multistory flat slab
type buildings. ACI J Proc 1975;71(11):55969.
[20] Moragues JJ, Catal J, Salort V, Sirvent PL. Transmisin de cargas entre forjados,
durante el proceso constructivo: Medidas realizadas en obra. Hormign y
Acero 1991. p. 179.
[21] Fang DP, Zhu HY, Geng CD, Liu XL. On-site measurements of structural
characteristics of reinforced concrete buildings during construction. ACI Struct
J 2001;98(2):15763.
[22] Puente I, Azkune M, Insausti A. Shoreslab interaction in multistory reinforced
concrete buildings during construction: An experimental approach. Eng Struct
2007;29(5):73141.
[23] Taylor PJ. Effects of formwork stripping time on deflections of flat slabs and
plates. Aust Civil Eng Constr 1967;8(2):315.
[24] ENV 1991-1-1 (Eurocode No. 1). Actions on structures. Part 1-1: General
actions Densities self-weight, imposed loads for buildings. 1991.
[25] Calavera J. Clculo, construccin, patologa y rehabilitacin de forjados de
edificacin, Intemac. 2002 [in Spanish].
[26] Azkune M, Puente I, Insausti A. Effect of ambient temperature on the
redistribution of loads during construction of multi-storey concrete structures.
Eng Struct 2007;29(6):93341.