Flat Slab Formwork & Falsework

Strike Early with PER1
fa Isew0r k syst e ms
PER1 offers a complete range of
products suitable for all forms of
slab construction:
SKYDECK - The fastest system
for flat slabs
0
SKYDECK - lightweight slab system
Tableform -with lifting C-Hook
0
0
0
0
SKYDECK - easy erection
lightweight construction
improves productivity
MULTIPROP the most versatik

slab system
0
SKYDECK - finished slab and backpropping
easy to use modular design

saves labour
patented drophead permits
next day striking
fast turnaround reduces
material quantities
Prop
tower
table
high load capacity saves material
lightweight one piece leg
reduces labour
self-cleaning thread for ease of
maintenance
Health & Safety

0
edge protection solutions
trolleys for easy horizontal

move ment
'C' Hooks for lifting

full technical documentation
Labour-saving, high
performance slab construction
PER1 Ltd.
Formwork & Scaffolding
Market Harborough Road
Clifton upon Dunsmore
Rugby, CV23 OAN
Tel: 01788 861600
Fax: 01788 861610
www.peri.ltd.uk
.
MULl IPROP - tables and re-propping
~
Offices also at Dartford, Glasgow and Leeds
BYRNE BROS. (FORMWORK) LTD

A MEMBER OF THE BYRNE GROUP PLC
Our speciality is
0 C Q ~ CFrame
P ~ CQUIS~~UC~~QRI
~
We have:
Experienced Staff
Good Management
Innovative Approach
Forming Concrete Relationships
Value Engineering
Commitment to Cost and Programme
and
13/15 WHITE HART LANE
LONDON SW13 OPX
TEL: 020 8878 9161
FAX: 020 8878 3848
Email: infoQ byrne-bros.co.uk
Web: www.byrne-bros.co.uk
Sauisfi@dCOieUnUs
including
BR[E for the @NdiU'IlpPQUI

SeW@UT-SflQP@y
FPaiI'E
Titan aluminium support system

OTitan M large panel systems
OTitan aluminium decking
0 Climbtrac formwork system
0 Adjustable column shutters
0 Outinord tunnel forms
oTie rods and ancillaries
0 Formwork design and detail
0 Injection anchors
OTrenching support
a,
7-,?-3fU--*p-
F-
Certificate
No FS 23547
L_
3
N
2
c
m
A
Build on formwork expertise
doku
I
I
The Formwork Experts
Doka UK
Doka UK
Doka Ireland
Formwork Technologies Ltd.
Boughton Monchelsea
Hatton Street, Bilston
Monasterboice, Drogheda
Maidstone, Kent, ME17 4JD
West Midlands, WV14 OTH
County Louth, Ireland
Tel.: 01622 749 050, Fax: 01622 749 033
Tel.: 01902 409 766, Fax: 01902 409 706
Tel.: 041 686 1620, Fax: 041 686 1525
E-Mail: UK@doka.com
E-Mail: Ireland@doka.com
Internet: http:llwww.doka.com
Please see our web-site for a comvlete list of Doka addresses
'
I i
;'I
1; I
E-2 DECKS71 kN per leg Capacity

results in fewer parts per tower
and fewer towers for the job.
Efficiency Plus1
E 3~ ! aAi E*i?
~
Bakewell offlce:
Riverside Works
Ph 0 1933-276775
Fax 0 1933-276734
www.efco-usaxom
I
Ph 01629-815232
Fax 01629-815241
eI
ffmm rmd kwikform

Alshor Plus is new.
m-&mm&
w m - m
0 Super Slim Soldierse
-&-@&&@
0 Albeam, Alform @ Alsec
mm&m@&&
0 Paraslim& Webtie
0 Concrete consumabler.
Like to know more..?
C&&m
@i!&ilB www.rmdkwikform.com
f&@Q&l@&Lg(gb-mm
lk&I~mm+rlo
(0)1922 743743~0
~1info@rmdkwikform.com
ChechOiisU ffou eredimg amd
disnonamU06nngffIos@wo!&
A pocket-sized aide memoire for supervisors,
chargehands and engineers, covering most
forms of falsework for in-situ and precast
concrete in building and civil engineering
work. Concise, practical guidance on safe
site operations.
Ref: CS 123.
ChWkOfiSQffou ISS@UijUbbnMSE I d
sUdhCmg off ffomwo&

This companion to the popular Falsework
checklist ((3123) provides over 200 key
Points relating to the actual sequence of
on site: preparations, materials, foundation,
assembly and erection, inspection, loading,
striking and dismantling.
Ref: CS 144.
The Concrete Bookshop, Century House, Telford Avenue,
Tel: +44(0) 1344 725704, Fax: +44(0) 1344 727202, Email:
Fomwo!& I
guniide to good
I]pradiic@
This definitive
source of
information and
guidance on
design and use
of formwork
brings together
..
...
Guide to Flat Slab

Formwork and Falsework
concrete structures group

CONSTRUCT is an association of member companies dedicated to the task
of improving the construction efficiency of in-situ concrete frames and
associated structures. The membership focuses on Specialist Concrete Frame
Contractors, supported by other associated market leaders especially in the
formwork, reinforcement and concrete industries.
The aims and objectives of CONSTRUCT are to:
promote excellence in the design and construction of reinforced concrete
frames and structures
identify and address issues which impede best practice and buildability
actively work with clients, designers and others in the project team
to maximise benefits in speed and economy during the design and
construction of in-situ concrete frames and structures
promote innovation in the use of concrete in reinforced concrete frames
and structures
co-ordinate the views of CONSTRUCT members and to act in their interest
promote and encourage training and education initiatives
For further information contact:

Colin Cleverly, Executive Secretary, CONSTRUCT,
Century House, Telford Avenue, Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 6YS, UK
Tel: 01344 725744, Fax: 01344 772426,
E-mail: enquiries@construct.org.uk,www.construct.org.uk
Guide to Flat Slab

Eur I n g P. F. Pallett BSc CEng FICE FCS
Ternporary Works ConsuItant
This Guide is the result of a collaborative Partners in Technology programme

between CONSTRUCT (Concrete Structures Group), the University of Birmingham,
the University of Leeds and the Building Research Establishment. The research
study of the construction of the seven-storey in situ European Concrete Building
Project has informed this Guide.
Published by The Concrete Society on behalf of CONSTRUCT
concrete s ~ ~ u c t ~ r e s
Keywords
Formwork, Falsework, Striking, Backpropping, Building, Best practice, Concrete structures, Floors, Flat slabs, Loading,
Safety, Concept selection, Strength assessment
Reader interest
Classification
Building clients, developers, permanent works

and temporary works design engineers, frame constructors technical and supervisory staff, planning
supervisors, proprietary equipment suppliers and
main contractors involved in building.
Availability
Content
Status
User
Unrestricted
Best practice guidance
Committee guided
Clients, developers, engineers and building constructors
Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and Falsework
ISBN 0 946691 90 8
Order Reference CS 140
0CONSTRUCT Concrete Structures Group 2003

Published by The Concrete Society on behalf of CONSTRUCT, Concrete Structures Group
The Concrete Society, Century House, Telford Avenue, Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 6YS, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1344 466007, Email: enquiries@concrete.0rg.uk, www.concrete,org.uk
Further copies may be obtained from The Concrete Bookshop. Email: enquiries@concretebookshop.com
www.concretebookshop.com
All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied,
stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or
reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries
should be addressed to The Concrete Society.
Although The Concrete Society (limited by guarantee) does its best to ensure that any advice, recommendations or information it may give either in this publication or elsewhere is accurate, .no liability or
responsibility of any kind (including liability for negligence) howsoever and from whatsoever cause arising,
is accepted in this respect by the Society, its servants or agents.
Summary and Foreword
Summary
Formwork and falsework play a significant part in the overall benefits achievable in the
construction of in situ concrete buildings. Process control and an improved understanding of
temporary works by designers, constructors and suppliers have been identified from research as
crucial to successful design, leading to safe completion of flat slab concrete buildings. Many of the
principles apply to other forms of construction.
Detailed information and guidance for all members of the construction team is given in this Guide
to enable improved designs and construction techniques to be adopted, thus promoting more
efficient and economic construction of commercial concrete buildings. The Guide has been
structured to aid readability, and follows the stages of construction.
New principles for the early striking of flat slabs in buildings are introduced, together with recommended methods of assessing concrete strength. The relative arrangement of falsework and
backpropping has a significant effect on the force transmitted through the supporting slab into the
backpropping. Four methods of assessing backpropping loads are presented in order to help
designers and constructors to plan efficient construction schemes. One of these is in the form of a
spreadsheet, which is included on a CD ROM.
Theoretically, construction loads can exceed the design service load on newly cast slabs, and the
Guide makes proposals so that permanent works designers can investigate and take appropriate
action.
This Guide should lead to the quicker, safer construction of buildings and provide longer term
economic benefits to the industry, to constructors and ultimately to clients. It should be of interest
to all those in the construction team.
Foreword
This Guide is a consensus view developed during the construction of the seven-storey in situ
concrete building for the European Concrete Building Project by the multi-disciplinary team of
consultants, contractors, researchers and specialist suppliers involved with the project. Construction took place between January and May 1998 inside Hangar No. 2 at the Building Research
Establishments Laboratory, Cardington, Bedfordshire. The project was part of a major collaborative programme between BRE, CONSTRUCT, BCA, Reinforced Concrete Council and others,
with considerable assistance from industry.
The author of this Guide was employed by CONSTRUCT (the Concrete Structures Group) and the
University of Birmingham. The work reported herein was carried out under a Contract jointly
funded by CONSTRUCT and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions (now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry) placed in March 1998. Any views
expressed are not necessarily those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
vii
ing Group
The Guide was prepared under the guidance of a steering group:
Eur. Ing. P. F. Pallett (Chairman)
Temporary Works Consultant
Professor A. W. Beeby
P. Campbell
Professor L. A. Clark
C. T. Cleverly (Secretary)
J. E. C. Franklin
C. Goodchild
C. F. Heathcote
Rev. M. James
S. Lillie
J. J. A. Maw
Dr R. Moss
Eur. Ing. T. Pope
D. Smith
D. A. B. Thomas
T. S. Viney
R. T. Ward
University of Leeds
CONSTRUCT
University of Birmingham
CONSTRUCT
Kwikform UK Ltd
Reinforced Concrete Council
PERI Ltd
Malcolm James Consultancy
Byrne Brothers Ltd
J.J.A. Maw Consultants
Building Research Establishment
PERI Ltd
Ischebeck Titan Ltd
Health and Safety Executive, Technology Division
Hanson Birchwood
Consultant
Corresponding Members:
J. N. Clarke
V. R. Dunham
S. Ferguson
D. S. Lazarus
Professor A. E. Long
Eur. Ing. Dr W. F. Price
Dr M. N. Soutsos
C. J. Wilshere OBE
viii
The Concrete Society

Peter Brett Associates
Syntech Consulting Engineers, Perth, Australia
Ove Arup & Partners
The Queen's University of Belfast'
Sandberg (now Lafarge Cement UK)
University of Liverpool
Consultant
ontent
Summary
Foreword
Steering group
List of figures
List of tables
List of equations
Abbreviations
Definitions
vii
vii
...
v111
xii
xii
1 . .
Xlll
...
Xlll
xiv
Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pre-contract stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General - building design considerations
Loading considerations - permanent structure
Slab thickness
Column and wall kickers
Staircases
Trimming of holes
Effect of concrete type on temporary works
Temporary works concept selection
Types of temporary works for in situ flat slab construction
3.9.1 Individual props and beams, with proprietary panels or plywood
as formwork
3.9.2 Steel skeletal systems, with beams and plywood as formwork
3.9.3 Table systems
3.9.4 Flying form systems
3.9.5 Precast concrete planks (participating)
3.9.6 Permanent concrete planks (non-participating)
3.10 External protection and enclosure considerations
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Preconstruction planning stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Management of the temporary works
The temporary works design brief
4.2.1 Individual props and beams, with proprietary panels or plywood
as formwork
4.2.2 Table systems
4.2.5 Permanent concrete planks (non-participating)
Loading during construction
Procurement of temporary works
4.4.1 General
4.4.2 Working platforms and edge protection
4.4.3 Edge distance of standards
4.4.4 Column forms - lifting, access and stability
4.4.5 Level adjustment of head jacks, base jacks and props
4.4.6 Length of formwork beams
4.4.7 Implications of changes
Permit to load and permit to strike
Sequence of work
Striking - planning considerations
Method statements
6
7
9
9
11
12
12
13
14
18
21
22
24
28
30
36
37
39
39
ix
Contents
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
Construction stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Background to striking and backpropping . . . . . . . . .

General
Philosophy for loading and striking flat slabs
Deflection of slabs struck at early age
Assessment of concrete strength at early age
Backpropping
6.5.1 General
6.5.2 Backpropping assumptions
6.5.3 Loads in backprops
6.5.4 Sequence and installation procedure for backpropping
Loading a slab to above the design service load
6.6.1 Introduction
6.6.2 Proposals
6.6.3 Effects of proposals
6.6.4 Alternative measures
6.6
..
. 41
42
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
General
Material handling
Loading-out platforms
Temporary works to columns
Temporary works to walls and lift shafts
Temporary works to slabs
Temporary works to precast slabs
Cranage
Implications of changes
50
. .
51
52
54
56
57
60
72
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
application . . . . . . . . . .
General
Method to establish required concrete strength
No backpropping required
One level of backpropping
Two levels of backpropping
Sequence of striking soffit formwork
Sequence of installing and removal of backpropping
Accidental overloading of slabs
. . . . . . . 77
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
09
93
Striking and backpropping
77
81
82
82
83
85
86
88
Annexes
Annex A
AI
A2
A3
A4
A5
- The Cardington Project
. .
. . .
. . . .
. .
. .
93
94
94
96
96
Construction
Equipment for Floors 1 and 2 - Props and timber beams
Equipment for Floors 3 and 4 - Ischebeck Titan Ltd
Equipment for Floors 5 and 6 - Kwikstage Shoring 55
Floor 7 - Birchwood Omnia Ltd - Precast plank and Densit
Annex B
- Temporary works design checklist .
. .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
Annex C - Comparison of load transferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
100
Annex D Worked example of striking and backpropping to

second floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
D1
D2
D3
D4
General
Loadings
To establish the criteria for striking
Further considerations - strength assessment
101
101
102
103
Contents
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
D11
D12
D 13
D14
103
104
104
104
105
106
106
107
Second floor - Backpropping considerations for falsework erection

Second floor - Backpropping considerations for casting the third floor
Method One - Backprop loads by use of percentages of load
Method Three - Backprops loads by use of further simplified formulae
Method Four - Backprop loads from spreadsheet
Discussion
Second floor - Pre-load of backprops and allowance for cracking
Second floor - Discussion on loading to above the service load
Second floor - Backpropping considerations for accidental overloading
Fourth floor - Distributed load from falsework
108
108
Annex E Theory of loading a slab to above the design service

load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
. . . . . . 109
109
Introduction
Theory: base criteria
Loads
E3.1 Load factors: independent loads
E3.2 Load duration
E3.3 Load allowances
E3.4 Temporary load patterns
E3.5 Loads: self-weight of formwork and falsework
E3.6 Pre-loads in back props
E3.7 Load combination factors
Deflection: Serviceability Limit State
Collapse: Ultimate Limit State
E5.1 Bending
E5.2 Shear
E5.3 Bond
E5.4 Load factors: temporary nature of load
E5.5 Material factors of safety
109
110
111
113
Annex F Backpropping spreadsheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

118
F 1 Conditions of use
F2
F3
F4
Annex G
G1
G2
G3
118
Spreadsheet liability
Introduction
Operation of the Excel spreadsheet
Worked examples
- Allowance for cracking in spreadsheet. .
119
119
130
. .
. .
. .
The distribution coefficient

Ratio of curvature
Effective deflection factor (FJ
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CD ROM containing Backpropping spreadsheet (CPR0P.XLS)
. . . . .
. 140
140
140
140
. . . . 142
inside back cover
Xi
FiQures and tables
List 0%figuues
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 2 1
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure A 1
Figure A2
Figure A3
Figure D1
Figure D2
Figure El
Figure E2
Figure F1
Floor four of the ECBP under construction. (page 1)

Typical temporary works management flow diagram. (page S)
Typical kickers to perimeter columns. (page 10)
Isometric view of possible staircase construction. (page 12)
Typical individual props and proprietary beams. (page 14)
Typical arrangement with steel skeletal system. (page 15)
Typical aluminium frame table with decking. (page 16)
Typical aluminium table with precast plank system. (page 18)
Typical section at edge of slab. (page 32)
Typical loading-out platforms in use. (page 43)
Plan of column form at corner and edge of building. (page 45)
Typical plan arrangements of formwork to a lift shaft. (page 45)
Typical precast block for wall kicker. (page 46)
Effect on deflected shape of different backpropping positions. (page 65)
Diagrammatic representation of backpropping of suspended slabs. (page 68)
Extent of theoretical overloading of flat slabs due to concreting operations above. (page 75)
Proposal 2a: fJ, required to satisfy Equation 2 at SLS. (page 75)
Proposal 2a: wln,,, should be less than Pbto satisfy Equation 13 at SLS. (page 75)
Proposal 2b: nln,,, should be less than 1.O to satisfy Equation 14. (page 76)
Flowchart for striking flat slabs in buildings. (page 79)
Flowchart for backpropping flat slabs in buildings. (page 80)
Graph of ratio of loading to concrete strength factor. (page 81)
No backpropping. (page 82)
Backpropping one level. (page 83)
Backpropping two levels. (page 84)
Sequence of striking flat slabs. (page 85)
Typical backpropping layout planning chart from ECBP. (page 87)
View of completed building. (page 93)
Typical cross section of ECBP. (page 95)
Plan of building. (page 95)
Situation after striking second floor. (page 102)
Backpropping one-level. (page 106)
Typical ultimate bending moment capacity graph for a C28/35 concrete. (page 114)
Typical ultimate shear capacity of a C28/35 concrete. (page 114)
Diagrammatic representation of backpropping. (page 119)
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table C1
Table El
Table E2
Table E3
Table F 1
Summary of concrete strength assessment methods for early striking. (page 60)
Effect of falsework and backpropping locations. (page 64)
Method One - percentage of load distribution from temporary works loads. (page 68)
Checklist for striking and backpropping procedures. (page 78)
Percentage of load distribution from temporary works loads. (page 100)
Loads and combination factors at serviceability limit state (SLS). (page 112)
Loads and combination factors at ultimate limit state (ULS). (page 112)
Values of material partial safety factor ym at ultimate limit state (ULS). (page 116)
Schedule of sample A4 outputs from spreadsheet. (page 129)
xii
Equations and abbreviations
Sd eqUathl
Note: Page numbers refer to the first page on which an equation appears.
Some equations are repeated at appropriate points in the text.
Equation I
Equation 2
Equation 3
Equation 4
Equation 5
Equation 6
Equation 7
Equation 8
Equation 9
Equation 10
Equation 11
Equation 12
Equation 13
Equation 14
Equation 15
Equation 16
Equation 17
Equation 18
Equation 19
Equation 20
Equation 2 1
Equation 22
Equation 23
Equation 24
Equation 25
Equation 26
Equation 27
Equation 28
Equations 29-33
Loading factor criterion (page 54)

Cracking factor criterion (page 54)
Effective deflection factor criterion (page 54)
Loading factor defined (page 55)
Cracking factor defined (page 55)
Striking criteria for crack width control (page 55)
Concrete strength factor (page 56)
Minimum characteristic concrete strength (page 56)
Change in prop length (page 63)
Added load versus spare capacity (Method One) (page 65)
Load in backprops for one level of backprops (Method Two) (page 68)
Load in first layer backprops for two levels of backprops (Method Two) (page 69)
Load in lower layer backprops for two levels of backprops (Method Two) (page 69)
Load in backprops for one level of backprops (Method Three) (page 69)
Load in first layer backprops for two levels of backprops (Method Three) (page 69)
Load in lower layer backprops for two levels of backprops (Method Three) (page 69)
Ratio of unfactored construction load to ultimate design load (page 73)
Ratio of ultimate construction load to ultimate design load (page 74)
Minimum required characteristic concrete strength at time of striking (page 81)
Combination factors for ultimate loads at rare load case (page 110)
Alternative combination factors for ultimate loads at rare load case (page 110)
Combination factors for ultimate loads at frequent load case (page 110)
Alternative combination factors for ultimate loads at frequent load case (page 110)
Partial safety factor for temporary nature of load (page 115)
Material partial safety factor (page 116)
Effective deflection coefficient (puge 126)
Effective modulus of elasticity for varying slab thicknesses (page 128)
Distribution coefficient (page 140)
Calculation of effective deflection coefficient (page 141)
Abbreviations
BCA
BRE
BS
CXdYY
CDM
C(HSW)
ClRlA
CONSTRUCT
DETR
ECBP
HSE
HSW
LOLER
NSCS
PIT
PWD
SLS
TMC
TW
TWC
TWD
ULS
British Cement Association

Building Research Establishment
British Standard
grade of concrete (cylinder strength/ cube strength)
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994
Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996
Construction Industry Research and Information Association
Concrete Structures Group
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (now DTi)
European Concrete Building Project
Health and Safety Executive
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998
National Structural Concrete Specification for Building Structures
Partners in Technology (Scheme of the DETR, now DTi)
permanent works designer
serviceability limit state
temperature-matched curing
temporary works
temporary works co-ordinator
temporary works designer
ultimate limit state
xiii
Definitions
Definitions
Backpropping: Propping installed at levels below the slab that supports the falsework in order to
distribute the load on the uppermost slab to suitable supports, such as lower slabs or to the foundations. Backprops can be required at more than one level. (In some parts of the world,
backpropping is called re-shoring.)
Constructor: Any organisation carrying out construction operations on a site.
Falsework: Any temporary structure used to support the permanent structure until it can support
itself.
Flat slab: A floor slab with or without drops and supported, generally without beams, by columns
preferably without column heads. It may be solid or may have recesses formed on the sofit so that
the soffit comprises a series of ribs in one or two directions (i.e. a waffle or coffered slab).
Formwork: A structure, usually temporary, for containing poured concrete, moulding it to the
required dimensions and supporting it until it is able to support itself. It consists primarily of face
contact material and the bearers directly supporting the face contact material.
Post-propping: Temporary propping installed after placing permanent formwork prior to steel
fixing and concreting, where the permanent formwork will carry its own weight and the construction loads, but the load from the in situ concrete is carried by the post-propping.
Repropping: The system used during construction in which the supports to a recently cast slab are
removed and replaced in a planned sequence.
Supporting slab: The suspended floor slab immediately below the floor slab under construction.
The sofit formwork and falsework for the next slab above will be erected on this slab.
Temporary works: A structure used in the construction of the permanent structure. It is usually
removed on completion.
Temporary works co-ordinator: The person appointed to have overall responsibility for the
technical and procedural aspects of the design, procurement, erection and use of the formwork,
falsework and scaffolding.
Flat slabs have no

supporting beams
or drop heads
This Guide covers the procedural and technical aspects of the formwork, falsework and striking
operations involved in flat slab in situ concrete construction in the UK. Flat slabs are considered as
slabs with a flush soffit that may incorporate beam strips within their depth and are one- or
two-way spanning. They are without supporting beams or drop heads. The Guide is, however,
applicable to flat slabs with downstand beams along their edges, and many of the principles
discussed will be applicable to other types of construction.
Figure 1: Floor four of the ECBP under construction.
Scope
The Guide will principally be of interest to those in, the building industry involved in the
construction of in situ reinforced concrete slabs of all sizes for single and multi-storey construction.
By following the construction process, from concept by the client, through to construction, it will
assist all members of the construction team. Guidance is given on the application of the
Construction, Design and Management (CDM) Regulations, design (including consideration of
loading slabs above their design load), general imposed loads and construction details.
Interest to those in
the building industry
constructing in situ RC
and precast slabs for
single and multi-storey
buildings
Topics covered include temporary works management, approvals, edge protection, working platforms,
temporary cladding and enclosures. Improved understanding of the process will reduce construction
time and lead to safer, more economic use of in situ and precast slabs in building construction.
An important feature of the Guide is an improved method and understanding of backpropping and
striking. The formwork construction methods described are state-of-the-art for single and multistorey construction, but, in some cases, particularly in high-rise construction, the methods used may
be inefficient andor uneconomic but be viable in the light of other considerations.
Methods stated may be

inefficient and uneconomic
The findings in this Guide are based on the study of the seven-storey in situ concrete frame building
built as part of the European Concrete Building Project (ECBP) at the BRE Laboratory, Cardington,
Bedfordshire between January and May 1998. (Refs 1 and 2 ) More details of the construction of
the ECBP are given in Annex A.
ECBP: see Annex A
2 Introduction
Recommendations - Introduction
1.
Construction safety and economy begins a t a buildings concept and design

stages, not on site.
2.
Designers, particularly Permanent Works Designers, should be made aware

that appropriate design decisions can optimise the temporary works. The
direct economic benefit for clients is that less expensive buildings can be built
more quickly, efficiently and safely.
3.
Temporary Works Co-ordinators should be appointed by the constructor, and

should be available a t an early stage of the construction process to provide
guidance to other members of the construction team.
This Guide should lead to the quicker, safer construction of buildings and provide longer term
economic benefits to the industry, to constructors and ultimately to clients. It should be of interest
to all those in the construction team.
Guide structured into
Sections by likely reader
The Guide has been structured to aid readability, and follows the stages of construction. For
example, clients will wish to concentrate on reading Chapters I to 4, but may not necessarily read
other sections in depth. Some important topics are repeated at different points, but with the
emphasis altered to suit the anticipated reader.
Safety and economy

begin at concept and
design stages
Construction safety and economy begin at a buildings concept and design stages, not on site; the
safe and effective use of site manpower is influenced not only by operatives competence and
supervision, but also by the quality and adequacy of the designs prepared - for both the permanent
structure, and the temporary works. The research at Cardington identified that it is within the
process not within the hardware (product) that opportunities for high performance will lie. Much
of the advice in this Guide is aimed at improving the process and identifying areas where change
will generate benefits.
PWDs influence on
temporary works
Encouraging designers, particularly Permanent Works Designers (PWDs) and their representatives,
to make appropriate design decisions that optimise the temporary works has direct economic advantages
for the client in producing less expensive buildings that can be built more quickly, efficiently and
safely. This approach promotes the recommendations of the Egan report (Ref. 3) for giving clients
better value and good engineering.
This document is not intended to impose restrictions on Permanent Works Designers, but temporary works have a significant influence on the final structure and its buildability. In particular,
PWDs are responsible for decisions that will affect the safety of constructors and users.
The constructor, of course, has a significant part to play in temporary works. A major recommendation of this Guide, in order to improve the process engineering, is to promote the responsibilities
that the constructor should take in managing the temporary works. The importance of the role of
the Temporary Works Co-ordinator (TWC) in managing the assembly, construction, striking, backpropping, and all the technical aspects of the temporary works cannot be overstated. Ideally the
TWC should be appointed by the constructor, and should be available at an early stage of the design
process to provide guidance to other members of the construction team.
One of the original concepts of the ECBP at Cardington, shown in Figure 1, under the main
proposal to the Partners in Technology scheme, was to assess the performance of the temporary
works (Task 2). The output from the research, although not as originally envisaged, provided
Introduction
meaningful information of use to the industry - in the circumstances it concentrated the researchers
on the smaller details so that future fast-track construction processes can be improved in design, in
procurement, and particularly in management procedures.
The research identified the important contribution that both the Permanent Works Designer and the
client make to the safety and economics of the temporary works. The CDM Regulations (Ref. 4.)
impose duties on all designers. Consideration of the temporary works and safety of all persons are
important issues for all members of the construction team.
Clients' influence on
temporary works
The importance of the Permanent Works Designer and Temporary Works Co-ordinator having an
understanding of the backpropping and striking requirements for flat slab construction is highlighted
in this Guide. It is likely that recent flat slab buildings which have low ratios of live load to dead
load have been stressed during construction above their service load. How this can be avoided in
practice is a major aspect of this document and is discussed in detail in Section 6.6 and Annex E.
PWD and TWC to

understand backpropping
and striking of flat slabs
Striking and backpropping are the subject of a separate BRE Report under Task 4 (Ref. 2). This Guide
discusses the criteria in detail in Chapter 6, and includes in Section 7.2 a new proposed method of
assessing the strength of a concrete slab during any construction operation. To assist readers, two
flowcharts, Figures 20 and 21, are included. The complexity of backpropping, with the various
options necessary for safe control and loading of flat slabs during construction, is detailed in Chapter
6, with four methods for calculating the backpropping loads. Annex D includes a worked example.
Consideration of loading
slabs during construction
The experiences gained from the ECBP indicate that there are advantages in considering complete
temporary enclosures for buildings under construction, although these may impose unacceptable
limitations on the concept of the temporary works.
Advantages in enclosure
of buildings
This Guide is not a design manual, but is intended to be complementary to the Concrete Society's
Formwork - a guide to goodpractice (Ref. 5) and to BS 5975 Code ofpracticefor falsework (Ref.
6). The ECBP was built using the first edition of the National Concrete Frame Specification, which
was revised in May 2000 with the title National structural concrete specijication for building
construction (Ref. 7).
Complementary
publications: Formwork Guide to good practice,
Code of practice on
falsework, NSCS
Most of the comments in this Guide relate to experiences from Cardington, and examples of the
positive and negative experiences are used to illustrate and inform the industry. To give the broader
view, comments from the Steering Group have been incorporated.
It is accepted that there are risks in projecting results from only a few studies to be accepted as
general practice. The ECBP structure was at or beyond the edge of current practice and therefore
the structural effects observed are greater than those encountered in normal practice. For example,
the proposed method of striking flat slabs from Task 4 has been confidently adopted for similar
structures within defined limits of type of structure, slab thickness, etc.
The arrangement of this Guide follows the stages in the construction process. Some items and
recommendations that are relevant at several stages are repeated and cross referenced. Recommendations are summarised at the start of each chapter.
The involvement and responsibilities of the client, PWD and TWC throughout the construction
process are summarised here:
Chapter 3 - Pre-contract stage - client and/or PWD involvement

The client and the PWD are involved in considering the basic layout and possible construction methods,
including initial layouts, loadings, slab sizes, column layouts, and safety issues by the designer.
Chapter 4 - Preconstruction planning stage - client, PWD and TWC involvement

The contract has been awarded and detailed planning and procurement starts. At this stage the TWC
and the PWD should establish the detailed concept, procurement, early striking criteria, method of
assessing concrete strengths, risk assessments, detailed method statements, etc.
Chapter 5 - Construction stage - TWC and PWD involvement

The TWC should be co-ordinating the suppliers, erectors and users of the temporary works.
Detailed procedures need to be established and monitored. Safety concerns are raised and actions
implemented; this may include backpropping procedures.
Risks in projecting results

from ECBP to industry
I ntraduction
Chapters 6 and 7 - Backpropping and striking the slabs - TWC and PWD involvement
Once a slab is cast, procedures for striking the formwork and falsework need careful consideration.
These may include requirements for backpropping. New methods of determining strength in situ
will save time without compromising safety or serviceability.
tract st
Recommendations 1.
Permanent Works Designers (PWDs) should consider the implications of

changes in the design of a structure on the economics of construction.
2.
Consideration should be given to the complete temporary enclosure of the

building during construction to improve productivity.
3.
Unless specified otherwise, the self-weight of reinforced concrete in flat slab

construction should be calculated using a specific weight of 24 kN/m3.
4.
Issues relating to the site boundary need to be addressed at tender stage.

For multi-storey construction, protection (edge fans or nets) around the entire
building will be required.
5.
Adequate edge protection should be provided for all operations, including

precast floor construction.
6. Reinforcement should be detailed to suit the method by which the structure is

to be built: the constructor should be involved in the detailing.
7.
Detailing of column reinforcement is important, particularly when reinforcement

couplers are to be used in kickers.
0.
Column kickers should be at least 100 mm high.
9. Kickerless construction is not recommended for perimeter columns.

10. Downstand beams should be avoided: for economic slab formwork, beam
strips within the slab depth are preferred.
11. Where upstand beams are used, such as to trim large openings, reinforcement
should be scheduled separately, not with the main slab. This facilitates precasting
the beams on site.
12. Stair flights can affect the temporary works and their design should be
carefully considered.
13. Precast stair flights should be carefully detailed and safety aspects of installation
considered by both the PWD and the TWC.
14. Precast stair flights should be planned for early erection during construction,
to facilitate access for operatives and staff to the working areas.
It is not intended that the PWD and the client should be limited by the constraints of the temporary
works, but the following design considerations for the permanent building are given in good faith,
based on ECBP experience. The comments are for consideration by the PWD and the client at the
early, and often critical, concept stage.
Where design and build or management contracting is envisaged for a project, the constructor
should be selected early to give technical temporary works advice to the PWD. The expertise of the
experienced frame contractor will help the PWD to make correct decisions.
3.2 Loading considerations
When designing large-span flat slabs with few columns, procedures during construction to avoid
overstressing the slabs are very important. This is discussed in detail in Section 6.6.
Constructor responsible
for construction
Designers to take account

of any temporary works
While the PWDs responsibilities may have been fulfilled during design in considering buildability
and carrying out the appropriate hazard identification and risk assessment, responsibility for construction remains with the constructor. Responsibility for permanent and temporary works design
and for constructing the building safely is clearly a requirement under the CDM Regulations (Ref. 4).
Clause 28 of the Approved Code of Practice to the Regulations states:
Designers need to understand how the structure can be constructed, cleaned and maintained safely.
This involves ensuring that the overall design takes full account of any temporary works, for example
falsework, which may be needed, no matter who is to develop these works.
A typical flow chart of temporary works procedures is shown in Figure 2. It is not exhaustive, as
site and contractual conditions will vary.
Pre-tender Health and

Safety Plan to be available
at tender stage
The PWD has a responsibility to ensure that the building can be constructed safely. Unusual or
critical aspects of the design, e.g. backpropping or striking procedures, should be identified in the
pre-tender Health and Safety Plan. This document should be made available at tender stage and will
enable tenderers to make an informed choice of construction technique. It is an important duty of
the Planning Supervisor to ensure the plan is complete, and includes items such as provision of
edge protection and other forms of protection. Although the PWD usually has little control over
how the building is actually built, and cannot be expected to be an expert in backpropping and
striking, the PWD has a responsibility to communicate information such as the rationale for the
design and descriptions of the works, and to ensure the overall safety of the construction. Communication on such matters as backpropping and striking at both tender and construction stages is
therefore important. The technical aspects of striking and compliance with the principles of striking
are discussed further in Chapter 6.
Ideally, provisions for safety at the early design stage should not just be for a safe working
environment, but should improve productivity on the project, and therefore be self-financing. This
Guide recommends that consideration be given to temporary enclosure of the structure and that
more research into the subject is carried out (see Section 3.10).
TR52
Consider the
column/precast
plank interface
Consideration of the surface finish to the soffit of the flat slab is outside the scope of this document.
Guidance on plain formed concrete finishes is given in Concrete Society Technical Report 52 (Ref. 8).
It is recommended that PWDs, when assessing precast alternatives to in situ construction, should
give more consideration at design stage to the column/plank interface and discuss the implications
with the relevant parties at contract stage. Early discussions with TWDs who have experience in
such matters, and who have design solutions, will provide further benefits to the client.
Permanent works designers should be more aware of the implications of changes in design of the
structure on the economics of Construction. For example, the introduction of a column near the
centre of one of the 7.5 m bays in the ECBP to support the staircase had the immediate effect of
making any table or flying form system inoperable. On a PWD re-design, the central column was
removed! Another example of the effect of the PWD on the selection of temporary works system
was the removal from the design of any cross-walls, and the insertion of temporary steel crossbracing. This bracing was not fixed to the level immediately below the slab being cast, which made
removing the falsework easier.
Detail reinforcement
to site procedures
Ideally, reinforcement should be detailed to suit the method of construction, and thus the
constructor should be involved in the detailing, as recommended in the CONSTRUCT Guide to
contractor detailing (Ref. 9). This had beneficial results at the ECBP where reinforcement for four
of the seven floors was contractor-detailed. Design and detailing of reinforcement can affect the
temporary works, and so the following sections include comments relating to reinforcement.

Commercial buildings,
imposed service load
2.5 kN/mZ
- permanent structure
The ECBP was designed for a characteristic imposed load of 2.5 kN/mZfor general office loading
in accordance with BS 6399: Part 1 (Ref. IO), which is considerably less than the higher loads
commonly required by letting agents to cover all future eventualities. This had direct effects on
the structure as it allowed thinner slabs and a lighter overall structure, and gave economies in both
structure and foundation design.
Client
PWD
TWD
TWC
Site
Supplier
I
--------,
---------L-------I
comments,
I
I
j(
Prepare Health and Safety

Plan. Design brief, contract
specification, and
construction drawinqs
-- I ,
assessment
Comment on
method of conCrete strength
assessment,
striking and
backpropping
--;
I
;-
!
I
.I
I
Establish responsibilities
Appoint TWC and TWD
Award contract and appoint constructor
Commenton
supporting slab
strength, and
backpropping
)/
(See proforma Annex B)
--
drawings etc.
drawing
Issue preliminary drawings

andlor TW sketches
_-
1-
9.
.
I
c).
I
.
I
Permit to load system approvals.

Backpropping as required
--
I
I'
I
Figure 2: Typical temporary works management flow diagram.

Note: The diagram does not illustrate the roles of the various parties, e.g. planning supervisor,
under health and safety legislation.
Advisory
3.4 Column and wall kickers
0.25 x 24 kN/m3
Normal construction:
use concrete density
of 24 kN/m3
At the ECBP the loadings for the 250 mm-thick solid reinforced concrete slab were considered as
follows:
Self-weight
concrete slab
6.00 kN/m2
(calculated on the basis of density of 24 kN/m3)
1.OO kN/m2
partitions
raised floor
0.5 0 kN/m2
ceiling services
0.50 kN/m2
Total self-weight load of structure
Characteristic imposed load
8.00 kN/m2
2.50 kN/m2
Hence total PWD unfactored design load
10.50 kN/m2
DD ENV 1991-2-1 (Ref. 11) recommends a value for the density of concrete of 24 kN/m3 plus
1 kN/m3 for reinforced and prestressed concrete, implying a total of 25 kN/m3 for concrete. A
footnote states that the density of concrete may be in the range 20-28 depending on local
materials. This Guide recommends the use of 24 kN/m3 for normal weight reinforced concrete in
flat slab construction.
Information about the PWDs assumptions about self-weight and characteristic imposed loads used
in the design, together with data on concrete characteristic strengths, will be required at the preconstruction stage by the TWD and the TWC. See the temporary works design checklist in Annex B.
3.3 Slab thickness

Selection of slab thickness by the PWD depends on many factors, including planned current use of
the building, likely future use, overall height constraints and proposed plan layout of columns.
Use Economic concrete
frame elements for initial
span/depth ratio
against load
The extremely useful book published by the Reinforced Concrete Council, Economic concrete
frame elements (Ref. 12), gives many permutations of slab design with charts of span/depth ratios
for typical characteristic loads. For the solid flat slab at the ECBP, with its imposed design load of
2.5 kN/m2, superimposed dead load from partitions etc. of 2.0 kN/m2, and 7.5 m column grid, the
book indicates a solid slab thickness of about 275 mm. Thus the ECBP design at 250 mm thick was
10% thinner and would be expected to be more critical in flexure, particularly during early striking.
A full discussion of the merits of the structural design of the ECBP is outside the scope of this
Guide, but thinner slabs enable reductions in overall weight and hence foundations, reductions in
height which in turn reduce cladding area and hence costs. In addition, lighter slabs result in lighter,
less expensive formwork solutions.
Implications of
intentional camber
At an early stage in the design, the PWD should consider whether the slab to be cast should incorporate a camber and decide if any intentional precamber should be left in the slab. The implications
of this for the formwork need to be communicated to the constructor, and should appear in the
temporary works design brief. Obviously many other factors will affect the deflected shape of the
slabs as cast, such as order of casting, amount of reinforcement, state of finishes and partitions,
etc., at the time. The determination of values for precambering is outside the scope of this Guide
but inclusion of precambering requirements may affect the selection of the temporary works
concept.
Bc9 Guide
Kickerless construction
Pressure to maximise commercial building space, together with clients frequent requirements for
large open areas, generally based on a 1.5 m partition module, nearly always dictate that perimeter
columns and walls are flush with, or very close to, the outside edge of the slab. Up to the present,
columns and walls have often been specified as kickerless construction (see BCA Guide, Ref. 13)
I Bulk weight density is the overall weight per unit volume of a material, including a normal distribution of voids
and pores, and in SI units is quoted in kg/m3. In everyday usage this term is frequently abbreviated to density
(which is strictly mass per unit volume). This Guide follows the recommendation in the ENV to use units of kN/m3
for density.
and the reinforcement detailed accordingly. For perimeter columns at the ECBP this was seen to
have serious safety implications during construction and kickerless construction is not recommended
for perimeter columns.
The kicker provides a location for the perimeter column forms to prevent them being dislodged.
See Figure 3 below and Figure 11 in Section 5.4.
Kickers for perimeter

columns
perimeter columns.
Where a kicker is required, a minimum height of 100 mm is recommended2 (see NSCS, Ref. 7)
with well-compacted concrete of the same strength as the adjoining concrete.
Minimum kicker lOOmm
Casting separate kickers to columns did not significantly delay construction as they were cast at the
same time as the slab. Separate casting of kickers requires adequate supervision to ensure that
the quality of a small volume of concrete is consistent with the structure.
Separate kickers not found

to delay construction
Where high-strength concrete is specified for columns, and the slab is of lower strength, casting
separate kickers can have construction implications. This is due to the difficulty in procuring and
placing small quantities of high-strength concrete just for the kickers; it is generally not structurally
acceptable for the kicker to be weaker than the main column. The TWC should reconsider the order
of casting the columns and cast some kickers at the same time; preparing and casting kickers for
perimeter columns while at the same time casting a few internal columns as kickerless would
allow a reasonable concrete delivery volume of the higher strength concrete.
To aid fast-track construction the use of drop heads andor column heads should be avoided, but if
they have to be incorporated, round columns should have round heads and square columns should
have square heads.
Avoid drop heads

and column heads
The choice of surface finish to columns can have implications on the selection and economics of
the formwork. For example, on a contract detailed with a few round columns of one size, cardboard
one-use formers may be expected to be more economic than purpose-made circular forms in steel
or GRP. If column heads are detailed, fixing reinforcement to the column becomes particularly
difficult and a much more expensive column formwork arrangement is needed; thus the PWD can
influence the cost to the client by careful selection of buildable details.
Perimeter wall formwork without kickers is not likely to be a safety problem on the edge of the
building. The TWD will have considered how to support the external formwork face, either by an
external independent scaffold, or by a bracket attached to the previously cast wall below, to reduce
the risks of instability of the external form face. Where kickerless construction is used on internal
or perimeter wall formwork, the use of precast concrete blocks, as shown in Figure 13 in Section
5.5, has benefits in speed of Construction and in ensuring that the walls in the building are built
directly over each other, a particular advantage for thin walls. See also Ref. 13.
The PWD needs to be aware of the likely construction details when detailing the reinforcement to
walls and columns, particularly when using reinforcement couplers. An obvious solution is to
2 For water-resistant construction, it is recommended that kickers are 150 mm high and cast monolithically
with the slab (Ref. 7).
10
When using couplers

consider position of lap
3.5Staircases
position the bar laps and any reinforcement couplers on the assumption that kickers will be used. As
recommended earlier, the constructor should be involved in detailing the reinforcement. The method
of fitting the vertical reinforcement bars should be considered, particularly as they have to be moved
into a vertical position, held in place and then inserted and screwed into the coupler - this operation
can be particularly difficult on perimeter columns and walls when no formwork is in position.
3.5 Staircases
Economy begins
at design
Construction economy begins at the design stage, not on site - this is particularly true for staircases,
which are necessary in all buildings. The nature of stair flights, with varying riser and tread details,
always makes them a strong candidate for precasting; precasting on-site can be done if only a few
are needed. The optimum size of the precast flight depends on crane capacity, and ease of road
transportation, among other factors. It is obvious that, once construction gets underway, feeding
precast stair units down from the top of the completed frame can be difficult and time-consuming,
so stair flights should be installed early during floor construction. This may not eliminate all ladder
access, which may be needed for access to the very top level, but will allow easy access for
operatives and staff to the working areas.
Stair flight design

important for TW at
early.stage of contract
The design of the stair flight can affect the temporary works. It is convenient to cast stairs in
straight flights, possibly including landings at one or both ends. On a tall storey a half landing is
invariably required. Initially, the ECBP was designed with an in situ stub column in the middle of
the stair bay - this would have significantly affected the selection of formwork, and made the use
of any flying or table form system impossible in those areas.
ECBP: innovative staircase
The final design incorporated an innovative staircase - two opposing straight flights connected with
an intermediate half landing. The half landing was split into two, with half of the landing on each
flight and a central joint with intersecting reinforcement. After placing the flights by crane onto
temporary supports, the joint was filled with Densit3, and the supports to the Z stair struck out
after a few days. Although the twin half landings glued with Densit were a novel idea, they did not
permit the staircases to be used easily for access because of the amount of falsework backpropping
down several levels of staircase! As construction moved upwards, so did the precast stair fixing,
and so the backpropping interfering with the access also moved upwards.
Consider safety aspects
The PWD should highlight the safety aspects of precast staircase installation; in some cases the
PWD might detail the connections, but the detailed method statement for installation should be
prepared by the TWC and agreed with the PWD. Failure to allow for lateral movement while placing
precast stairs has caused collapses, and attention to detail, particularly at connections, is vital.
Consider lateral forces

when placing stair units
at connections
Backpropping of
stair flights
The staircase design may have assumed temporary support and the PWD should communicate to
the TWC the backpropping requirements for such work. Ideally, individual precast stair units
should be designed to be supported on the adjacent floors and not on lower half landings.
The TWC should establish a method statement with detailed procedures and agree it with the PWD
before construction.
Another solution is to design the precast staircase as an independent tower supported off a central
square integral column, see Figure 4. The precast unit would be a section of square hollow column
with a stair flight andor part landing attached on two sides. The next twisted half, complete with
its central square half-floor-height column, would then seat on top of the lower column unit which
has already been placed.
The stair flight would then become substantially self-supporting and not require any further
falsework for support. Additional reinforcement would be placed into the hollow square column,
and concreted, possibly stitched into the floor slabs for stability during casting of the next set of
columns andor slab.
Densit, also known as compact reinforced composite or CRC Jointcast, is a proprietary product that is
mixed on site and used to glue precast concrete components together. It is a very quick setting product made
from a blend of Portland cement, microsilica, superplasticiser, fine aggregate (sand), water and 6% steel fibres.
At ECBP it was batched in 37.5 litre quantities and gave compressive strengths of around I50 MPa.
11
3.5Staircases
Figure 4: Isometric view

of possible staircase
construction.
This solution, although it might increase the stairwell dimensions and reduce the clients net
lettable floor area, would shorten erection times, reduce maintenance at structural joints, and could
be designed to give almost uninterrupted access to the construction using the stair flight. With
careful scheduling of delivery, such stair units could be used with flying form and table systems if
each unit was installed after the tables had been flown out.
3.6 Trimming of holes

Commercial buildings often require large openings and holes for services such as air-conditioning
ducts and lifts. The edge trimming of large openings needs detailed consideration by the PWD,
particularly as thinner slabs become more common. Downstand beams are to be avoided for
economic flat slab formwork; beam strips within the slab depth are preferred. These beam strips
can be difficult for the PWD to accommodate within thin concrete slabs; structural steel sections
may be required.
At the ECBP, the PWD trimmed the large staircase opening with an upstand beam on the edge of the
building, and it was expected that the constructor would precast this beam. The proprietary formwork
suppliers had all assumed that a precast upstand beam would be used. The steel reinforcement was
scheduled so the beam could be precast, with the reinforcement scheduled with the main slab.
Restrictions on storage on site meant that reinforcement was procured by floors only as required, as
is common on sites. With the exception of the roof construction, the steel reinforcement for these
beams never arrived on site early enough for them to be precast! They were cast in situ, effectively as
part of the main slab pour.
Avoid downstand beams

Preference for
beam strips
Consider separate
scheduling for
upstand beams
If items are expected to be precast, the PWD should consider scheduling them separately. This
could also be advantageous with contractor detailing of reinforcement (see Ref. 9).
3.7 Effect of concrete type on temporary works

Specifiers should be aware of the implications on surface finishes of using high-strength concrete.
It can be difficult to vibrate, and obtaining a satisfactory surface against normal plywood on the
ECBP was exacerbated by the inclusion of polypropylene fibres4 in the high-strength concrete on
the first three floors. This was significantly harder to vibrate, and these columns have larger areas
of blowholes.
Polypropylene fibres were added as part of the fire resistance research programme for the ECBP.
12
Surface finishes and

high-strength concrete
3.8 Temporary works concept selection
The flowing concrete used

at ECBP was a hazard
A flowing C30I37F concrete was specified for the fourth floor. As supplied, it was so heavily
retarded that it became a hazard because the grout ran down the openings and between the plywood
joints onto the lower floors. It covered the falsework support equipment at head level, jamming the
jacks, which required extra fettling before reuse. Even three floors further down the building, the
grout had still run down the openings and spread over the floors, making walking very difficult for
several days. Fortunately no one was hurt, although several people slipped and were still slipping
two days later when erecting column forms.
Flowing C30/37F difficult

to cure and/or Protect
The flowing C30/37F concrete supplied was still so fluid on the late afternoon of placing that no
curing or slab protection could be applied to the top surface. With a normal concrete, the first bay
placed would have stiffened by the time the pour ended, allowing curing and protection to
commence. Such extremely fluid concrete appears to be suitable on sites with all-weather
protection, and in dry, temperate (not freezing) conditions where early curing and protection of the
top surface is not critical. At the ECBP it was also very difficult to make satisfactory cubes and
demould them for temperature-matched cube storage. These points should be taken into account
when designing with a flowing concrete mix.
3.8 Temporary works concept selection

There are many reasons for selecting a particular temporary works concept; the rationale for
selecting one system in preference to another is a complex interaction between costs, building
shape and the technology used. A useful guide to the selection of temporary works is BCAs
Advances in concrete construction technology (Ref. 14) which, although published in 1989,
remains a useful review of fast-track techniques.
The number of floors in the building, and the size, complexity and location of the site all affect the
final concept chosen.
Temporary works account

of the cost
for UP to 350o
of concrete structures
Direct influence of PWD on
efficieno/ and economy
The industry has, in the past, considered temporary works as entirely the constructors problem temporary supports and scaffolding are not Bill of Quantity items, so they are rarely measured. The
only temporary works item measured is the formwork used for forming the surface face of the
finished concrete. A comment often heard from PWDs was Whether a few props are used or a
sophisticated proprietary system is used, it has nothing to do with the PWD. Fortunately, this
attitude is changing and by considering the overall construction process in detail, savings are being
generated. Clients and PWDs are not always aware that the temporary works (materials, labour and
plant) account for as much as 35% of the cost of a concrete building frame (Ref. 2), split between
materials and labour/plant. Typically, costs of labour and plant are three-quarters of the total cost
of the temporary works. Encouraging PWDs to make design decisions that optimise the temporary
works therefore has direct economic advantages to the client in that less expensive buildings can
be built more quickly, efficiently and safely. All these ideas promote the Egan Reports (Ref. 3)
requirements of giving clients better value and good engineering.
Since the late 1980s aluminium frame support systems have been increasingly used in the UK
building industry. These systems are expensive to buy, but are regarded by many formwork
subcontractors as capital investment and the work-horse of the industry. In contrast, systems from
continental Europe of simple adjustable props with beams on the top have started to be marketed
in the UK. On economic grounds, not all sites can justify the selection of aluminium systems for
slab support, and traditional steel skeletal systems still have a place in the industry.
ECBP Task 2 not

involved in measuring
production rates
Two uses of equipment
per system
In attempting to record the manhours involved in different falsework and formwork systems it is
significant that several researchers on the ECBP project independently came to the same conclusion that it was very difficult to provide meaningful research on labour utilisation because of other factors.
For example, there was no incentive to increase work rate, except to keep to the pre-set programme,
thus working hard was seen to be similar to standard rate and provided the area was completed in
time for the programme there was little discernible difference. It was not the intention of the Task 2
programme to identify production rates and tabulate the results, but the recording of the likely concept
selection parameters was included in the Task objectives: These are outlined in Section 3.9.
Each floor of the ECBP was to be cast in one pour, which meant that the formwork systems had to
cover a complete floor of 1350 m2. Because they were generally used on two floors, only two uses
per system were achieved. This provided a small learning curve for the three systems. The three
generic systems used at the ECBP Cardington are discussed in detail in Annex A.
13
3.9 Types of temporaw works
Six main systems are used for flat slab construction:
1.
Individual props and beams
2.
Steel skeletal systems
3.
Table systems
4.
Flying form systems
5.
Precast concrete planks (participating)
6.
Precast concrete planks (non-participating).
To help clients, PWDs and constructors select suitable systems for individual contracts, the
advantages and disadvantages of each type are listed below. Nearly all the falsework systems
described can be built to permit a camber in the permanent work, although this may be easier to
accommodate in the simpler arrangements. The lists are not exhaustive and individual site needs
should be considered.
3.9.1 Individual props and beams, with proprietary panels or plywood as formwork
Individual props and beams suit smaller contracts and, although labour-intensive, can be erected
simply. They are particularly good for low height soffits, up to about 3 m, and where items have to
be man-handled into position. As there are no units to 'make-up', they also suit one- and possibly
two-storey structures with little repetition. A typical arrangement of the basic components, shown
without any lateral stability, is in Figure 5.
"
Simple, good for low

height one- and
possibly two-storey
Figure 5: Typical individual props and proprietary beams.

Note: Lateral stability not shown.
This system is ideal on slab areas with walls at opposite ends. This allows the props and beams to
be stabilised in at least one direction from the walls of the existing structure.
Need stabilising from

existing structure(s)
Use on structures with downstand beams is difficult, particularly in providing stability and continuity
for strength. It can be difficult to provide external working platforms with downstand beams and
an external scaffold system may be required.
When proprietary panels are used as the soffit formwork, panel marks will always show on the
soffit of the structure. It is unrealistic to expect the panels to be new, unless this is specified. Minor
damage or blemishes on the panels will show on the resulting soffit. This may be acceptable, for
example, if a false ceiling is to be fitted.
Panel marks will show

The steel systems are generally based on scaffold systems, and operatives are usually familiar with
their use and erection. These systems have more components than most other systems, but have the
14
Stable and rigid systems,

during and after erection
3.9 Types of temporary works
Working platforms, access

toeboards and guardrails
not shown for clarity
Stop end at construction

joint shown struck with bars
for next slab projecting
Face material
(shown as plywood
sheets 1.22 x 2.44 m)
Falsework supports with diagonal

bracing shown dotted
Figure 6: Typical arrangement with steel skeletal system.

Note: Working platforms and intermediate members are not shown.
benefit of being extremely rigid both during and after erection. The vertical members are generally of
48.3 mm outside diameter and suit standard scaffold fittings. A typical arrangement on a building slab
is shown in isometric view in Figure 6. For clarity, the working platforms have not been shown.
Suit complex shapes,
heights, bay size
changes etc
The skeletal systems are much more adaptable than the other concepts, because of the variety of
vertical and horizontal components available off the shelf. They are therefore ideally suited for
complex shapes, and where storey heights and bay sizes vary. They generally have jacking, bracing,
platforms, decking, etc., as standard. The head assemblies suit both aluminium and timber bearers.
Generally designed as
freestanding falsework
Skeletal systems are usually designed by the TWD as freestanding falsework structures with the
lateral forces transmitted through the systems bracing into suitable restraints, generally by friction
on the supporting floor or slab.
Because they are unlikely to corrode they are suitable for use in chemical works, heavy industrial
plants, etc., and can also be used in construction in marine environments.
Cranage not essential
Cranage is generally not needed for erecting and dismantling so they are suitable for use in exposed
or very high locations in the UK, where cranes would not be allowed to work for significant parts
of the year due to high winds, rain etc. The greater weight of the systems makes them more stable.
Advantage - robust
Disadvantage - labour
intensive
Although they have the disadvantage that they are labour intensive to erect and dismantle, they are
very robust, and because so few decisions are needed to put them together as intended, less skill is
needed.
3.9.3 Table systems

Handled as tables,
say, 12 m long max.
Table systems usually comprise large-diameter aluminium props (typical diameters are 100 to
150 mm), with long threaded lengths, and connected together with frames and cross-bracing. The
stiffness of the head of the assembly is derived from long lengths of aluminium primary beams. These
tend to limit the lengths of table handled to 12 m with standard components, but longer lengths are
possible. A typical example of a table, complete with its plywood decking, is shown in Figure 7.
Ideal for flat slabs
Most UK frame contractors use table systems for flat slab construction, generally with aluminium
beams in both directions at the top.
15
Figure 7 : Typical aluminium

frame table with decking.
Tables have the benefit that, once made up, they enable rapid construction, and the benefits increase
with repetitive use. They can be used with cross-wall construction or columns, but are most
economic when there is access to opposite faces of the building for direct removal of the tables.
The operation of flying out the table form from a floor slab may cause it to pass outside the site,
and building boundaries, i.e. over adjacent property. The over-flying of other properties is an
essential planning consideration.
They suit flat slab and repetitive construction. Table systems become economic at over eight uses,
but because many frame contractors own aluminium systems, they will use the system with fewer
repeats as conventional falsework. These systems can be used successfully for strip and re-erect
for fewer uses.
Cycle times as short as four days have been achieved with careful planning.
Crane access to two

opposing sides best
Consider over-flying
of adjacent properties
Economy - over eight uses
Four-day cycle possible
Suppliers generally assume that aluminium table systems are restrained at head level by the
permanent works, and that no horizontal loads are applied to the falsework tables. The TWD
should clarify with the PWD that the permanent works can safely transmit such loads. An example
of the applied horizontal load is the minimum lateral stability force of 2%% of the applied vertical
loads from Clause 6.4.4.1 of BS 5975 (Ref. 6).
Horizontal loads taken by

the permanent works,
not the table
Tables need space to be flown out of the building (to one or both sides), with allowance made for
clearance between the building and adjacent structures or objects and to allow for cantilever access
platforms. A minimum end allowance of 500 mm is recommended from the face of the building. To
the sides of each table a minimum clearance to columns and walls of 40 mm per side should be
allowed, so some infill support is necessary at arrises when used with cross-wall construction.
Clearance:
end 500mm
side 40mm
Methods of handling tables are discussed in Section 4.2.3. Where tables are handled with fourlegged slings, as the table starts to move outside the edge of the building, the first two slings can
be attached. At this stage the inner two crane positions are hidden under the cast slab. Depending
on the procedure used, the table may need to be rested, i.e. with part projecting out of the building,
and possibly imparting an upward load on the edge of the recently cast slab. The table has to be
manoeuvred further out of the building before the rear slings can be fitted. Usually these are fitted
through simple trap doors left in the sofit form. These will show as squares about 300 x 300 mm
on the sofit. Such trap doors are not needed when tables are flown using a purpose made C-hook
that fits underneath the sofit formwork.
The design of buildings with downstand beams on the front perimeter needs careful consideration.
This is because the support system for the edge forms and platforms uses the bearers projecting
past the building edge. A downstand beam prevents these beams projecting, and makes the
arrangement discontinuous. Altering the edge make-up of the tables affects the crane handling
properties.
Care may be needed when certain aluminium alloys are used for long periods near seawater.
16
Trap doors in soffit form
Care with edge beams

Flying forms are large areas of formwork, generally larger than the table systems described above.
Unlike tables, which are made up from vertical members like props, flying forms comprise two
long deep steel or aluminium trusses. These create a much stiffer and stronger unit and are used
to fly the units out of the building, preferably from one side. Seated on top are conventional
aluminium secondary bearers and either plywood sheeting or trough/waffle formers.
Clearance:
end 500 mm
side 40 mm
Flying form systems ideally suit flat slab and repetitive construction. They are most economic
at over ten uses. There must be enough room to fly the entire unit beyond the building line and
then back in again, with allowance made for clearance from the building to adjacent structures
and objects. A minimum end allowance of 500 mm from the face of the building is recommended. Hence flying forms ideally need clearances from 12 to 25 m from the building line. To
the sides of each flying form a minimum clearance to columns and walls of 40 mm per side
should be allowed to permit safe movement when flying and operating the system. When such
systems are used with cross-wall construction some areas of make-up will be required between
the edge of the table sheeting and the top of the cross-wall, and some infill support is necessary
at arrises.
Preferably no
internal beams
The design of buildings with downstand beams needs careful consideration. Design of flying form
trusses means that downstand beams up to, say, 500 mm deep can often be accommodated with
these systems on the perimeter of the building. Specialist flying form systems are available for
internal drop beams.
Four-day cycle possible
The expected cycle time with flying forms is four days, floor to floor, though shorter times have
been achieved in the Far East with careful planning and design of the forms.
Generally one-way
spanning
Precast concrete planks are usually 50 to 75 mm-thick and are used as permanent soffit formwork.
The planks are reinforced and the bottom reinforcement becomes the permanent reinforcement to
the slab. The in situ concrete topping to the planks is designed to act compositely with the planks.
Traditionally designed for one-way spanning applications, variations have been manufactured for
two-way spanning slabs.
For two-way spanning planks, reinforcement must be provided in two directions in the bottom mat,
i.e. within the plank; this was one of the innovations at ECBP. The side lap of the planks to
provide reinforcement continuity requires the bars from adjacent precast planks to be intermeshed
and the gap to be filled with a structural concrete stitch to provide bond. A proprietary product
(Densit) was used at the ECBP to provide this. See also Section 5.7.
Suited to
congested sites
See Sections
4.2 and 5.7
The planks are manufactured in widths to suit transportation, usually up to a maximum of 2.4 m,
and in lengths to suit the building. Such systems are particularly suited to congested sites as the
planks can be delivered on a just-in-time basis to avoid on-site storage. See Figure 8.
The planks generally have projecting lattice top steelwork. This increases their ability to span in the
temporary condition between the falsework supports, before the in situ structural topping concrete
is placed. The planks are usually designed to be self-supporting to span about 2 m between the
falsework. This is discussed further at Sections 4.2 (e) and 5.7.
The floor planks used in buildings will span one way up to 10 m.
CIRIA Report Permanent

formwork in construction
Falsework
may be needed
PWD to consider
column details
A logical development for precast panels as permanent formwork is the use of fibre cement
products, possibly to produce a fully participating structural form which would improve both the
strength and durability of the concrete. For information on the commercial considerations of
permanent formwork, see the CIRINConcrete Society Publication C558 Permanent formwork in
construction (Ref. 15).
When using precast planks, falsework may be required to support the planks during assembly and
during the placing of the topping concrete, see Section 5.7. Some propping may be needed on spans
greater than 3 m. The PWD should consider the detailing at the columns and the construction
tolerances at an early stage of design.
17
4L
3.9.6
Figure 8: Typical
aluminium table with
precast plank system.
Note: TWD must consider
stability of such
assemblies.
Permanent concrete planks (non-participating)
Concrete planks only 30 mm thick have been used as permanent formwork as face contact materials
to replace conventional materials, such as plywood. The thin planks will not span over long
distances without unacceptable deflections, and reinforcement lattice girders are incorporated to
allow them to be placed over falsework supports at about 2 m centres. Unlike the planks discussed
at Section 3.9.5, these thin planks are not considered to contribute to the strength of the slab, and
require normal bottom mat steel reinforcement to be fixed. Similarly, handling is limited by vehicle
width to about 2.4 m and 10 m in length. The thin planks are easier to modify at columns and other
features.
Such systems are particularly suited to congested sites as the planks can be delivered on a just-intime basis to avoid on-site storage.
The planks generally have projecting lattice top steelwork to facilitate their temporary spanning
condition on falsework, before the in situ structural topping concrete is placed. The planks are
designed to be self-supporting to span about 2 m between the falsework, see Section 4.2.5.
Falsework supports at
say 2 m centres
These planks suit two-way spanning slabs, as the main reinforcement is not part of the plank. Care
is needed to ensure that the bottom steel transverse to the planks can be fitted through the lattice of
the planks.
Fitting steel through lattice
The thin precast concrete floor planks used in buildings will accommodate spans up to 10 m. Other
materials are available as permanent formwork; for more information on the applications and
commercial considerations of permanent formwork, see the CIRINConcrete Society Publication
558 Permanentformwork in construction (Ref. 15).
Suit up to 10 m
CIRIA Report Permanent

formwork in construction
3.I0 External protection and encioswre considerations

The safety of all persons, including operatives and the public, is a primary requirement in all
construction operations. Although construction at the ECBP was intended to be carried out without
external scaffolding it was observed that, even with experienced operatives working in controlled
conditions and without any weather constraints (it was indoors!), objects fell from the edge of the
building.
Primary responsibility for edge protection is with the constructor, although ideally the constructor
should discuss this with the PWD and client to reduce risk at an early stage in the contract, as the
initial concept can affect the protection requirements. The Construction (Health, Safety and
18
Edge protection
3.10 External protection and enclosure considerations
Welfare) C(HSW) Regulations (Ref. 16) specifically refer to the safety of any person. External
protection for all persons should have been considered in the design risk assessment.
A useful guide is the HSE book Protecting the public -your next move (Ref. 17).
Safety nets as leading
edge protection
Fit anchorages
early in contract
External protection
vs fans
Clients duty
Health issues of complete

enclosure vs economy,
speed, improved quality
Research needs
Edge protection using
precast units difficult
Edge protection at leading edges can be provided with safety nets. In order to reduce the cost of
safety nets, suitable provision should be made for their rigging, such as providing anchorage points
in the columns and walls. This need not be an onerous extra cost to the structure, because, under
CDM requirements, provision of suitable anchorages for long-term maintenance of the structure is
often required. Planning for the location and fitting of the anchorages early in the contract can have
significant benefits to overall safety and productivity.
The location and the temporary works concept for a structure can affect the type of protection that
is possible. For example, a full external sheeted scaffolding is not possible with a flying form or
table form system as it would interfere with the form removal, so a protection fan, suitably designed
and of sufficient strength, would be the preferred solution. Timing of the installation of the fan can
be critical. The client has the duty to ensure that adequate resources have been allocated for safety,
and for any necessary permits, for example, for debris fans oversailing the pavement. This will
involve obtaining approval in advance. Although the Planning Supervisor can advise, if asked, the
duty remains with the client.
Where external protection is to be used, consideration should be given to the complete temporary
enclosure of the building during construction. This will improve workmanship and quality of
work by making most operations independent of the weather. Improved working conditions on
construction sites through such means have benefits on safety, efficiency, recruitment and
operator satisfaction, so moves to improve working environments can only be for the good.
There are however health issues to be addressed when considering enclosures, such as dust,
fumes, heat, solvents and ventilation. Tightly woven containment nets have been shown to be
effective in trapping concrete dust. Elaborate enclosures have been developed in Germany and
Japan, some with facilities for travelling overhead cranes so that they can use more sophisticated
construction methods and achieve high quality control. Although popular in colder parts of
Europe, such enclosure systems tend only to be considered in the UK for renovation work. Total
enclosure may require large-span temporary roof systems and new products have been developed
specifically for this type of construction work with clear spans up to 44 m being achievable with
standard proprietary equipment. Particular attention should be paid to safe lifting in erection
and dismantling.
The steering group for this Guide believe that there are significant benefits in using temporary
cladding and enclosures, as well as the obvious one of being able to continue working safely and
efficiently in bad weather, but that more research on the subject is required.
At the ECBP an alternative construction method, using precast units for the roof, had been expected
to overcome many of the problems of edge protection. However, edge protection on two sides of
the falsework was difficult to provide. This was because of the orientation of the primary beams on
the falsework which only provided cantilevered support to an external platform on two sides of the
building - providing access on the other two sides was difficult.
The Task 2 research report states Placing planks at the leading edge is hazardous and risks can only
be partly reduced through the use of safety harnesses. This is discussed further in Section 4.2.5.
Provision of edge protection to precast flooring differs from that on in situ slab construction and
should be considered at an early stage in the temporary works planning. Likely solutions are: provision
of an external scaffold suitably sheeted at all levels of construction; incorporation of cantilevered
edge protection into the supporting falsework framework for all exposed edges; or attachment of
protection fans or nets to a lower level. The C(HSW) Regulations (Ref. 16) clearly require the
hierarchy of safety for providing protection from falls to be considered.
All construction should be safe, and although shorter construction times are demanded, with less
dependence on temporary works, and possibly eliminating external scaffolding, the chosen system
still requires a safe method of work.
Minimum Class 6 medium
duty fan 1.0 kN/mZ
For reinforced concrete slab construction a fan or net should be considered with a maximum loading
equivalent of 1.O kN/mZ.Such a fan is classified as Class B medium duty to BS 5973 (Ref. 18).
19
3.10 Drternal protection and enclosure considerations
Development of simple edge protection systems with guardrails and toeboards for placing on the cast
slab, with or without incorporation of a protection fan, are recommended. Some proprietary systems
are already available, but PWDs and clients should think about the provision of edge protection
during construction. PWDs have responsibilities under the CDM Regulations to ensure that their
designs can be built safely. The incorporation of standard fixing details into slabs designed to
transmit safely the loads from edge protection may be a suitable approach, similar to the way that
anchorage points are fitted to structures for connecting safety harnesses.
20
PWDs and clients

to consider
anchorage points
4 Preconstruction planning
stage
Recommendations - Preconstruction planning stage
Management and procedures
1.
2.
3.
Temporary Works Co-ordinators (TWC) should be appointed for all building

construction involving formwork and falsework. The TWC should be from the
organisation building the concrete frame, and must have suitable technical
knowledge and appropriate training to understand the implications of any
changes to the TW schemes, and the effects on the structure of any changes
in the construction sequence, such as backpropping and striking.
A procedure for striking and removing falsework and backpropping should
be agreed and followed. The subject should be on the agenda of every
construction progress site meeting.
Temporary works training at both technical and supervisory levels is needed
in the industry.
4.
Procedures for documents such as the Permit to load the falsework, and
Permit to strike the formwork/falsework must be in written format: verbal
procedures are not adequate.
5. The TW design brief should specify the performance of the falsework.
6. The TW design brief should specifically request enough copies of drawings
for the parties involved in all aspects of the temporary works.
Equipment procurement
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Working platforms and edge protection should be shown in all temporary

works schemes. Even if they are not part of the supply and so by others,
they should have been considered and shown.
Calculations for temporary works should be available, prepared either by the
TWD or by the proprietary supplier, and should form part of the suppliers
contract to supply equipment.
On all areas of manually erected formwork, where the primary and/or
secondary beams are to be struck out, handled and re-erected by hand,
the length of beams used in the design should be carefully considered by
the TWD to facilitate handling.
When using flying tables, TWDs and TWCs should consider edge tables carefully,
as their correct design can significantly affect the process and productivity.
For safety and ease of adjustment during erection and subsequent striking,
the level of the handle on telescopic props should be considered.
Column equipment procurement
12. Suitable working platForms and edge protection should be included, preferably
on all sides, together with safe means of providing stability.
13. All column formwork assemblies should incorporate crane lifting points. The
weight of the form should be known.
Continues overlea$..
21
4.1 Management of the ternporav works
Column equipment procurement (continued)

14. Fixings cast into slabs for stabilising column forms should be designed to
reduce tripping hazards.
15. Column forms should incorporate access by a vertical ladder, preferably with
hoops for extra safety, and with a suitable trap door detail for access onto the
working platform.
Precast concrete
16. The interface of responsibilities when supplying precast planks should be
established very early during procurement. Precast planks will normally require
falsework. The position of support (or props) required should be shown on the
precast panel layout drawing, together with any requirements for post-propping.
17. Tolerances between in situ concrete and precast units should be agreed be
tween the PWD, TWD and precast supplier before construction.
4.1 MaonagemenU off Uhe 8emporaG-y works

The appointment of an individual, the Falsework Co-ordinator, is recommended in the code of
practice on falsework, BS 5975 (Ref. 6), and was one of the principal recommendations in the 1976
Bragg Report (Ref. 19). The Co-ordinator has specific roles, not only during the planning and
design stages, but throughout the construction.
It is recommended that a Temporary Works Co-ordinator (TWC) is appointed early in the planning
process to co-ordinate and manage the design, procurement and operations of the temporary works.
There has been a trend for organisations and individuals to define the boundaries of their responsibilities and to refuse to undertake roles in areas they believe to be outside these boundaries. One
consequence is that collective responsibility for health and safety issues may remain in the back
of the mind. However, when a main constructor (usually the principal contractor) employs a frame
contractor as a subcontractor, overall responsibility for safety remains with the main constructor,
although other contractual responsibilities may be passed on to the subcontractor. The frame
contractor will be under the management of the main contractor and will have to liaise with the
latters technical departments, and possibly with the appointed TWC.
Nominate a Temporary
Works Co-ordinator at
very early stage
Main constructor has

overall responsibility
for safety
Management of temporary works is sometimes considered to be about minimising formwork costs,

reducing the number of components, etc. However, it is often more efficient and economical for the
project as a whole if construction time is reduced by increasing the quantity of formwork
equipment, plant and labour. An example from ECBP is discussed in Section 4.6 where increasing
the number of column forms would have resulted in a shorter cycle.
Reducing the quantity

of formwork can be
counter-productive
It is recommended that, for the construction of the concrete frame, frame constructors appoint an
individual to handle their temporary works co-ordination who should work closely with the main
contractor and its TWC. It is recommended that the frame contractors co-ordinator is directly
employed by that organisation.
Frame constructor to
appoint own TWC
The appointment of the TWC under design and build contracts appears to be straightforward, and
is normally made early in the planning stage. However, in design and build joint ventures the frame
contractor will probably appoint its own co-ordinator. It is recommended that all co-ordinators are
involved as early as possible with the PWD to assist in design decisions, as there are significant
advantages to the PWD in early liaison.
It is important to note that, under the CDM Regulations, any temporary works co-ordinator is
considered to be a designer. Under the law a designer is required to have sufficient competence and
resources for health and safety to undertake the role satisfactorily. Since frame constructors have their
own responsibilities for safety during the erection of the building frame, it is crucially important that
their own co-ordinator is in a position to control the appropriate activities on the site.
TWC are designers

(CDM Reg 13)
As already discussed, this Guide recommends more efficient management of temporary works and
that each constructor should take more responsibility, i.e. take on the role of the temporary works
co-ordinator, whether or not the main contractor has made their own arrangements.
Frame constructors TWC

to be in a position to
control activities
22
4.1 Manaqement of the temporary works
TWC to be trained
Analysis of the management of the temporary works at the ECBP demonstrated the importance of
the requirement in the CDM Regulations that the TWC has suitable technical knowledge and
appropriate training. This ensures that the TWC understands the implications of any changes
proposed by site staff or by proprietary equipment suppliers. Such proposed changes are discussed
below, in Section 4.4.7 and also in Chapter 5.
Managing health and safety matters successfully on a project involves many activities - the
appointment of a principal contractor, risk assessments, method statements, a Health and Safety Plan
for the pre-tender and construction phase, and so on. The temporary works should play an important
role in the documents and be considered at an early stage. A typical flow chart for the management of
temporary works is shown in Figure 2. (Important documents for reference are Refs 16, 17 and 34.)
Suppliers acting as
designers have
responsibilities
Calculations should form

part of the final contract,
but not necessarily be
submitted at tender stage
Standard solutions
Custom and practice must

be inherently safe
Reduction in skill level

and TW knowledge on site
requires greater emphasis
on training and
competence of TWCs
The supplier and designer of a precast permanent formwork system that requires falsework support
by others have an obligation to ensure that it can be safely erected and that the constructor,
spec-ifically the TWC, has enough information to co-ordinate the technical aspects of the safe use
of the system. The interface of responsibility should be established between the precast plank
supplier, the PWD and the TWD at a very early stage of procurement, and proper control
exercised. Suppliers often act as designers, whether planned or not, and need to be aware of their
responsibilities (see also Section 5.7). The method of internal support must take into account the
location of the reinforcement, allowances for supports at joints, tolerances, etc.
At the ECBP no calculations were submitted to verify the adequacy of the falsework. None of the
proprietary system suppliers were asked for calculations to verify the systems adopted and
presumably assumed that custom and practice would be acceptable, supported by tables of
standard solutions, based originally on their standard calculations. It has not been ascertained
whether they undertook separate calculations. It may be that the TWC did not request calculations
to verify the structural adequacy and safety of the system because of the unusual nature of the
contract. It is recommended that calculations should be submitted, which should form part of the
proprietary equipment suppliers contract to supply equipment. There are valid commercial reasons
why it should not be a requirement to submit calculations at tender stages.
Designers have a duty under the CDM Regulations (Ref. 4) to take account of hazards and risks,
and constructors have a responsibility under the C(HSW) Regulations (Ref. 16) to ensure that the
structure is stable and safe - a structure in this context specifically includes the temporary works.
Other checks may also be required, such as under the organisations internal quality assurance procedures, and some major clients require contractually independent checks on temporary works. The
merit of calculations is that in all cases they provide an auditable trail in the event of any incident:
standard calculations for standard solutions should be available to verify the adequacy of the
standard temporary works.
What are the legal implications of not carrying out any design verification or calculations?
Obviously, as the height of the falsework and the mass of the slab to be supported increase, the
magnitude of loading and imperfections increases. This is accepted in the draft EuroNorm
prEN12812 (Ref. 20) for falsework where falsework is accepted for simple structures to be erected
to low heights as standard. Thus custom and accepted good practice, provided they are proven,
are acceptable. However, the first floor at the ECBP was over 4 m from floor to soffit - hardly
standard floor height! Any custom and practice solution must be inherently safe before it is
accepted - otherwise such practice should never be allowed or condoned.
On a conventional building contract, the main constructor ensures that temporary works advice and
suitable technical information are presented correctly. Fewer building contractors operate
temporary works design offices and the skill base among operatives is also reducing, with fewer
apprenticeships and less training. It is already difficult to find experienced staff who can understand
and prepare meaningful temporary works calculations. The main source of information for most
builders will be suppliers and specialist consultants. A few large companies, generally involved in
civil engineering, still operate temporary works design offices, but for most builders the temporary
works skill base is from the suppliers, who design, verify and then supply their own schemes.
This is to avoid calculations produced by one company being used as the basis of supply of a similar system
by others, at lower commercial rates!
5
23
4.1 Management of the temporary works
So as frame constructors take on more responsibility for temporary works, they also have to
become more technically aware. This means that the level of training of TWCs should be increased
so they can understand and check the quality and competence of suppliers designs - after all, as
designers, they have significant responsibilities under the CDM Regulations.
The current transition from permissible stress to limit state design methods for temporary works
may initially cause some confusion. The proprietary suppliers are already aware of the new design
methods and await publication of the EuroNorms such as prEN12812 draft (Ref. 20) in final form.
All that they require is to verify their standard solution designs for the majority of the standard
floor slabs and heights envisaged.
Awareness of permissible
stress vs limit state
The reduction in skill level is already apparent. Consider the proposed European performance
standard on falsework - had the proprietary suppliers at ECBP submitted second-order limit-state
calculations to the frame constructor, in accordance with prEN12812 (Ref. 20), few of the
constructors staff could have assessed their accuracy!
EuroNorms will formalise the specification of temporary works, e.g. falsework and scaffolding, in a
similar way to the introduction in the UK of the National structural concrete specification (Ref. 7).
At the ECBP, the quality of the proprietary suppliers proposal documents varied significantly,
from full A0 drawings, through coloured A3 drawings to simple A4 black and white sketches. The
coloured drawings could not be photocopied easily, whereas the A4 sketch was regarded as the
most informative because it could be copied and issued easily to several operatives at a time. It
is recommended that the supplier andor TWD should be instructed in the TW design brief
to supply enough copies of appropriately sized working drawings to eliminate the need for on-site
copying. The project specification in the National structural concrete specijication (NSCS)
(Ref. 7) suggests default values for the number of copies of drawings at tender, acceptance and
construction stages.
Performance requirements
Ensure enough copies of

drawings are available
Suggested default
values in NSCS
4.2 The temporary works design brief

At the pre-construction planning stage the TWC should prepare the design brief for the temporary
works. A sample brief is at Annex B. The brief should include relevant information from the PWD,
material to be supplied by the constructor, on-site guidance and concept suggestions and it will state
the design loadings to allow the TWD to prepare a realistic design.
Temporary works design

brief: see Annex B
This Guide discusses aspects to be considered by the TWD and suppliers when preparing the TW
scheme and when procuring equipment. Many of these aspects are obvious, but even under the
supposedly controlled environment at the ECBP, items were forgotten, not included, or not known
to make a difference when changed! It is worth noting that BS 5975, the code of practice for
falsework (Ref. 6 ) , includes procedures for controlling the temporary works and recommends the
preparation of design briefs.
The generic systems discussed in Section 3.9 for the PWD and client concept are repeated in the
following sections, but from the constructors viewpoint in planning the temporary works.
4.2.1 Individual props and beams, with proprietary panels or plywood as formwork
Stability of individual prop and beam systems requires careful control at all stages of erection.
Unless there are adequate walls or columns alternative provision for stability such as bracing
should be provided.
Suppliers procedures should be followed, and detailed method statements established. Several
arrangements do not include diagonal components for bracing, on the assumption that lateral
stability is provided by the stiffness of the soffit formwork, once it has been erected (see Figure 5).
If there are walls on several sides of the slab being constructed, then the formwork can be wedged
between them, but if there are only a few columns, stability needs to be carefully considered.
Need wedging against

works if not stable as
freestanding structure
A critical stage identified at ECBP was the placing of secondary beams and fitting sheets of
plywood (2.44 x 1.22 m) by working overhand.
Suitable working platforms must be established during erection and use and for access to the sofit
members during removal. The proximity of the building edge is discussed in Section 4.4.3.
24
Access for operatives

to carry out striking?
Prop handle level
The system is ideal for transportation because the props and beams pack flat onto pallets. Adjusting
prop heights is usually easy, but on long props, the handle may be difficult to reach and adjust.
This system can fit any shape or plan area of building, and is often used by suppliers on complicated
schemes for the make-up areas around the edges of other systems and at awkward shapes.
BS EN 1065
The European Standard for adjustable steel props, BS EN 1065 (Ref. 21), has introduced five
classes of prop with a total of 32 different props. Although only the nominal characteristic strengths
of the props are stated, an annex or UK National Application Document may in the future give
guidance on safe working loads for the more common prop sizes.
Proprietary beam
prEN 13377
Four types of proprietary timber beam used in soffit formwork are the subject of a proposed
European Standard prEN 13377, published for comment in 1998 (Ref. 22).
Because the main propping components are so versatile, they can be used on other parts of a
contract, possibly by other subcontractors, so local losses of equipment can be a problem with these
systems.

Inherently very stable.
See Figure 6
These systems are inherently very stable and can withstand significant mistreatment before they
may need down-rating. A typical arrangement is shown in Figure 6 in Section 3.9.2.
The systems are ideal for transportation because they pack flat onto pallets of standards and beams.
They are usually steel, and are easy to adjust in height.
Working platforms
easily aCCmmodated
Working platforms can be accommodated with these systems at any position in the soffit area - a
particular benefit for taller slab soffits. Further, limiting one of the ledger dimensions to suit the
systems staging gives simple access provision anywhere under the sofit, just by moving the
staging. Note that all sides and ends of working platforms need edge protection.
Can be erected by
semi-skilled operatives
Because of their modular arrangement, and the strength of the joints when they are connected, the
basic structure can usually be erected by semi-skilled operatives, unlike table forms which need
skilled handling.
These systems only require cranage periodically to move pallets of components, so striking and
repositioning operations can be carried out to suit progress and are not determined by the
availability of crane time - an important benefit. Although a crane can help with moving bundles
of beams, etc., it is not essential, and so skeletal systems are not sensitive to wind conditions.
Training operatives in crane control is not as critical as with, for example, flying form systems.
Manual handling of long beams is covered in Section 4.4.6.
Economics of aluminium
For the small constructor, it is rarely economic to hire an aluminium system for completing a large
flat slab system. Because the loads on flat slabs are relatively small, the bearers can span further
between supports, making the use of aluminium technically effective. However, when commercial
hire rates and the initial cost of aluminium material are taken into account, it is sometimes more
economic to purchase conventional timber bearers. Frame constructors often invest in aluminium
alloy systems, because it becomes economic to use their own equipment, particularly as bearers on
steel skeletal falsework systems.
4.2.3 Table systems

Detailed method
statements required,
trained slingers/
signallers etc
Operating table systems needs careful control. Operating, striking, handling and moving them requires
a detailed method statement, and constant on-site supervision. Generally, table operation requires a
higher standard of operative, with trained slingers/signallers for crane control, etc.
Table size and

movement method
The size of table handled is a function of the building shape, the safe reach of the crane and the
method of operation. Tables are moved either with a large purpose-made C-hook or with fourlegged unequal length slings, preferably with compensating clutches. The supplier must provide
guidance to the constructor on the methods and equipment needed to operate the system safely.
Consider crane reach

when replacing tables
on next floor
Large table areas up to 85 mz using standard components are possible but may be limited by crane
capacity. Note that the crane has to reach to place the table back onto the next floor, possibly
operating on a larger radius than when first connected to the table.
25
4.2 The temporaty works design brief
Allowance should be made in the programme for assembling the tables before first use. If assembly
is to be carried out on site, enough working space and cranage must be provided.
Allow in planning
for assembly time
Infill panels between tables and columns will be needed and the ease of erecting and striking them
must be considered. They have to be removed before the tables can be moved. If the TWD has
assumed that the sofit formwork will provide lateral restraint to the table, the infill panels may be
required to transmit lateral forces, in tension andor compression, to the permanent works.
Infills may be required

to transmit lateral forces
Trolleys for moving tables should be of the fixed type and secure. Some systems involve placing
small wheel assemblies under individual legs. If these are not secured to the legs they will come
off when the table is moved clear of the slab.
Trolleys to be prevented
from falling
One method of moving tables with trolleys uses fixed length slings; the table unit is first struck and
then rolled out of the building into space by a third of its length. The front pair of slings is attached.
The table is rolled out further on the trolley, leaving the inner wheels on the slab, and gently
lowered so that the centre ring of the four slings is in line with the centre of gravity projected
normally from the formwork. At this point the system will be rested on the slab above. The other
slings are attached and the table unit removed completely.
Fixed length slings
A better method uses unequal length chains, connected at one-third and two-thirds of the length
of the unit, which is rolled out in stages. These compensating chains allow units to be slung
horizontally, making them easier to reposition at the next casting location. Note that the connection
of the inner sling positions may, depending on the timing and crane availability, require the table
to be rested on the upper slab. The method statement should clearly describe the procedure. As
discussed in Section 5.8, extracting tables without suitable control and allowing them to tip and
rest on the slab after the centre of gravity has passed the edge of the building is deprecated.
Unequal slings preferred
Tipping of tables and

resting on underside of
cast slab not under crane
control is deprecated
Flying forms and tables can accommodate downstand beams but it is necessary to check that the
entire truss assembly, when struck, can drop down enough to come out from beneath the
downstand.
Safety is of paramount concern, and although table forms often have working platforms attached
at the top level, there will be open edges to guard during and after removal from a floor. Edge
protection and other safety measures, such as harnesses, should be considered during striking at the
floor level being struck, and possibly at the level above where the forms are being positioned.
Protection is particularly important if the slab guardrails have to be removed in order to position
the table forms. Edge or fall protection at ground floor level during the initial assembly of the
formwork is rarely provided, but should be considered.
Open edges and

edge protedion
Clause 75 of the Approved Code of Practice to the lifting regulations (Ref. 23) states:
Where access to a working place on the lifting equipment necessarily results in removal of edge
protection and exposure of an unguarded edge, as little edge protection as possible should be removed,
and should be replaced as soon as possible.
Removal of edge
protection
This clearly includes the operation of handling the table with operatives both above or below the
slab just cast.
The accuracy of the initial assembly of the units can have a direct effect on overall production.
Accuracy of
initial assembly
The comments in Section 4.2.3 for tables equally apply to flying forms, but because they are larger,
they require more careful handling. Typical areas handled are 100 m2, with lengths up to 25 m.
Flying forms and tables spanning the full width of a building have significant advantages because
they can be moved faster, eliminate the end-to-end joining necessary with smaller tables, and have
fewer uprights, thereby allowing faster erection and striking.
The weight of the larger units means that a larger crane, possibly with greater reach, may be
necessary to fly them successfully out of buildings. The crane should not have a luffing jib, as the
forms should come out smoothly horizontally.
Flying forms and tables can accommodate downstand beams but it is necessary to check that the entire
truss assembly, when struck, can drop down enough to come out from beneath the downstand.
26
Detailed method
statements required,
trained slingers or
signallers etc
Careful crane selection
Safety is of paramount concern, and although the forms will have working platforms attached at the
top level, there will be open edges to guard during and after removal from a floor. Edge protection
and other safety measures, such as harnesses, should be considered during striking at the floor level
being struck, and at the level above where the forms are being positioned. Protection is especially
necessary if the flying forms cantilever over the slab edge.
Removal of edge protection: see Clause 75 of
ACOP in Section 4.2.3
Suppliers method
statement
Clause 75 of the Approved Code of Practice to the lifting regulations (Ref. 23) refers to temporary
removal of edge protection and is reproduced in Section 4.2.3 above. This clearly includes the
operation of handling the flying form with operatives above or below the slab just cast.
Always refer to the suppliers method statement for the operation of flying forms.

Early involvement
with PWD
With precast plank systems the importance of early involvement between the PWD, supplier and
TWC has already been stressed in Section 4.1. Temporary works aspects during construction are
discussed in Section 5.7.
Tolerances important .
See CIRINCS guide on
permanent formwork
Where planks are simply spanning between walls, the constructor should ensure that the tolerances
on the wall and the plank manufacture are suitable. The bearing width at the plank seating will be
affected by the tolerances. For building work, the normal tolerances are given in the joint
CIRINConcrete Society publication Permanent formwork in construction (Ref. 15). The width of
seating also depends on the material of the supporting structure. On long spans, say over 3 m, intermediate propping may be required to carry steel fixing loads and loads from the topping concrete.
Intermediate propping?
Lifting frames
on long lengths
Handling precast planks requires careful control, and for planks over 6 m long, purpose-made
lifting frames will probably be needed. The manufacturers advice should be followed.
Stability of falsework when

precast planks not seated
on permanent work
Where the precast planks are not seated directly onto the permanent works, such as on slabs with
columns and on long spans requiring jointing, intermediate falsework supports are required (see also
Section 4.1). The falsework arrangement for precast planks is significantly different from those
previously discussed in several ways: the planks generally incorporate lattice reinforcement to allow
them to span in the temporary condition up to, say, 2 m. The falsework will usually be detailed by
the supplier to show the planks supported at about 2 m centres, transverse to the span of the units.
Thus the initial erection of the falsework is a skeletal frame arrangement with stiff connecting
bearersheams in one direction, and without full transverse stability at the head in the direction at
right angles. Further, stability in this direction relies on friction from the precast unit, and is, of
course, only effective once the unit has been placed.
Working platforms
When a single direction of supporting beams is used working platforms at the edges of the building
must be carefully detailed. Along the length of the main beams they may project outside the
building line and create a less-than-ideal platform6. In the other direction, apart from cantilever
brackets off the falsework uprights, there is little opportunity to provide support.
Is platform safe before
When detailing these platforms to the building edge the TWD should consider seriously whether
they are safe before the precast units are placed, in order to avoid the falsework overbalancing and
becoming unstable. Instability is less likely with table systems as the weight of secondary beams
and the face contact material to the sofit create restoring moments.
precast units placed?
Orientation markers
The method statements and risk assessments will have identified the hazards. The lifting operation
should be controlled (see Refs 23 and 24). Precast plank units can weigh 3.5 tonnes or more and
cranage must be suitable. Orientation markers and lifting points should be specified. Consideration
should be given to the location of the operatives during the placing operation, particularly when
safety harnesses are required. The location and adequacy of the first hook-on point and subsequent anchorages should be considered. Precast planks with projecting lattice members provide
good hook-on points, once they are erected and secure, but they also create tripping hazards in
the placing area, as identified in an unpublished HSE safety report on the ECBP. A typical view is
shown in Figure 8 in Section 3.9.5.
The platform is formed by secondary beams sitting on top of the main beams with decking added. This means
that the top of the working platform is significantly higher than the actual soffit level of the precast planks,
making access and fixing of the slab edge forms hazardous.
27
As the supporting falsework will be of a skeletal nature, access to the jointing areas will be
required, certainly from the top, but possibly also from underneath. Where a gap has to be left
between planks, a small section of soffit formwork has to be made up and held in position to
support the jointing compound while it hardens. Depending on the width of the gap several support
solutions are possible; if small, it may be possible to hang it from above, but if there is a large
gap, conventional sofit formwork, supported from below on falsework, may be required, with
suitable access.
Access to plank joints
There is nothing to prevent the skeletal framework from lozenging as the falsework is moved from
floor to floor. This is illustrated by imagining the table in Figure 7 (Section 3.9.3) without the
decking and secondary members fitted. This is in contrast to a made-up table form with its stiff soffit.
The solution is to install plan bracing to the skeletal framework in the table near the head level.
Plan bracing to
prevent lozenging
Where precast planks require post-propping to transfer additional construction loads to the
supporting slab, the location of the props should be detailed. Stability of such props before loading
is a consideration. Once loaded, the effect on the supporting slab should be carefully considered.
In certain situations, the strength of the supporting slab may become the criterion for casting the
new slab. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
Post-propping an1
of supporting
Although the foregoing discussion appears to be critical about the use of precast planks in flat slab
construction, their use is to be encouraged; this Guide highlights the need for design, management
and control of the processes by the supplier andor manufacturer. Attention to detail at the early
stages of a contract will provide benefits when using precast planks.
Attention to deta
stage will providt
when using f
4.2.6 Precast concrete planks (non-participating)

Most of the comments in Section 4.2.5 above on the use of thick planks also apply to thin precast
planks used as permanent formwork. Effectively, the thin permanent formwork acts as the face
contact material.
Generally large areas of formwork planks can be handled and placed very quickly, but care should
be taken in high winds.
Large areas p
Care in high
Plywood butted together, nailed to bearers below, and fitted in two directions will provide some lateral
stiffness to the formwork arrangement. In contrast, thin permanent formwork planks, often with
bearers in only one direction, and with no positive connections between the planks and bearers, are
unlikely to provide any transverse stability to the falsework. It is usually recommended in such cases
that the falsework is designed to be self-stabilising, and not reliant on the planks for stability.
Thin planks U
to contribut
falsework ste
At the ECBP the planks to the roof were 30 mm thick in units up to 10 m long. A special lifting
frame had to be designed, tested and used on the site. The LOLER Regulations (Ref. 23) specify
the responsibilities and testing requirements for such equipment.
The fragility of permanent formwork needs to be considered when detailing the falsework supports.
Although plank suppliers often stipulate temporary supports at, say, 2 m centres, the plank designer
will have assumed a distributed loading from the topping concrete, plus a transient construction
operations load of 1.5 kN/m2 on the system. This loading pattern may not take account of temporary
point loads during construction, such as from a bundle of reinforcement being lowered by crane
onto the planks. Unlike conventional plywood, which is supported at, say, 406 mm centres on the
bearers, the thin planks are spanning five times as far, say, 2000 mm, and the effect of a point load
is much greater. By careful control, and by placing the load spreaders from any temporary load
directly over the falsework bearers, such overloading of thin planks will be minimised.
Fragility of
planks
4.3 Loading during construction

The PWD should make available to the TWC the loads used in the design of the slab (see Section
3.2). However, during the construction stage other loads will apply, e.g. self-weight of the
formwork and falsework, imposed loads from operatives on working areas, storage of materials and
plant. Specific provisions should be made when materials or plant are to be used on the structure.
PWD to cornrni
design loads to ni
In building construction the self-weight of soffit formwork for flat slabs and its associated
falsework may be assumed to be 0.50 kN/mZ.Individual cases may require separate checking - see
Section 4.2.3 of the Formwork Guide (Ref. 5).
Self-weight of
formwork as:
0.50 kN/m
28
Will there be rn
or plant on stri
Impact placing
precast units
Where precast elements are placed, such as precast planks onto falsework, and impact may occur,
Clause 4.4.2 of BS 5975 (Ref. 6) recommends that the self-weight of the elements is increased. The
increase depends on their weight and how they are placed.
Construction operations
load 1.5 kN/m2
(Service Class 2)
The imposed load on temporary works from operatives and man-handled plant is taken as
1.5 kN/mZ. This allows for the placing of the fresh concrete, and includes hand tools and small
mechanical plant used in placing operations, such as vibrator motors. The area considered includes
all adjacent walkways around the actual soffit area. (See Clause 4.4.3.1 of BS 5975 (Ref. 6).) This
load allowance also applies where permanent formwork is used.
Origin of suppliers
2.0 kN/m2
It is common to see TWD calculations for falsework using a single imposed load on the formwork
and falsework of 2.0 kN/mZ, this being the summation of the construction operations load
(1.5 kN/mZ)and the temporary works self-weight (0.50 kN/mZ).
Access for access and

inspection allow
0.75 kN/m2
(Service Class 1)
Where allowance has to be made for access and inspection purposes, an imposed load of
0.75 kN/m2 is considered adequate. (See BS 5975 and the Formwork Guide.) This is known in EN
specifications as Service Class 1 loading and is intended for inspection purposes and operations
with light tools only but without material storage. It would be prudent to consider that any concrete
slab just cast and able to be walked on could provide access for inspection and light operations,
such as placing and removing of backprops, so this loading is considered the minimum that any
concrete slab and/or permanent formwork should be designed to carry.
The total load on a slab depends on the imposed construction operations loads, the self-weights (of
permanent and temporary works) and the stage of construction. These must be known when
assessing the early striking times and the back-propping necessary(see Chapters 6 and 7).
Example of calculation of loads

The example is for a 250 mm-thick flat slabs at ECBP. All values are in kN/m2
Column 1
Recommended RC concrete
density 24 kN/m3
(Service class 1 loading)
Recommended concrete
density for falsework
design: 25 kN/m3
Recommended concrete
density for the supporting
slab, striking and backpropping considerations:
24 kN/m3
Self-weight of concrete slab

(recommended density 24 kN/m3)
(assumed density 25 kN/m3)
Self-weight of the temporary works
(i.e. formwork and falsework)
Superimposed construction load
Hence TWDs design service load
Additional imposed construction load
Hence TWCs load during concreting
Column 2
6.00
0.50
0.75
7.25
0.75
__
8.00 kN/mZ
~
6.25
0.50
0.75
7.50
0.75
~
(from BS 5975 8)
8.25 kN/m2
The TWD, when considering the worst case for the temporary works design, will generally take the
larger value of 8.25 kN/m2. This agrees with DD ENV 1991-2-1 Basis of design and actions on
structures (Ref. 11) which assumes a density of 24 kN/m3 plus 1 kN/m3 for unhardened concrete
while it needs supporting during its stiffening phase. In flat slab construction this would not apply
to the whole area of the slab concrete at one time.
For the critical supporting slab, it is more accurate for the TWD to use the total load, based on the
actual density of the concrete, of 7.25 kN/mZ.The additional imposed construction load is from the
weight of operatives placing the concrete and is a short-term load.
There is a difference of nearly 3% between the loads during concreting calculated using the
recommended and assumed density of concrete. This difference can be used advantageously in
backpropping calculations. The loads used in backpropping calculations, and whether construction
operations loads or formwork self-weight need to be considered, are discussed in more detail in
Section 6.5.2.
406 mm centres is a module of a 2440 mm length of plywood, providing support at the junction of two sheets.
Clause 4.4.3. I of BS 5975 Working areas recommends a total imposed loading for construction operations,
such as when concreting a slab, of 1.5 kN/m2. Hence the two values of 0.75 kN/m2.
29
It was demonstrated at the ECBP that, as the ratio of design service load to self-weight reduces on
thinner slabs, the loading and backpropping considerations take on more importance for very early
striking of formwork and the history of load on the slabs.
Further consideration of
loadings, see Section 6.6
The speed of construction can affect the loads. For example, a large flying form system might be
designed by the TWC to a full bay width, so on striking and removing the falseworWformwork the
entire slab needs to be self-supporting when struck and could be subjected immediately to the full
weight of the formwork system placed on it. In contrast, a smaller skeletal or tower system might
allow repropping to be inserted. Thus the loads to be considered are very different.
More information and recommendations on backpropping are given in Chapters 6 and 7.
4.4 Procurement of temporaw works

4.4.1 General
The successful constructor will make assumptions at tender stage about the equipment to be used
and have obtained prices andor built up unit rates. On a design and build contract, these rates will
be based on experience from similar contracts, and the design of the permanent works will be
influenced by the equipment available for the temporary works, and will often be related to
equipment owned and regularly used within the contracting organisation.
On conventional contracts, the temporary works in the PWDs final design need to be verified and
compared to the original tender assumptions. The estimatorhpplier completing and pricing the
latest scheme should determine the quantities actually required. The competitive nature of
equipment pricing, by definition, often makes comparisons very dificult, with questions such as
Does it allow for the scaffold boards?, What plywood has been assumed? To demonstrate the
most cost-effective solution the proprietary supplier will be under commercial pressure to specify
the minimum equipment to suit the contract and thus show a low equipment cost, with additional
items as optional extras - these are often safety items such as the working platforms. If such items
are not part of the TW design brief, the supplier may be justified in expecting that they will be
supplied from on-site resources, so need not be included in the list of items required - again emphasising the importance of the TW design brief.
The quantity of equipment to be procured is directly affected by the programme. It has already been
emphasised in Section 4.1 that it is often more efficient and economic, for the project as a whole,
to reduce construction time by increasing the quantity of formwork equipment.
Importance of TW design
brief see Annex B
Minimum equipment not

always most economic
Where a constructor is using their own equipment, there will often be added pressures in procurement to use only items held in stock, to avoid buying in special items or hiring extra equipment.
Where practicable, timber and wood-based products should be procured from renewable and
sustainable sources.
Timber and wood products

from sustainable sources
With equipment that is to be man-handled between floors in multi-storey construction, the use of
some extra support equipment should be considered. For example, extra base jacks may facilitate
an early start on the subsequent floor: on striking and moving, the formwork and head items come
out first, and the bases last, while opposite order is needed by the operatives on the next floor when
re-erecting the system! It may sometimes be worthwhile increasing quantities so falsework erection
can start on a subsequent area, reducing the waiting time while ,equipment is struck from one area
and moved to the next. Of course, this does not apply to sections of falsework that remain
assembled and are crane-handled in units, such as tables and flying forms.
Additional items when

considering order of use
The condition of components will vary. Items such as adjustable jacks need fettling between uses;
if they are not used for a while the threads may seize and be hard to operate. Aluminium sections
can be susceptible to damage on site due to misuse and long props can be bent in handling. To allow
for such not perfect items the prudent site will over-order. This should be considered at the
planning stage, because quantities used in the tender price will often be based on the exact take-off
of the drawing, and not necessarily be the amount required by the site.
Close liaison is needed between constructor and supplier when calling off equipment. For example,
base jacks are the first items used in erection, so they should be the first items delivered if delays
are to be avoided.
30
Liaise over call-off

for delivery
4.4 Procurement of temporary works
TW design brief:
see Annex B
All these points can lead to discrepancies and underestimating the quantities of equipment actually
needed to operate the system safely. This Guide recommends the preparation of carefully considered
design briefs to ensure that the temporary works scheme prepared by proprietary suppliers or
constructors TWDs is designed to the same documentation. Provided that the temporary works
conform to the brief, this will lead to safer operation of the temporary works. A typical temporary
works design brief is shown in Annex B.
At the ECBP, several aspects of temporary works were identified that require more consideration
at the contract planning stage. They relate mainly to the design of the temporary works but have
implications for the construction stage. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.
4.4.2 Working platforms and edge protection

Show working platforms
and suitable edge
protection on drawings
Barriers and nature

of the work
Impact on exposed
platforms
Use of safety nets
Working platforms and edge protection should be shown in all temporary works drawings. If these
are to be prepared by a supplier the TW brief should indicate that they are required and should be
included in the scheme. Particular attention should be given to edge protection to all slabs during
erection of edge forms, concreting and removing/dismantling of the forms. It should be noted that
safety protection can be achieved by keeping persons away from exposed edges by use of barriers
of suitable strength and rigidity. The Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations (Ref.
16) are specific about such provisions for all activities; in addition, specific reference is made to
the requirement when, due to the nature or short duration of the work, compliance is not reasonably
practicable. An example is the flying out of falsework tables from underneath a recently cast slab
-this may require the temporary removal of guardrails to the lower slab to permit the table to come
out.
Generally, at the slab level under construction, platforms will be incorporated in the suppliers
selected system, such as outstand brackets on scaffolds, projecting timber or aluminium primary/
secondary bearers, or from the flying form projecting from the building line. Such platforms can be
vulnerable to impact, such as from crane loads, and care should be taken in exposed locations. The
emphasis should be on correct use of the crane.
Edge protection may be by safety nets (see also Section 3.10). Nets can be rigged internally,
generally horizontally to fit either partly or fully under the slab, safeguarding temporary openings.
They can also be erected vertically or at any angle. Fitted externally on steel brackets or gallows
they can eliminate external scaffolds, so the slab edges remain clear to be worked on, with the
bottom of the net tied back to the underside or edge of a lower slab. This is shown in BS EN 1263-2
(Ref. 25). Nets are generally more effective when spanning large distances. Principally designed to
arrest falls from up to 6 m, they are usually rigged for a 2 m fall. This Guide recommends use of
60 mm mesh nets to BS EN 1263-1 (Ref. 26) for concrete-related activities.
Nets have traditionally been used as fall arrest items and not as prevention and come lower
down the safety hierarchy of the C(HSW) Regulations. They provide simple effective prevention
as work progresses up a building, freeing operatives from the restraints of harnesses and more
elaborate fall arrest systems.
Placing precast planks

at leading edges
When using a precast plank system, placing the planks at leading edges becomes more hazardous
and risks can only be partly reduced through the use of safety harnesses. Such personal protective
equipment should only be used as a last resort, and other methods of edge protection and safety of
operatives should be sought. The provision of adequate working platforms in such operations is
difficult, and needs to be very carefully considered in the design of the overall system of planks and
falsework. Further guidance on edge protection is given in the Precast Flooring Federation Code of
practice for safe erection of precast concrete flooring (Ref. 24).
Access underneath
formwork
Access is required to the underneath of soffit formwork for sealing plywood joints, levelling
the soffit formwork, fixing items such as LOK test inserts, and, of course, for striking out the
components. The access needed depends on the system used. Although sites often refer to such
platforms as crash decks, they are really working platforms to prcvent operatives and material
falling.
Only the steel skeletal system used at ECBP had provision for an all-over working platform.
Base jacks
When using flying forms or tables, with levelling facilities at the bottom only, access via a working
platform is not required within the table for its general operation, but a working platform is essential
31
for the safe fixing and striking of the infill strips. The infill strip dimension between flying tables is
rarely a frame module and the proprietary working platform supports do not fit, so other arrangements
for access are needed.
Working platforms
for infill strips
Working platforms should be in the right position and at the right height to enable the work to be
carried out effectively. Often the platform is used for several operations - for example, placing
precast planks will dictate one level of platform with relevant guardrails, but once placed, work on
the topping slab and edge forms to the slab will require a higher guardrail, so the TWD has to
consider the subsequent operations.
4.4.3 Edge distance of standards
The plan arrangement of the temporary works on multi-storey construction should allow for a
defined clear edge distance for falsework standards, ledgers or frames from the slab edge of the
structure. The TWD should consider this distance and not place components close to the edge in
order to reduce the cantilever arrangement of the soffit formwork above.
TWD to consider
items close to edge
The location of the side protection handrails and posts on the edge of the floor supporting the
falsework should be considered. In this way the supporting equipment (falsework) can be safely
checked and dismantled with the site permanent or temporary guardrails fitted. The TWD and the
PWD have specific responsibilities to consider the safety aspects of edge protection during this
stage of construction, particularly when no external scaffolding is envisaged.
A stability check on any falsework with a projecting working platform, as shown at Figure 9, is an
essential part of the design.
Consider stability with

overhanging platforms
In the absence of specific guidance, the recommended distance from the slab edge to the centreline
of the edge standard of the falsework is 400 mm, as shown in Figure 9. Increasing the 400 mm
dimension increases the length of any cantilever at higher level.
Recommended edge
distance 400 mm
Although the recommendation relates to all systems, at the ECBP the individual prop system was
most affected because it was detailed with an edge distance of only 100 mm. The system relied on
erecting individual props using a patented tripod requiring a dimension larger than 100 mm which
meant that the tripod was omitted when erecting edge props on floor slabs above ground level.
When using flying table systems demountable guardrails are needed in order for the tables to be
flown out, but such systems still require sufficient working space at the slab edge to allow guardrails
to be fitted, even if they are only temporary.
Various proprietary temporary guardrail systems are available, and it has already been suggested
(Section 3.10) that more permanent provisions might need to be incorporated by the PWD for such
handrails. At the ECBP cast-in sockets were fitted to the slab for connecting the permanent scaffold
tube and fitting handrail.
Consider risk of overturning
Backpropping to
be considered
32
Figure 9: Typical section at edge of slab.
See also Sections 4.2.2

and 4.2.3 for removable
guardrails
When an external independent tied scaffold (Ref. 18) is provided to a building, it may possibly be
used as the external edge protection. The design risk assessment will identify whether the external
scaffolding can be considered to provide edge protection.
4.4.4 Column forms - lifting, access and stability
Procure column forms
with access, lifting
details, stability and
ladder provision
Provision should be made in the procurement of column formwork for adequate working platforms.
Full working platforms should be provided with edge protection. Where practicable, working
platforms should be fitted to all sides. A safe means of providing stability should always be
included when procuring column formwork9. Separate prefabricated tower scaffolds will rarely
provide satisfactory access for erecting, concreting and dismantling column forms.
However, planning may determine that safe access is required for fixing column reinforcement as
well. This may eliminate the need for an integral formwork working platform if the TWD has
designed the working platform to suit both operations.
Hoops if above 2.5 m

Avoid inclined ladders
It is recommended that, where possible, column forms should incorporate access by a vertical
ladder, preferably with hoops for extra safety above 2.5 m, and with a suitable trap door detail for
access onto the working platform. Separate inclined ladders are a potential hazard because there is
rarely one ladder for each column form, so the ladders have to be constantly moved between
column forms, and they are therefore rarely tied at the top. In operation it is necessary to climb to
the top of each column several times so permanent ladders have distinct benefits.
Particular consideration should be given to the column forms near the edges of the building,
especially the corner columns.
Consider tripping hazards

at prop feet connection
The use of push-pull props in two directions at right angles will give stability. The use of projecting
lengths of bar for connecting the raking prop to the slab is not recommended. It was clearly shown
at the ECBP to create a tripping hazard, both when the bars were cast into the slab, and when they
were placed into drilled holes in the slab top. Many recoverable fixing details are available, and
post-drilled fixings into the slab for connecting the prop base plates should be permitted by the
PWD and used on site.
Where there is no external scaffolding the method statement should discuss the working platform,
guardrails and propping necessary for the corner columns to the building. This may mean out-ofalignment propping to cater for the existing guardrails that will be required to remain in position.
Incorporated lifting points
All column formwork assemblies should incorporate crane lifting points. The weight of the form
should be known and its centre of gravity should be determined, generally by on-site trials after
assembly and prior to first use. These items should be part of the suppliers obligations in the design
and supply of proprietary system forms.
Care is needed in designing connecting devices, both for column-to-prop connections and for
joining column sections together. Captive components with no loose parts are preferred.
4.4.5 Level adjustment of head jacks, base jacks and props
All systems require some form of adjustment in order to level in the soffit formwork and
subsequently to destress the falsework legs when striking. In building applications, where the top
of the floor slab is level, it is expensive to insert adjustment at both the top and bottom of the
system. It is also time-consuming in levelling in the system.
The selection of head or base jacks depends on how the system is moved. If the formwork is to be
handled as large made-up tables, or as flying forms, jacking should be provided at the bottom, but
for strip and re-erect systems it should be at the top.
On a typical large flying table scheme there will be areas that are intended to be manually struck and
moved, such as around staircases, so both types of jacking would be expected in the overall scheme.
On the steel skeletal systems, it is often better to use longer top jacks, braced for stability, than to
insert levels of ledgers or transoms near the top. Not only does this use less equipment, it also gives
a less congested working platform for access for stripping the sofit formwork.
Both suppliers of proprietary column formwork at the ECBP stated that they are rarely asked to provide
access platforms for column formwork. Responsibility for safety should start with correct procurement.
33
Where falsework was used to support precast planks as permanent formwork at the ECBP it was
noted that it would have been better if the jacks had been placed at the bottom of the standard with
no adjustment at the top. Allowance for bedding the units and protecting the soffit could have been
by use of thick non-compressible paper as packing.
Wherever long props are used the physical method of adjustment needs considering. At the ECBP
the adjusting handle for the propping system on the first two floors was about 2.5 m above the slab.
This meant that adjustment had to be carried out off a small platform! Adjustment and striking of
edge props while standing on a small platform alongside the building edge put the operative well
above the height of the adjacent guardrail, and safety harnesses should have been used. Prop
suppliers should give consideration to the level of the handle in use.
Height of prop
adjustment device
4.4.6 Length of formwork beams

An aspect often overlooked by TWDs and suppliers when drafting TW schemes is the length of the
primary and secondary falsework members - these are often detailed in long lengths. This may
reduce the suppliers overall scheme cost as longer lengths reduce the number of joints and
discontinuities in the soffit, improve the stiffness of the structure, and can reduce site theft. (It is
easier to remove a 3.6 m beam than a 7.2 m beam!) Longer beams will often be less expensive to
hire or buy.
The critical operation in the use of beams is striking them from underneath the slab. Where the
system is designed to be handled as a large table form or flying form, the length of unit handled is
dictated by the length of the primary members connecting the table legs together, so full-length
primary members are beneficial, and the assembly remains connected and is moved out by mechanical
means. In contrast, all other applications require the primary and secondary members to be struck
out and handled as individual items, so the TWD should consider the safety implications and
lengths of beam detailed for separate handling.
It is a recommendation of this Guide that, on all areas of manually erected formwork where the primary
andor secondary beams are to be struck out, handled and re-erected by hand, the length of beams
used in the design be carefully considered by the TWD to facilitate handling. The Manual Handling
Operations Regulations (Ref. 27) give clear limits for individual operative capabilities; striking
operations involve operatives removing beams from the top of the falsework and man-handling them
to the lifting platform, prior to removal for subsequent re-use. Since the operation is generally limited
to two operatives, a suggested limit on the weight of beams is between 25 and 38 kg.
The location of the beams and their relationship to the ground or supporting slab should also be
considered, together with the requirement for adequate working platform(s).
A corollary of this limit on length is the need for the TWD to design the supporting falsework
specifically to suit these shorter beam lengths and to allow for the possibility of increased leg loads
in certain internal standards due to the elastic reactions from continuity. The 10% continuity factor
from Clause 6.5.3.1 of BS 5975 (Ref. 6) may not be appropriate, such as for beams on three
supports, and a more detailed analysis may be justified.
When designing independent tables with short lengths of beam, the TWD should assess the stability
of the falsework during concreting. Increasing the edge distance to the standard nearest the edge (see
Section 4.4.3) also increases the cantilever of the sofit formwork. The resistance to overturning of
the table may need to be checked with the loading from the working platform, the self-weight of the
arrangement, and also with the extra imposed concrete load from the longer cantilever. On short
lengths of table this may require either tying tables together to prevent overturning, or controlling
the order of placing concrete; the latter cannot generally be achieved on site. The lighter aluminium
systems have less resistance to overturning than comparable steel systems.
The worst case for overturning is with concrete adjacent to the slab edge form and only on the
cantilever, and no resistance from any concrete placed inside. This may require the falsework to be
tied to the supporting slab to resist the overturning.
Length and weight of

manually handled items
to suit a two man lift
Suggested limit of 38 kg
for two men handling
one item
Adequate working
platForms
Beware elastic reactions

from shorter length beams
Overturning of tables
at cantilever edges
using short beams
Sequence of concreting at
edges and overturning
4.4.7 Implications of changes

It is important that TWCs, suppliers and constructors are made aware of the reasons for selecting
specific items of equipment and resist substitutions. Although, commercially, the culture of
accepting what is offered as a substitute without any delay is tempting, overall productivity and
34
Technical effect of
equipment substitution
speed may be compromised. There may also be technical reasons why certain products cannot be
substituted - for example, two 4.8 m beams in place of a single 9.6 m beam might, with extra beams
to allow for laps, be a suitable substitution for secondary beams in formwork, provided the plywood
joints remain supported; but such a substitution would significantly affect the design of the
supporting falsework if considered as a change for primary beams.
Although in the real world such changes are regrettably commonplace, and accepted as part of the
construction process, the implications on construction productivity should be questioned by site
managers. If the equipment is only used a couple of times, such reductions in output may be
acceptable. However, in many cases the effects on productivity can be large. If the changes in the
example above were considered on a commercial site, the correct lengths for optimum efficiency
would have been procured, and the TWC would have understood in detail the direct effect on
productivity of the changes.
Three such changes were highlighted at the ECBP that would have had a direct effect on the commercial viability of the TW schemes, as designed, by significantly changing their productivity.
1.
Change in length of flying
form increased number
of crane lifts per floor
by 20%
Change in length offlying form units
The frame contractor requested a reduction in length of the flying form units. This would have
resulted in 20% more units being used and handled, and would have reduced production rates by
at least 15%. The request for the reduction in length was made because the clearance of the ECBP
building in the Cardington Hangar limited the maximum crane handling length of the flying form
units. This change was caused by the proprietary supplier who was given the clearance in a detailed
Temporary Works Design Brief which conformed at tender stage, but increased the lengths of units
in their construction drawings for commercial reasons andor ignored the dimension limit. Once
on site, and a few days before intended delivery, the constructor contacted the flying form supplier
direct and revised drawings were issued with split flying form units. This effectively increased by
20% the planned number of crane lifts. Thus any TWD expecting to use this type of equipment
must ensure that it has the necessary dimensional clearance for the flying form, and has obtained
any necessary air rights if flying in congested city centre sites.
2.
Change in length offlying table units
This change relates to the use of the flying tables made up with aluminium props as legs and braced
together with aluminium frames, supporting long lengths of primary aluminium beams. To
understand the implications of this change, an understanding of the mode of operation is necessary.
The aluminium props were connected together with frames into six- or 12-legged tables, and their
heads were joined by long lengths of deep primary aluminium beams. Lighter aluminium bearers
were now placed at right angles, at closer centres (about 488 mm) to support the plywood. When
handling large tables, it is the length of the primary beams that provides longitudinal strength to the
framework, so these lengths dictate the size of units handled, and hence the economy. This is
clearly shown in Figure 7. Larger tables reduce the number of units to be handled, reducing both
labour and crane costs.
The arrangement planned by Task 2 for economic use of the system was detailed on the suppliers
drawing. This proposed the use of only 12 tables for construction of a floor. This gave three tables
across the width of the building, using 225 mm deep primary beams fitted as two 9 m long and one
6.4 m long.
Change in primary beam

length on table form
increased number of crane
lifts per floor by 33%
When the constructor requested delivery, he was advised that not all the long lengths of 225 mm deep
primary beams were available. Without reference to the management, the supplier was asked by the
constructor to redraw the scheme based on the sizes of beam locally available. This revised scheme
significantly changed the arrangement, and used 16 tables for construction of a floor. The tables were
made up of four tables across the building, using two 8 m long and two 4.2 m long tables. This
reduced the number of vertical legs, but, significantly, increased the number of table movements from
12 to 16, i.e. by 33%, increasing both the crane costs and the labour rate when handling the tables.
Using more tables also increased the labour time in completing the make-up areas between the
tables.
This simple change in beam length meant that the table sizes had to be reduced, increasing by 33%
the number of tables moved per floor, with a likely corresponding reduction in overall performance.
35
The writer of this Guide is of the opinion that the site management and the TWC were not at the
time aware of the planning implications of this change, because a month later he was told by the
supplier that, had the implications been communicated to them, efforts would have been made to
locate enough 225 mm-deep beams of the required long length from stock!
This would have had significant consequences on a commercial site.
3.
Change in steel skeletal grid layout
This change resulted from circumstances outside the projects control, and was also affected by the
change in beam length discussed above. It concerned the steel skeletal system that was supplied and
designed around known available (free) equipment. The decision was also taken by the ECBP to
use the shorter aluminium beams already on site.
A steel skeletal support system is a very rigid birdcage arrangement, and the plan spacing of the
legs is normally governed by the safe spanning capacity of the primary and secondary bearers. In
building work for thin slabs this would normally be on their largest plan grid size of 2.4 x 2.4 m.
Two factors, outside the control of Task 2, affected the layout, firstly the requirement to limit the
plan grid size to 1.8 x 1.8 m to suit the items held by the plant hire supplier, and secondly the
limitations on layout in having to use the aluminium primary beams already on site in 8 m and 4.2
m lengths. The choice of secondary members would not affect the grid layout.
The optimum layout of steel skeletal shoring shown on the original suppliers drawing was a
1.8 x 2.4 m grid of equipment and would have weighed about 15.8 tonnes. Altering the layout to
a 1.8 x 1.8 m grid, but redesigned to suit the aluminium primary beams already on site, would have
increased the quantity of equipment to about 17.1 tonnes.
As finally erected, the shoring estimated from site sketches and based on the 1.8 x 1.8 m grid of
equipment supplied and now using the on-site aluminium 8 m and 4.2 m primary beams weighed
about 20.0 tonnes.
The direct effect of the two factors was to increase the weight of equipment to be man-handled,
erected and dismantled from 15.8 to 20.0 tonnes. This changed the falsework layout in plan from
the optimum 1.8 x 2.4 m grid to a 1.8 x 1.8 m grid and positioned the standards to suit the shorter
beams. This resulted in an increase of 26% in the weight of equipment to be man-handled, with a
likely corresponding decrease in production efficiency.
Change in layout to suit

available items: increased
weight to be man-handled
by 26%
4.5 Permit to load and permit to strike

It is recommended that a verbal procedure for permit to load and permit to strike is not adequate
for a large building site, and that a procedure involving written confirmation should be used. The site
management should not allow any change in procedure, especially after the detailed preconstruction
procedure agreements. A formal permission to load the falsework is one of the principal activities
of the TWC, as stated in Clause 2.5.2.2(m) of BS 5975 for construction sites, and this should be no
different for large building sites involving temporary works.
Use a written
confirmation procedure
As this Guide relates to temporary works, the term permit to load is used and not permit to
concrete, which implies checks on reinforcement, cover, etc. Obviously reinforcement and cover
have a significant effect on the performance of the structure, particularly its load capacity, as
wrongly positioned reinforcement may reduce the design capacity, and appropriate checks need to
be established.
Importance of checks on
reinforcement, cover etc
In temporary works it is approval to load the assembly of falsework and formwork that this Guide
requires. This may include the support of steel permanent decking or precast permanent formwork
units, before concreting; in such cases, the management may require staged approvals. The
procedure for the approval is likely to be shown on two sections of a single form.
Permit to load
Useful guidance on checking falsework and formwork on site is given in a Concrete Society series
of checklists. (Refs 28 and 29)
Useful guidance in
Concrete Society Checklists
The permit to load system for the falsework at the ECBP was initially operated using a signed form,
but subsequently became a verbal matter with the constructor signing the day book (a bound book)
instead of a form with the client. The purpose of the written system was to ensure that both research
36
4.6 Sequence of work
and construction teams had taken into account all aspects prior to loading or striking the temporary
works. This was very carefully considered and agreed upon by many parties involved at the
precontract stage of the ECBP.
Permit to strike
The comments about the permit to load relate equally to the permit to strike, but with the added
concerns of backpropping in multi-storey construction. Obviously the permanent structure should
be strong enough before the supporting falsework is removed, but, in multi-storey construction the
supporting slab is very often also transmitting part of the imposed load into the lower slab(s)
through backpropping. These backprops are falsework as they are helping to support the permanent
slab until it can carry its own weight. Any permit to strike should incorporate any backpropping
procedures. Chapter 6 of this Guide gives detailed guidance on striking and backpropping. The
importance of the sequence of removal of the falsework and any related backpropping cannot be
stressed too strongly.
Permits for permanent

formwork
The comments above for permits to load and to strike apply equally to other permanent formwork
systems that require propping, such as steel profile decking.
Important to follow agreed

striking procedures
A non-adversarial procedure is to be commended, but even on the controlled ECBP site with the
agreed verbal procedure, the back props between levels five and six were removed prematurely by
accident. This altered sequence of removal generated a theoretical unit load of 15.25 kN/m2 on the
sixth floor slab (BR 394, Ref. 2), compared to the unfactored design load of 10.50 kN/mZ.The sixth
floor had reached its design characteristic concrete strength at the time of the incident. A serious
disadvantage of the verbal procedure adopted was its inability to cope with staff changes or
absences at critical stages in the project. (The removal of these props took place on a Sunday.)
A general reduction in engineering ability and understanding on building sites and the importance
of controlling the operatives, particularly if the recommendations on very early striking are to be
adopted, makes the need for formal approval to load and strike and to follow agreed procedures
even more necessary.
The discipline of maintaining a permit to load and permit to strike systedprocedure, issued and
signed by the agreed signatories, has the significant merit of being maintained in a folder or book on
site - available to all site staff, even when senior staff are absent. Any agreed procedure and order
of striking props should be included in the same place. A check by the supervisor on the Sunday in
question would not have found a signed approval form, and removal of backpropping at the lower
floor level should not have commenced. The suggestion by site that these approvals on building
works be kept to a written record in the site agents day book is not considered a satisfactory
alternative to a permit form system.

When planning the order of construction, TWDs and TWCs should consider the implications of
the sequence. The shape of the building, number of floors and sequence of construction all affect the
programme. Starting column construction in the wrong place affects subsequent operations.
Early striking benefits lost
if no reuse!
Early striking of slabs, thereby making the formwork available for reuse very quickly, possibly on
the morning of the second day after the pour, may not be the most practical solution for a site. If
there is no place for storing the forms, then the benefits of early striking are lost. The size and shape
of the building under construction have a direct bearing on the planning.
Consider casting columns

under the formwork
For example, on buildings with a small plan area, overseas experience has shown that it is generally
more economic to start slab formwork on the floor above before forming the columns. This requires
enough additional formwork until the struck formwork becomes available. The added difficulty of
forming columns under the formwork and cost of additional material are usually more than offset
by the time savings on the project as a whole.
In contrast, on a large floor area job, the sequencing might allow the soffit formwork to move up
a floor, but offset laterally, thus allowing unimpeded column construction on the newly struck
slab.
At the ECBP, the shape of the building, number of floors and sequence of construction had a direct
effect on the safety of operations. Simple items, like the order of casting columns, had a considerable knock-on effect on safety of steel-fixing at the next slab level. The effects were particularly
37
noticeable when fast-track flying tables were used, as outlined below in an edited extract from the
research report:
For the system of tables used, it is possible to identify an inner line of tables and an outer line of
tables. For ECBP, there were four lines of tables, two inner, two outer. On a different sized building, there
would be no more than two outer lines, but could be more or less than two inners (e.g. a three bay building
has one inner and two outers; a five bay building has three inners and two outers).
Order of column casting

affeds safety
It is clear that the inner tables are easier to move than the outer ones as the erect and dismantle section of
the falsework at the end with the staircase opening and upstand beam has to be dismantled before the outer
ones can be moved.
For the ECBP project, therefore, it would have been possible to strike the inner lines of tables, and immediately fly them up to the next floor. In this way, 50% of the falsework would be moved straight awaylo.
If the middle infill strip is then completed, this results in 50% of the slab being decked out. The steelfixers
could then begin their work. However, such a fast-track solution creates a problem: starting decking from
the middle of the slab means there are two leading edges which must be protected. In addition, tables
clearly cannot be placed whilst the column forms are still in place, so the column-casting sequence may
need careful consideration. Such a solution will also have a knock-on effect on other processes, e.g. steel
fixing. It was common for the steelfixers to start at one end and work towards the other. If they started in
the middle and worked outwards, this might require a different reinforcement design11.
Further benefits could have been achieved by redesigning the edge tables in the end bays at the
ECBP to make them easier for crane handling. Some edge tables could have been almost completely
struck by crane. If the sequence had allowed the inner table to be flown first, followed by an edge
table, this would have given an edgelend for the steelfixers to start. As there was only one re-use this
was not adopted at ECBP. The TWD and the TWC should consider edge tables very carefully, as
their correct design can make a significant difference to the process and productivity.
The efficiency of the concreting process is an important consideration in design and will dictate the
area of slab that can be concreted, thus determining the amount of s o a t formwork required. Above
ground level, a pour for the floor slabs of a typical frame can be over 500 m2 in area and up to 30 m
in any dimension (ECBP floor slabs were single pours of 675 m2). The BCA guide Concretingfor
improved speed and efficiency (Ref. 30) discusses the influence of pour size on the ECBP slab
construction by comparing the single pour to two or four pours on separate days.
Typical frame slab

area 500 r n 2
Construction joints are acceptable provided they do not compromise the performance of the
structure. Even when the use of a construction joint is not intended, the possibility of an unexpected
cessation of a pour should be planned for; this may require holding extra equipment, such as
expanded metal, on site as a contingency.
Plan for cessation

of slab pour
Another lesson from sequencing of the work relates to the number of column forms used.
Considering also the comments in Section 3.4 on columns with and without kickers, it would seem
that the exact order of column construction takes on greater importance. With the usual contract
adopting only one generic system of construction (unlike the ECBP with its four types), the care
taken in planning the exact sequence of column casting, related to the programme of fitting the
falsework around the columns, will determine the optimum number of column forms and provide
a safer, and often faster, construction cycle. The extra cost of another column form would be offset
by the advantages in time and safety, as stated in an edited extract from the research report:
Each floor of the building had 20 columns. Seven sets of column forms were supplied (at the request of
the contractor, who had concerns about storage). This meant that the 20 columns were poured over three
days, the first pour taking place the day after the slab was poured. An innovation on this project was under
the Task 4 research to investigate early striking of the slab falsework, with slabs often struck 24 hours after
pouring. Part of the striking process involved removing the handrails from the slab falsework and repositioning them at the edge of the slab, making a permanent guardrail around the edge of the newly-cast slab.
In addition, striking involved removing the working platform around the edge of the slab falsework. When
a slab was struck after 24 hours, it was sometimes the case that the working platform and handrails on the
slab falsework alongside the third set of columns were removed and repositioned before the column was
struck*. Hence, this meant no access was possible to the outside edge of the column shutter. This made
striking these columns very hazardous. The solution would be to pour the columns in only two stages,
hence using ten column form setsl3.
10
For a five-bay building, the inner tables represent even more of the total slab area (60%).
11
Another example favouring contractor detailing. (Ref. 9.)
38
Constructor to consider
order of casting and
form can significantly

improve progress
4.8 Method statements
4.7 Striking
- planning considerations
The criteria for striking slabs recommended in CIRIA Report RI36 (Ref. 31) relates concrete
strength at the time of striking to the design 28-day strength of the slab and allows for the actual
loading applied at the various stages of construction. Further information on this method for
striking slab formwork is outlined in Section 5.3.6 of the Formwork Guide (Ref. 5), which also
includes worked examples in its appendices.
Serviceability limits give
faster striking times
A major recommendation from the research (Ref. 2) on the ECBP was the verification that
accepting serviceability as the governing criterion could give faster striking times, yet still ensure
a safe structure that was not harmed during construction. Provided the crack extent, crack width
and deflection during construction do not exceed those under the design service load conditions,
then the structure might reasonably be deemed not to be impaired. This innovative approach was
part of the Task 4 PIT project work, and the background to the findings is discussed.in detail in
Chapter 6. Chapter 7 gives practical guidance on the application of these innovative methods.
Information to be available
to TWC by the PWD
Whichever method is used to decide the basis for striking, the PWD should make available to the
TWC the following information for each floor:
(a)
Characteristic strength of the concrete in N/mmz (stating whether cube or cylinder strength)
(b)
Design imposed load on the slab in kN/m2 (including all partitions, service loads, etc. and
expressed as unfactored loads)
(c)
Assumed self-weight of the slab in kN/mZ (excluding finishes and partitions)
(d)
Assumed self-weight of any finishes, partitions, etc. in kN/m2 to be applied to the slab.
Advance agreement
on concrete strength
assessment
The method of assessing the concrete strength for striking should be established and agreed
between the parties at the pre-construction phase (see also Section 6.4). Both the PWD and TWC
need to be confident that the lower bound concrete strength can be accurately determined by the
site testing proposed. The BRE-recommended method (Ref. 32) for early-age strength assessment
is to use a pull-out test, the LOK test, based on an average of four results. The pull-out test requires
the PWD to accept some cast-in inserts and some local damage to the concrete.
Location of concrete critical

for striking assessment
The location for the assessment of concrete strength should be carefully considered. The top surface
near to the interior columns and at mid-span are often critical areas for strength assessment of slab
concrete, and may dictate locations of LOK tests andor supportive concrete sampling for cube tests.
Implications of pull-out
testing on finishes
As LOK testing is the preferred method of assessing strength, early consideration by the PWD of
the implications of the fixing positions is required. Ideally they should be considered for the top
surface of the concrete slab. Where LOK inserts are to be fixed in the sofit, a 400 mm square panel
is constructed in the sofit plywood which is removed to allow testing of the insert to take place,
before striking the main formworklfalsework. No problems were encountered at the ECBP with the
construction of these panels. Clients or specifiers wanting LOK tests as well as specifying finishes
requiring purpose-made GRP or steel formwork should be aware of the consequences.
Backpropping and striking

on agenda at site meetings
The detailed backpropping and striking procedure was regularly discussed at all ECBP site progress
meetings and required concrete strengths at time of striking to be established in advance. In view
of its importance, and relevance to the PWD and the TWC, it is recommended that this subject is
added to the agenda of every construction progress site meeting.
4.8 Method statements

Suppliers to have method
statements available
Suppliers, importers and users of systems of formwork and falsework should regularly update their
method statements to consider local practices and materials and reflect what is actually happening
12 The first two sets of columns on each floor were generally struck after 12 hours, to allow subsequent sets to
be poured 24 hours later. The third set was not always struck at this age as there was no urgent need for the
shutters, and, once struck, storage space for the shutters had to be found.
13 In retrospect, the frame constructor agreed that pouring columns in two days would have been better, and
would have had the additional effect of reducing each floor cycle by one day.
39
4.8 Method statementr
on site. Method statements are an important way for suppliers to communicate their intended safe
operating methods.
Although all manufacturers, importers and suppliers of equipment and articles for use at work have
a legal requirement under the HSW Act Section 6 (Ref. 35) to provide adequate information about
the use for which it is designed, the quality and accuracy of issued method statements varies
significantly.
The method statement should be relevant to UK conditions and equipment. For example, a
suppliers method statement on video that shows continental 500 mm-wide sheets of plywood
being laid down overhand on top of beams does not reflect the risks and hazards associated with
laying down UK size sheets of plywood the right way round which are 2440 mm long.
The TWCs role as co-ordinator takes on even more importance when construction involves more
than one equipment supplier, as occurred with both the steel skeletal system and the precast planks.
The interface responsibilities to ensure that adequate method statements for the combined systems
are produced require good overall knowledge of the construction process; and the most appropriate
author of such temporary works method statements would be the TWC.
40
TWC to co-ordinate when

several s u p p l i e ~i ~ ~
5 Construction stage
Recommendations - Construction stage
General platforms, fans, etc.

1. A radio for crane control that can be used by the slinger or signaller handsfree makes the job easier and improves safety and performance.
2. Consideration should be given to providing temporary debris fans, possibly as
netting, at lower levels to catch items on the edge.
3. Adequate loading-out platforms should be incorporated in the construction
process. They should be properly designed, and ideally fit flush with the top
surface of the slab.
4. Loading-out platforms should be clearly marked with their safe load.
5. Loading-out platforms intended for use with brick pallets should be designed
for 20 kN/m2 imposed load and limited to one pallet high.
Columns
6. Provision should be made for adequate working platforms to be incorporated
in column forms, complete with full platforms and guardrails on all four sides.
7. Methods to provide adequate stability when only half a column form is erected
should be developed, with particular reference to corner columns.
8. Columns should be cast about 20 mm into the slab.
Table and flying forms
9. Proprietary suppliers should consider incorporating a fixed length plan brace a t
or near the head level, particularly when assembling falsework for tables.
10. When using tables that are rolled out from below, only secured trolleys should
be used to handle them.
11. When operating flying tables or forms all members of the team should receive
basic training as slingers or signallers and be aware of the correct crane
signals.
12. Compensating clutches should be used on all table and flying form lifts
involving four unequal legged slings.
Precast units
13. When using precast planks that require temporary support, the TWC should
co-ordinate the falsework, paying particular attention to provisions for
adequate working platforms and/or connection points for safety harnesses.
The movement of such falsework between floors may need plan bracing.
14. All precast units should be marked with orientation pointers and lifting point
positions identified to comply with the suppliers issued erection drawing(s)
and method statement(s).
41
5.1 General
5.1 General
As already stated in Chapter 2, studying the process of construction is most likely to provide
benefits for future contracts. The comments in this section relate to experiences at Cardington, and
will be of interest to suppliers, manufacturers and users of temporary works equipment.
The experiences gained from the contract indicate that there are advantages in considering complete
temporary enclosures to a building under construction, provided the use of fast-track flying table
systems is not envisaged. The benefits of all-weather working, external protection to public and
outside operatives, plus reduced dependence on edge protection might offset the extra cost of
enclosure, but would limit crane handling of equipment. The concept should be to improve the
process engineering of the construction and give better guarantees of completion on time.
There is no unique way to reduce or eliminate a risk as each site and organisation are different. The
risk assessment, a requirement under the Management of Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations
(MHSW) (Regulation 3), should have identified the needs; in addition the C(HSW) Regulations
(Regulation 6) (Ref. 16) will have considered avoiding falls from heights. The philosophy is to
follow the safety hierarchy, with working platforms as the first order of protection, while harnesses
and nets are a lower order of protection, and used only if providing a working platform is not
practicable. The solution at a particular site also depends on the training and competence of the
operators, the quality of supervision, and the type and familiarity of the equipment supplied in
response to the designl4. The nature of the industry, with its changing work force, also has an effect
on the solution adopted; more experienced operatives require less training.
Consider complete
enclosure
More experienced
operatives require
less training
For example, consider the removal of flying tables from a lower floor; the Regulations make
provision for the temporary removal of barriers where it is not reasonably practicable to operate
with them in position, but the Regulations still require suitable and sufficient means to prevent, so
far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling. Thus consideration of the lower order protection,
such as nets or harnesses, is appropriate. The use of harnesses in certain temporary works activities
has been shown from the ECBP research to hinder performance and compromise safety, so the
importance of the risk assessment at an early planning stage of construction is emphasised.
Temporary removal
of barriers
The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) (Ref. 23) were introduced
after the ECBP was completed and during the preparation of this Guide, but have not significantly
altered the requirement for safe handling of all temporary works, both mechanically and manually.
LOLER
5.2 Material handling

The handling of temporary works equipment on site needs careful study; not only because of the
method of work adopted, but because of the varying ways in which the constituent parts are
handled. Comments have been made in Section 4.4.6 on the lengths of components.
Handling starts with procurement, for example, specifying whether stillages, banded or loose,
wheeled pallets, etc. are used for initial delivery. From arrival on site, the internal movements need
considering, as components or when assembled into larger units for handling, such as flying tables.
Under nearly all conditions of construction, once a floor slab has been cast, there will be peripheral
items to move up to a higher level. On the flying tables, boxes can be fitted to the standards to move
some of the loose parts, while on the skeletal systems items can be collected on pallets, or possibly
banded if larger or longer items are to be handled, prior to moving to loading-out platforms. These
will be all the manually fitted items, such as the make-up pieces between units, props and beams
around openings andor staircases, including temporary guardrails, tube and fittings, etc. The use
of manual pallet shifters is recommended.
The original planning of the ECBP was to construct the building by passing items manually up
through the stairway openings to subsequent levels. Although a reasonable concept, it was found
that many of the components were either too long, or too heavy, when palleted together to pass up
manually. The storey height of 3.75 m also restricted vertical handling. This meant that a loadingout platform was used at every level, as discussed in the next Section.
14
Once again the TWD and possibly the PWD have an influence on the safety of the system selected.
42
Procurement important
5.3Loading-out platforms
Unsafe lifts from

lower floors
Although not observed at the ECBP, an unsafe method is sometimes seen: a crane is connected to
a stillage inside the building line, which is under a recently cast slab with projecting working
platform. This requires removal of the local guardrail. This practice should be discouraged and will
generate an unsafe lift, unless special equipment such as a balanced C-hook is used.
5.3 Loading-out platforms

Use loading-out platforms
if no external scaffolding
The original concept of the ECBP was to construct the building with limited cranage, but manual
handling between floors was found to be impractical and a loading-out platform was used for all
the construction methods and systems.
Due to the difficulty and cost of loading-out platforms, described in the following paragraphs, the
additional cost to the temporary works of designing out their requirement should be actively
pursued. It should be remembered, however, that such platforms may also serve following trades,
making them more cost-efficient and beneficial for the overall project.
Projecting beams to form

platforms cause steps
Ideally, the loading-out platform should not simply consist of beams projecting from the building,
laid on top of the cast slab and made into platforms. This method produces a step in the platform,
because it is not at the same level as the cast slab top surface, and the beams can introduce reverse
bending into the newly cast slabs.
Fit top surface flush
It is recommended that loading-out platforms are incorporated which are properly designed, and fit
flush with the top surface of the slab they are to service. Fitting platforms to suit the cast top surface
of the floor slab will facilitate handling equipment on pallets with small manual pallet shifters;
pallets can then be moved from underneath the previously cast slab to the platform, for direct
connection and slinging onto the crane. A typical application of several platforms in use on a
building is shown in Figure 10, each platform having guardrails, toeboards and notices identifying
the safe load on the platform.
to current activity
It is also recommended that consideration is given to having two such platforms to keep pace with
the varying levels of construction: one at the level being struck with its platform top flush to the
Figure 10: Typical loading-out platforms in use.
43
5.3 Loading-out platforms
top surface of the lower slab, and one at the higher level flush to the next floor. The top of this
second platform should ideally be set to the top of the recent new slab to aid material movement
for following trades.
In certain circumstances, such as when manually handling beams or face contact materials to the
working area of the soffit formwork, a third platform might be justified. This platform is ideally
fitted with its top surface not at soffit level, but raised up by the slab thickness. This would avoid
repositioning its level after concreting the slab, and might require a small temporary ramp down to
the soffit level.
There is also a good technical argument for having more than one loading-out platform.
The likely applied imposed loading on a platform should be considered. A typical quoted loading
for general material storage is between 4.0 and 4.5 kN/m2 (Service Class 5 loading) and would be
generated by pallets of equipment weighing up to only 400 kg. The legs of pallets create very high
local loads and special platform surfaces are required to cater for the impact and point loads
applied. Thus it is not good practice to lift a pallet onto either a decked-out plywood area of soffit
formwork, or onto a recently cast slab that has not yet been struck.
General storage
loading 4.5 kN/m2
(Service Class 5)
When brickwork is to be handled into the building, pallet loads will increase significantly - for
example, the footprint load from a single pallet of bricks can vary from 14 to 17.5 kN/m2 depending
on the weight of commonly used bricks. It is recommended that loading-out platforms intended for
use by brick pallets should be designed for an imposed load of 20 kN/mZ.
Brickwork loading-out
platforms - design
for imposed load
of 20 kN/m*
Lifting loads from one loading-out platform to another has the benefit of the pallet being landed
onto a designated area, with correct decking, guardrails and toeboards.
Considering the safe handling and slinging of the loads: the platforms, being external to the
structure, will not interfere with general construction, and should give better vision and more lifts
for the crane. From a process point of view, the materials delivered to the site for a particular floor
will have a common route from delivery to floor location.
Loading-out platforms should always be clearly marked with sign boards showing the safe load in
kNIm2.
Sign boards showing

safe load
Proprietary loading-out platforms are available in the form of system towers, with integrated safety
rails and gates, for either front face loading or side access for congested sites. Typical safe loads
are 2000 kg per platform on a 2.4 x 2.4 m system module.
Loading-out platforms can have implications for both the PWD and the client, in that ground space
may have to be allowed for them from the foundation level, see Figure 10.
Support does not have to be taken from the ground: it can be taken from the building, and proprietary
systems are available for cantilever loading-out platforms, i.e. projecting out from the building line.
They generally comprise twin steel beams with a raised platform between, thus making wheeled
access onto the platform harder than moving equipment off the platform onto the concrete floor.
They have been found to be both expensive to hire and impractical on a busy site, as they often are
required to be proof tested under the lifting regulations (Ref. 23) prior to fitting and use at each
floor.
Possible proof testing

of cantilever platforms
5.4 Temporary works to columns

Section 4.4.2 recommends that adequate working platforms are included when procuring column
forms. They should be complete with full platforms and guardrails to all sides. The TWC should
verify that this is what has been supplied.
Adequate platforms
The stability of columns is normally achieved with push-pull props on two faces at right angles.
This is particularly difficult to arrange for rectangular corner columns to buildings, and methods to
provide adequate stability when only half a column form is erected should be developed. Figure 11
shows the arrangement at (a) and (c) where only one push-prop can be attached to the first half of
the 'L' forms erected, whereas the arrangement at (b) permits both props to be fitted and provides
two-way stability to the form for the left hand corner only. Note that the access platform at the top
will not be complete until the second half 'L' has been fitted.
Stability - particularly
of corner columns
44
5.5 Temporary works to walls and lift shah3
F
(a) Not safe
(b) Safe
(c) Not safe
Figure 11: Plan of column form at corner and edge of building.
Avoid loose parts
The method of connecting the two halves of the column form together needs to be carefully
considered. Ideally there should be no loose parts that could be dislodged during fixing or striking
of the forms.
The method of lifting the column formwork should be considered - proprietary lifting points
should, if possible, be incorporated on the formwork.
Connection to slab?
When considering the fixing details for the propping used to stabilise the column forms, particular
care should be taken to reduce tripping hazards, such as by using projecting bars from the top of
the slab, as discussed in Section 4.4.4.
Cast columns
20 mm into slab
The practice of casting columns about 20 mm above the final sofit level (Section 5.5.2 of the
Formwork Guide (Ref. 5 ) ) is recommended to allow for elastic shortening of the falsework as load
is applied.
Importance of curing
The production of durable concrete requires the correct curing of columns to reduce water loss from
the surface. Once the forms are struck, the method of curing, and time of application of the curing
compound andor protective membrane can affect the development of durable concrete. A delay in
commencing curing of more than three hours after striking can be critical. Further guidance on
curing is given in Concrete Society Current Practice Sheet 112 (Ref. 33).
5.5 Temporary works to walls and lift shafts

The client will often want the layout of the flat slab structure to be as flexible as possible, with open
plan areas and as few walls as possible, but the PWD will need to incorporate lateral stability into
the structure. Generally this will be achieved by cross-walls, either erected separately or cast in situ
as construction progresses. The lengths of walls will be kept to a minimum, and will often be sited
around the lift shaft, providing benefits for lateral stability and fire protection.
Formwork to walls and lift shafts will follow traditional methods, either as panel formwork with
make-ups as necessary, or as traditional soldiers and walings with some complexity at the corners,
as shown in Figures 12(a) and 12(b). An innovative idea for the fast construction of lift shafts is to
Precast
Make-up panels
(a) Panel forms
(b) Soldiers and walings
Simple
formwork
(c) Precast with straights
Figure 12: Typical plan arrangements of formwork to a lifi shafi.
45
5.5 Temporary works to walls and lie shafts
incorporate precast corner units, as shown in Figure 12(c), thus allowing simple straight sections
of formwork to be used between the precast units. This speeds up erection and use. The design of
double-faced wall formwork is covered in the Formwork Guide (Ref. 5).
The use of kickerless construction for walls was discussed in Section 3.4, and one method of
providing kickerless construction for walls in multi-storey construction is the use of precast concrete
blocks, either cruciform or waisted, as shown in Figure 13. These can be either site- or factory-made
to suit a particular building dimension. The blocks, approximately 50 to 75 mm thick, can be made
with a through hole in the top, and are suspended off the top tie rod of the formwork. The blocks can
be positioned at wall ends or at tie rod positions, depending on the arrangement and length of the
formwork. The use of such blocks ensures vertical alignment and accuracy of reinforcement of subsequent walls at a higher level. The system is also adaptable for use on perimeter walls.
The practice of casting the walls about 20 mm above the final soffit level (Formwork Guide (Ref.
5)) is recommended to allow for elastic shortening of the falsework as load is applied.
Wall with slab cast
Precast block
Kickerless construction
(Section 3.4)
Wall is over the wall below
Cast walls
20 mm into slab
Part of wall formwork
Figure 13: Typical precast block for wall kicker.
5.6 Temporary works to slabs

When initially assembling the falsework, particularly when tables are used, consideration should
be given by suppliers to incorporating a form of plan brace at or near the head level. This would
have two significant benefits, firstly, ensuring that such towers are erected square and, secondly,
giving additional stiffness at head level during handling and use.
Plan brace as
aid to assembly
Erection and use of falsework near slab edges, not only during erection but also when striking, can
be hazardous: it will depend on the proximity of the temporary guardrail, but operatives reaching
and handling items close to the top of the falsework are very close to the edge and possibly at risk.
Recommendations on edge distance are given in Section 4.4.3.
Edge distance hazards
A critical aspect observed at the ECBP was the use of harnesses and the placing of plywood sheets
and beams at the leading edge. This is always a difficult area, but operative safety has to be
paramount. The solution is to assess the work and the risks involved carefully by reference to the
method statements issued by the suppliers.
Use of harnesses
Provision should be made for temporary debris fans, possibly netting, at lower levels to catch items
on the edge (see Section 3.10). Special provisions would be needed at the corners of the building.
Even under the research conditions at the ECBP there were at least five incidents involving
equipment accidentally falling off the building from the floor being worked on. Fortunately, nobody
was injured in any of the incidents, although one of the TW consultants was rather shaken.
Provision for debris fans

if no external scaffold
One of the incidents involved the flying aluminium tables, when one of the trolleys used for moving
the units became detached and dropped out of the building. It is recommended that only fixed
46
5.7 Temporary works to precast slabs
trolleys be used to handle such tables. They do not need to be permanently attached, but must be
captive when the table is moved.
The erection of guardrails and toeboards as temporary floor edge protection, just after the slab has
been cast, needs careful consideration.
Edge protection research
Tolerances of
permanent works
Elastic shortening of
vertical steel standards
0.5 mm per metre plus

0.5 mm per joint
(1.0 mm if timber joint)
Typical values for
aluminium allow
0.9 mm per metre
Initial set-up level differs

with individual props
Restrain soffit
formwork against the
permanent works
The C(HSW) Regulations (Ref. 16) state the legal requirements, and detailed guidance is given in
the HSE book Health and safety in construction (Ref. 34). Ideally edge protection should be fitted
before the supporting falsework and its own edge protection are removed. Some sort of fixing into
the top or edge of the new slab is required, but it cannot be clamped underneath the soffit, because
the formwork is still in place. If a very fast strike is needed to achieve the optimum construction
cycle, then these hand-rail fixings may be fitted to the top of the slab while it is still being protected
and cured, often with protective sheetingkoverings. Hence a practical detail is needed, and
selection of a suitable solution has the distinct safety and speed advantage that the buildings
guardrails are fitted once only.
Proprietary soffit systems are unlikely to suit exactly the permanent works dimensions, and will
also have to allow for the tolerances in casting the columns - see NSCS (Ref. 7). Make-up sections
between tables, ends of formwork beams, fitting of areas to the edge of the systems, and around the
columns, may all be difficult areas for access. Working platforms need to be considered to all these
areas, especially where LOK-test inserts (for concrete strength assessment) are required to be left
in the undersides of slabs (see also Section 4.7).
It is normal practice to set the soffit formwork to a level slightly higher than the required finished
soffit level to allow for elastic shortening of the standards and take-up at the formwork and
falsework joints. This is good practice and Clause 6.5.2 of BS 5975 (Ref. 6) gives some guidance
on allowances to be considered. For the storey heights used in building these tolerances should be
between 3 and 5 mm, dependant on whether steel or aluminium systems are used. It is recommended that, in the absence of detailed calculations, the following values of elastic shortening be
used:
0.5 mm per metre (steel)
Shortening of vertical standard
0.9 mm per metre (aluminium)
0.5 mm per joint (metal)
Take-up at joints in standards
1.O mm per timber joint
Take-up at timber bearers
During concreting, the falsework supports will shorten and the soffit formwork adjacent to the
existing walls and columns will move down accordingly. It is recommended that columns and walls
are cast about 20 mm high to allow for this. (See Sections 5.4 and 5.5).
At the ECBP, when adjusting the soffit formwork to the correct level, it was found that setting the
formwork approximately 5 mm low before the final adjustment suited most of the falsework
systems. The exception was the individual prop system, which benefited from setting the formwork
a little high.
Where the falsework system has been designed as the top restrained by the permanent works, the
lateral stability will need to be checked before concreting. The connection of the system to walls
or columns needs to be considered in all directions. It is common practice to use the face contact
material to transfer these horizontal forces in compression. Casting the walls and columns into the
slab assists this restraint as the face material can be butted directly to the permanent works
Set jacks low with

long beams prior to
final levelling
When using lengths of stiff beam continuous over several standards, the physical act of raising one
jack to level will lift the system slightly at other positions - in contrast, if one tried to set the system
high, lowering one jack was found to be very difficult.
Cure correctly
Correct curing of the top surface of slabs is required to reduce water loss from the surface. The
method of curing, and time of application, should be agreed. Guidance on curing is given in
Concrete Society Current Practice Sheet 112 (Ref. 33).

The use of precast planks as permanent formwork may or may not require temporary supports. For
example, in housebuilding the planks are often supported directly on the walls, but in large commercial
47
open-plan flat-slab structures with few columns, such as the ECBP, the systems often require
falsework as support to the planks until a structural topping concrete has been placed. Where
falsework is involved, the interface of responsibilities should be established at a very early stage of
procurement and proper control exercised (see Section 4.1 and Figure 8).
At ECBP no formal falsework design was undertaken: although the precast plank supplier did
suggest some proposals to BRE, these were not a falsework design. There are fundamental differences
in the design of falsework with a sofit form to those with only primary beams and thus without
continuity at the head level. The designer of the falsework for a precast system has a key duty as a
designer under the CDM Regulations (Ref. 4) to ensure that the assembly will be stable at all stages
of construction, i.e. including the temporary stage when supported on falsework. The supplier of
the precast system also has a duty under the HSW Act (Ref. 35) to provide sufficient information
to the contractor, and specifically the TWC, to co-ordinate the technical aspects relating to the safe
use of their product.
The TWD should address the detailed concerns at an early stage of the falsework system design,
such as:
stability of temporary works systems without continuity at the top, particularly where restraint
to the falsework is expected from the permanent works, through the precast planks
I f falsework required
establish interface early
Fundamental difference
in falsework design:
a) with soffit form
b) with planks
discontinuous
TWDs concerns: stability,

access, platforms
access to infill strips between planks

working platforms for placing units and subsequent slab operations.
Placing precast planks at leading edges can become a hazardous operation and risks can only be partly
reduced through the use of fall arrest safety harnesses. The problem arises because the supporting
system has no deck; the precast planks are acting as permanent formwork and are intended to
eliminate the necessity for any temporary formwork. A solution may be to provide a complete
working platform, which could be expensive. However, it may be that only a part working platform
is required - with appropriate edge protection where no platform is provided. What is clear is that
before construction is started the risk assessment process should lead to the preparation of detailed
method statements including sequences of erection, essential for the safe operation of temporary
works.
Risk assessment and

method statements
at leading edges
It is recommended that all precast units be marked with orientation pointers and lifting point
positions identified to comply with the suppliers issued erection drawing and method statements.
This is particularly necessary where panels may appear similar, but actually have different reinforcement, and wherever panels are designed to be adjacent, such as on two-way spanning units.
At the ECBP this would have considerably reduced erection times.
Orientation pointers
At the ECBP there were problems at the joints between panels with projecting reinforcement, and
with the tolerances at the joints between the columns and the precast planks. They are discussed in
the following paragraphs, and arose from a lack of co-ordination between the PWD, the precast
plank supplier and the constructor. These details should have been discussed and resolved between
the PWD, the supplier and the TWD during the preconstruction stage (see Chapter 4).
#en precast units are required with projecting reinforcement, clashing of reinforcement from
adjacent panels must be avoided. The innovative use of precast panels at the ECBP with two-way
spanning panels stitched together was a unique opportunity to study the implications and learn
lessons from the supply and use of such arrangements. If North-South marks are included on the
units they can be individually matched to avoid reinforcement clashes.
Avoid clashing
reinforcement from
adjacent panels
It is recommended that PWDs should give more consideration at the design stage to the column/
plank interface and should discuss at contract stage the implications with the relevant parties,
particularly the TWD. The detail of the design and the precast plank tolerances may have a
significant impact on the vertical tolerances of walls andor columns, on cover to projecting reinforcement and on positioning of construction joints. Guidance on tolerances is given in CIRIA
Publication C558 Permanentformwork in construction (Ref. 15).
PWD to consider
column/plank interface
At the ECBP the columns required casting to a higher than normal standard of vertical tolerance.
There are normally three solutions to the problem of the column/plank interface:
(a)
48
Cast the column the exact height and bed the planks onto them (i.e. bed within the cover zone
of the reinforcement).
Tolerances
5.8Cranage
Communicate tolerances
to constructor
(b)
Cast columns high by, say, 20 mm. The PC unit supplier must determine the size of the box-out
to give sufficient tolerance and have a method of sealing the resultant gaps.
(c)
Cast the columns deliberately low, with the precast planks on packs. This is not ideal because
of the difficulties of forming the column extensions.
Unfortunately, at the ECBP, on the half of the floor which used the thicker planks glued together,
the PWD specified that Densit had to be over the entire column top area, thus solution (a) was not
possible. Solution (b) was attempted, but was further complicated by the additional requirement for
the bottom reinforcing bars from the planks to meet across the column heads. Tolerances on the
vertical height of the columns were not communicated to the constructor, and, knowing that they
were to be seated alongside units of 75 mm depth, the tight 20 mm control into the underside of
soffit level was not strictly adhered to, with the result that several column tops had to be trimmed
off on site to fit. Thus there was no alternative at the ECBP and the planks had to have cut-outs,
which made for great difficulties in positioning and sealing the joints, plus difficulties of aligning
the tops of the columns and the meshing reinforcement.
The above problems highlight the need for PWDs to make the relevant allowances in their design
when selecting such precast alternatives. Having early discussions with the TWD to envisage the
practical problems will give significant benefits at construction stage.
Research needed into

innovative edge forms
when using precast
planks/slabs
Precast suppliers should be encouraged to develop and supply edge forms that connect directly to
precast slabs. One note of caution is that they should be so designed that it is possible to fit the slab
reinforcement without the need to thread the bars under straps or supports to the stop ends. One of
the problems previously encountered in the use of edge forms provided and attached to precast
slabs is the difficulty of providing a true and straight edge to the building, without unnecessary dog
legging of the edge forms. Any innovative solutions should take account of alignment issues.
Research into guardrail

fixings into precast
construction
In a similar way to that discussed in Section 5.6, when using any precast system, whether for slabs
or for precast staircases, the provision for connecting temporary guardrail posts or assemblies
should be considered, preferably as part of the system. Where the precast units are relatively fragile,
perhaps only 75 mm or even 30 mm thick, then the guardrail provisions may best be incorporated
into the falsework support system.
ECBP had a dedicated crane working on the frame construction. The location of the crane is shown
in Figure A3 in Annex A. On conventional sites other trades would share the use of the crane, e.g.
brick layers, plumbers, plasterers, unloading equipment. Unrestricted crane use, such as at the
ECBP, is rare.
Crane needed on most
generic systems at ECBP
Hands free radio for

slinger/signaller
Team operating flying

tables/forms to have basic
slinger/signaller training
The crane was considered a necessity at the ECBP for most of the systems used. A much larger
crane is needed for handling precast units and aluminium flying table systems, than for the strip and
re-erect systems, which would use the crane mostly between loading-out platforms. The lifting
radius would not have been so large on these systems; it might be possible to eliminate the crane
altogether if another method of moving 1000 kg pallets were used, e.g. an external rough terrain
forklift truck with a long boom.
The slinger/signaller, when directing the crane using the radio, effectively works one-handed.
This can create problems when trying to land awkward-shaped objects such as column forms. A
radio that can be used hands-free would make the slinger/signallers job easier and improve safety
and performance. This applies to applications when the slinger/signaller is assisting the operatives
with the formwork.
Another aspect of the safe use of the crane was the position of the slinger/signaller on the
aluminium flying table system. It was observed that, when the tables were being removed, the
slinger/signaller controlled the crane from underneath the slab, i.e. from the floor on which the tables
were being rolled along. There is an important need for this operation to be controlled by radio, because
thls slinger/signaller cannot see the crane. During the removal operation there will be an operative(s)
on the top of the slab as the table comes out who might also have to give instructions to the crane. It is
recommended that all members of the special team operating the flying tabledforms should have
received at least basic training as slingers/signallers and be aware of the correct crane signals.
49
5.8 Cranage
Care is necessary with short tables in gusty conditions when they are only attached on front slings
as the natural rocking action of tall tower cranes can be significant and has been known to pull short
tables out of a building.
The use of the crane with flying tables or flying forms as units of formwork will have been planned
and considered in the method statements and risk assessments. It is recommended that compensating clutches be used on all table and flying form lifts involving four unequal legged slings.
During operation of the system, there will generally be positions in the cycle when only the front
slings are attached to the unit. To connect the rearward slings, the common solution is to rest the
table onto the slab to take the weight off the front slings; this has safety implications to prevent the
unit slipping, but more importantly can impart high upward forces into the newly cast slab. Some
systems with suppliers method statements allow the units to be rolled out of the building, past their
centre of gravity, without the crane attached. The unit is expected to tip and the back edge of the
table then wedges the unit against the previously cast sofit. The four lifting points are exposed and
the crane is not required until the table is due to be moved.
Gusty wind and

tower crane
Use compensating clutches

if not using C-hook
Tipping of tables and
resting on underside of
cast slab not under crane
control is deprecated
With the use of thinner slabs, often struck after only 24 hours, these methods of work are deprecated.
An alternative method of moving large sections of tables, as flying tables, or otherwise, is to use a
large purpose-designed lifting appliance such as a C-hook. These have to be designed and routinely
tested as lifting equipment (see Ref. 23). They are ideal for moving tables of similar length, but
generally are not suited to handling both short and long tables. The method of handling would
require a safe working procedure to be established.
Establish procedure
5.9 HmgOicatioans of chan

Falsework schemes and drawings should not be altered without the approval of the TWD. On-site
supervisors should also be aware that changing details on drawings and sketches without reference
to the TWC can seriously affect the safety and operation of the system as designed.
Refer on-site
changes to TWC
At the ECBP the sketch provided for the steel skeletal system showed three bays of frame, one on
each side of the slab and one in the middle. The gap between these bays was clearly shown on the
drawing as 750 mm with no connection between them. The bays were actually erected with a gap
of only 600 mm between them as horizontal ties of 600 mm had been provided for another area of
the work. Once the bays were spaced, the 600 mm ties were removed.
The direct effect of moving the outside legs inwards by 150 mm (i.e. 750-600 mm), increased the
outer standard leg load by 10.4% and increased bending in the primary beams by 6%. It also
reduced the external working platform from 815 mm as drawn to only 585 mm - below the
C(HSW) Regulation minimum width of 600 mm (Schedule 2, Ref. 16). This on-site amendment
highlights the need for training of site staff and a control system operated by a TWC.
There is an obvious requirement to make suppliers and constructors more aware of the reasons why
certain equipment is specifically needed. Although, economically, the culture of accepting
substitutions because they are available is tempting, the overall effect on productivity and speed
may actually be compromised. The change in supply of aluminium beams to different modules had
the effect of increasing by 33% the number of tables moved, with a likely corresponding reduction
in overall performance. See also Section 4.4.7.
50
Train site staff
Suppliers and constructors

to be aware why specific
equipment needed
6 Backgr und to striking

and backpropping
Recommendations - Striking and backpropping flat slabs
General
1. It is essential that the technical staff involved in backpropping and striking are
fully aware of the implications of the striking and backpropping procedures.
2. Procedures such as the 'Permit to load the falsework', and 'Permit to strike
the formwork/falsework' must be in a written format: verbal procedures are
not sufficient.
Checks should be established to ensure that reinforcement is correctly located.
Propping, striking and backpropping should be carried out under supervision
to agreed procedures.
5. The Permanent Works Designer should make available the necessary information, such as design loads and concrete strengths, to enable the TWC to
evaluate striking times and propping.
6. The Permanent Works Designer may need to consider the temporary loading
condition during construction, and the possible loading of a slab above its
design service load.
7. The method of establishing the required equivalent concrete cube strength
in the critical area of the slab should be agreed before construction starts.
The LOK test is the recommended method.
8. Propping and striking procedures should be on the agenda of every construction
progress site meeting.
9. The PWD and TWD should use a concrete density of 24 kN/m3 in the design of
the structure and in backpropping calculations, unless another value is specified.
3.
4.
Striking
10. The method of establishing the equivalent cube strength of the concrete in
the critical area a t the time of striking should be stated. (Further information
is given in Section 7.2.)
11. When considering early striking, the strength of the youngest concrete in
the structure is the criterion. This is likely to be predicted from testing slab
concrete from the last area cast near to an internal column.
12. The critical conditions that should be checked are:

the strength of each slab prior to striking,
the strength of the supporting slabs when subjected to the loads of
concreting the new slab.
0
Backpropping
13. The relative arrangement of falsework and backpropping has a significant effect
on the force transmitted through the supporting slab into the backpropping.
14. Backpropping should ideally be fitted below the supporting slab with four
props at third span points, and this should be repeated down through the
structure, as required, in a similar manner.
Continues overlea$..
51
6.1 General
Backpropping (Continued)
15. For backpropping calculations assume that 70% of the total load from the
casting slab through the falsework will be carried by the supporting slab.
16. The strength of the supporting slab should be checked prior to casting,
assuming that 70% of the relevant loading from the slab being poured
through the falsework will be carried by the supporting slab.
17. I n calculating backpropping loads, subject to confirmation in the site risk
assessment, no imposed construction operations loads need be considered.
18. Proprietary suppliers should have available the stiffness properties in kN/mm
for each type of prop used for backpropping.
19. Where backpropping is to be pre-loaded, the method and loads should be
agreed between the PWD and the TWC.
20. Steel and aluminium vertical propping must not be mixed in one support
system for a given floor slab, either as falsework or backpropping.
21. It is essential that the location and arrangement of the backpropping are fully
checked.
The recommendations for striking and backpropping in Chapters 6 and 7 are applicable to
structures with the following characteristics:
(a)
The slab is in situ reinforced concrete or a composite with participating or non-participating

permanent formwork, such as thin concrete precast concrete units.
(b)
Maximum.equiva1ent thickness.of dense concrete 350 mm15.
(c)
The slab is not post-tensioned or cast on thick precast prestressed participating concrete units.
(d)
The slab is two-way spanning with or without beams, or one-way spanning with beamsl6.
(e)
The cast slab is intended to be struck and become self-supporting before any additional loads
are placed on it.
(f)
The reinforcement is positioned within specified tolerances.
(8)
Where backpropping is to be used, the suspended slabs at each level are of similar construction, thickness, etc.
(h)
Where used, there are no more than two levels of backpropping.
Striking of the formwork and falsework from a cast slab needs careful consideration, including
detailed procedures, method statements, and backpropping of loads through lower floors. The
constructor is responsible for safe operation of the striking process: the onerous responsibility of
ensuring that the risk of striking is correctly managed rests with the TWC. Obviously, the agreement
of the PWD is important and the TWC should liaise on matters such as strength assessment, methods
of curing, and order of striking. Both the PWD and the TWC as designers under the CDM Regulations (Ref. 4) have responsibilities for ensuring that the overall design has taken into account the
temporary works. This will include the provision of backpropping as necessary throughout the
building. This Guide places emphasis on following well-planned procedures, and control of striking
15 The depth of 350 mm was chosen as representative by the research. A thicker slab has greater stiffness and
the ratio of the loads (deadimposed) is likely to be different, so the steering group limited the method to
350 mm thickness.
16 Particularly stiff beams will affect the deflected shape of the structure and the method adopted may not be
accurate.
52
Requirements for flat slabs:

Chapters 6 and 7
TWC responsibility
to manage the
striking process
Designers to take account

of any temporary works
6.1 General
and backpropping are critical procedures in safe flat-slab building construction. BRE Report BR 394
(Ref. 2) fixther emphasises this aspect:
Slab construction in multistorey buildings to become
a precision operation
. . it has to be recognised that construction of the slabs in multi-storey buildings must become a
precision operation where the constructor can reasonably guarantee that the props and backprops are
placed in the agreed positions at the appropriate time and that they are not moved prior to the agreed time
for their removal defined by the construction programme.
Application of method
for striking a flat slab see Chapter 7
This Section discusses the background to backpropping and striking and recommends a method of
determining the required strength for striking slabs. This method save significant time and reduce
backpropping, while still producing safe and serviceable slabs that have not been damaged during
construction. The application of the method is covered separately in Chapter 7.
Crack width and

serviceability as a
criterion for striking
Research by the University of Leeds under PiT Task 4, published as BRE Report BR 394 (Ref. 2),
verified that crack width and serviceability are more rational criteria for striking than flexural
strength, and permitted earlier striking of flat slab construction. The previous CIRIA method (Ref.
31) does not consider cracking of the slab as a performance criterion. Theoretically, cracking of
slabs at early age is a more onerous criterion than moment capacity. The effects of punching shear
were considered in the research.
The procedure should be

understood by all parties
prior to use
The methods for early striking introduced in CIRIA Report R136 (Ref. 3 l), described in detail in
the Formwork Guide (Ref. 5) and BS 5975 Code of practice for falsework (Ref. 6), all give safe
values for the required strength of the concrete at time of striking the slab. The proposed method is
based on a very different concept to the traditional idea of the seven day strike on general building
work, and the faster three day strike on fast-track proprietary systems. The new procedure should
be understood by the interested parties before use.
The basis of the proposed method, subject to the limiting criteria detailed in Section 6.2, is that,
providing cracks or deflections generated within the concrete slab at the time of striking are not
larger than those expected when the full strength slab experiences its full design service load, the
structure will not be harmed by early striking. The requirement is for a simple procedure to produce
a safe and serviceable slab that has not been unacceptably damaged during construction, such as by
deflection17 that can safely carry long-term design loads in service.
Punching shear and

flexural strength
criteria considered
Designers will be aware of the problems of punching shear in flat slabs without drop heads. Shear
failure is sudden and occurs without visible warnings, so care is necessary in design. The research
(Ref. 2) compared relationships for punching shear and flexural strength at ultimate limit state
condition. The conclusion, by consideration of the EC2 and BS 8110 rules, was that the more
onerous criteria for punching shear would be an acceptable means of limiting flexural cracking in
flat slabs. This principle has also been adopted in this Guide.
Flowchart Fig. 20
The method recommended for applying these criteria for striking flat slabs in buildings is shown
as a flowchart in Figure 20 and detailed in a sequential format in Chapter 7.
Construction staff to be
aware of TW implications
The operations of backpropping, loading and striking slabs should only be carried out under supervision. Where early striking is to be based on the proposed method it is essential that the technical staff
involved are fully aware of the implications of the procedures and method. This is not a threat to
demonstrate the analytical nature of the subject and warn constructors off using the method, but is to
raise awareness of the complexity and importance of the subject. Few people in construction realise the
risks that may be involved in backpropping. A casual survey of site operatives and supervisors will
demonstrate that, although they are aware of the use of backpropping, few realise how changes in the
type, position or installation of propping can affect the structure and, more importantly, its integrity.
Risks in backpropping
Agreed procedures for

propping and striking
All installation of propping, striking and shoring should be carried out to agreed procedures, as
discussed in detail in Sections 7.6 and 7.7.
Risks in projecting results
It is accepted by this Guide that there are risks in projecting results from only a few studies for
acceptance for general practice. What has been demonstrated by Task 4, and confirmed by other
research (Ref. 37), is that the proposed method can be confidently adopted for similar structures
17 Unacceptable deflection may be defined as deflection that is harmful for the member concerned. (Clause
6.2.6.3.2 of BS 81 10: Part 1 (Ref. 36))
53
6.1 General
within defined limits of type of structure, thickness of slab, etc. One of the core objectives of ECBP
was to promote the economic advantages of this type of flat slab structure, without complex downstands or drop heads to columns, and early striking is a key issue.
Promote economic
flat slabs
Proposals to change loadings (see Section 3.2), and the introduction of lean construction have
brought about more economic, flexible, slab design (Section 3.3). As PWDs design for lower
imposed loads, such as those used at the ECBP, loads during construction will become more
critical. If a floor slab is unable to support the one being cast above it, the loads have to be
distributed between the floors. On a low-rise building, say up to three storeys, it may be economic
to transfer the forces directly to the ground by leaving propping in place at all times, but in multistorey work, this becomes impractical and load transfer between floors is required.
Current design imposed

loads are considered
conservative
It is possible that backpropping considerations from the temporary works design may give a lower
limit of imposed load on a suspended slab. This could naturally limit what is achievable in terms
of slender construction. This is covered in more detail in Section 6.5.
Consideration of backpropping might limit

minimum imposed
load on a slab
Deflection considerations
(Section 6.3)
Short-term and long-term deflections are critical for leaner structures - see Section 6.3.
With the earlier striking times now proposed, it is recommended that each cast floor area is struck
completely and allowed to take up its deflected shape under self-weight before additional slabs or
areas are cast. When construction continues on higher floors without allowing the lower floor slabs
to take up their deflected shape, the cumulative loads from subsequent construction will impart large
cumulative forces into the temporary works, and possibly the slabs. BS 5975 (Ref. 6) demonstrates
in Annex M how this could be more than 225% of a floor weight! This serious risk of overloading
lower slabs by cumulative loading can be significantly reduced by adopting the recommended
procedure for each floor slab cast. In practice, constructors using one set of formwork are unlikely
to have this problem.
To avoid excessive loads building up cumulatively in the backprops, it is also recommended that
backprops are slackened off after striking a slab and then repositioned and retightened as required,
to an agreed procedure. See also Section 7.7.
Allow each floor slab to be

struck completely to take
up deflected shape
Slacken and retighten

backprops each time
6.2 PhiOosophy for Ooading and striking ffoau sOabs

The principle adopted in this Guide and published by Beeby in ICE Proceedings Criteria for the
loading of slabs during construction (Ref. 38) is that the early loading of slabs either due to striking
of formwork or due to other construction loading should satisfy the following two relationships:
Ref. 38
Loading factor
F,,, 4 1.0
Equation 1
Cracking factor
F,, I 1.0
Equation 2
A further criterion, from knowledge of the deflections caused by slabs cracking under load is
considered as:
Effective deflection factor Fe, I 1.O
Equation 3
Except under very special conditions, no slab should be subjected to a load greater than its
equivalent design service load at the time loading is considered, nor exceed the actual design
service load, determined from Equation 4. As the slab matures and gains strength, the load it can
carry will increase up to a limit - its total design service load - at which point the characteristic
concrete strength must have been achieved. The slab may not be able to carry any further load
without permanent strain or cracking, in excess of that implicit in the design.
No slab subjected to
load greater than
design service load
It is implicit in the previous paragraph that, to load a slab to its full design load, the reinforcement
has to be placed in the correct position. If the reinforcement around the columns is not at the correct
depth, this will have a direct effect on the behaviour of the slab, particularly on crack formation, and
may increase long-term deflections; thus the quality of workmanship may need to be considered in
any striking procedures. This should include checks that the reinforcement is correctly positioned
before concreting takes place.
Reinforcement location can

affect long-term deflections
The PWD and TWD may, after detailed consideration and a risk assessment, permit applied loads
on a slab during construction greater than the design service load as they will generally be of short
duration. This is discussed in Section 6.6.
See Section 6.6

and Annex E
54
Check to verify
reinforcement before
concreting
6.2 PhilosoDhv for loadina and strikina flat slabs
Strike earlier than intended

and slab may be damaged!
It is generally assumed that the crack width in a loaded concrete slab is proportional to the stress
in the steel reinforcement, which in turn is proportional to the load. Hence if load is removed or
added, there will be a proportional reduction or increase in crack width. Although the slab is
designed for the ultimate limit state, the actual maximum load on the slab at the time considered will
be the summation of the unfactored loads because the consideration of crack width is at serviceability limit state, not ultimate. The load on a slab at any stage of construction should not be greater
than the PWDs unfactored design service load, so the ratio of imposed loads to dead loads is
important. Obviously if the concrete slab is struck earlier than intended, the structure may be
permanently damaged.
The measurements at Cardington have shown that the cracking around columns has been as
expected, and that cracking within the spans has not been in evidence. The Task 4 report concludes
that:
BRE BR 394
Cracking at internal
columns critical
Consideration of cracking
allowance (Annex G)
The highest moments are likely to occur around the internal columns but careful inspection at various
times failed to reveal any signs of flexural cracking in these regions. Simple calculation suggests that
cracking should be expected in this region at loads well below those actually imposed on the slabs.
Cracking may be ignored in flat slabs and the conclusions also hold good for solid slabs supported on
beams or one-way spanning solid slabs.
The location and extent of cracking vary throughout a slab, and control measures should vary
accordingly. In a flat slab there is likely to be an area surrounding the columns where the moment
becomes excessive. The most critical areas will be around the internal columns. The position of the
top reinforcement also influences cracking; if the workmanship is poor and the top bars are
incorrectly located, this will alter the moment capacity and affect the cracking.
The forthcoming Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39) gives formulae for the analysis of members that are expected
to crack under load, and which behave in a manner intermediate between the uncracked and fully
cracked conditions. Permanent works designers may wish to allow this cracking to be considered
in their analysis; this is discussed further in Annex G.
Subject to the requirements in Section 6. I , the two main criteria for ensuring that a concrete slab
being loaded or struck is not overloaded are:
Loading factor ( F , ) =
Equation 4
Total design construction load on slab - w

-I l . 0
Total design service load on slab
wser
and
Cracking factor (Fer) = -
Equation 5
where
Characteristic strength
is generally the specified
28-day strength
I 1.0
w = total unfactored design construction load on the slab in kN/mZ

w,,, = total unfactored design service load in kN/m2
fc = estimate of the equivalent cube strength of the concrete at the location in N/mm2.
f,, = specified characteristic strength of the concrete in N/mm2

By rearranging Equation 5, the required equivalent cube strength (fcreq)of the concrete in the critical
area (see Section 6.4) at the time of striking to enable a particular total construction load w to be
applied to a given slab, may be calculated from:
Equation 6
which can be rearranged to give:
where
fc
req
estimate of equivalent cube strength of the concrete at the critical location in N/mm2
55
6.2 Philosophy for loading and striking flat slabs
f,,
= specified characteristic strength of the concrete in N/mm2

w = total unfactored design construction load on slab at the time considered in W/m2
wser = total unfactored design service load in kN/ m2.
In Equation 6 the term in the right-hand expression is the concrete strength factor C;,
Concrete strength factor (Csf)=
Equation 7
Thus the relationship between the loading factor and the strength factor can be expressed as:
Equation 8
A graphical presentation of Equation 8 is shown in Figure 22 (page 81). It should be noted that the
value of Equations 4 and 5 should remain below unity except under certain condtions where, with
the approval of the PWD and the TWC, it may be exceeded. For this reason Figure 22 includes
values greater than unity. The method of establishing the equivalent cube strength of a slab for
striking with a particular loading using the above equations is presented in Section 7.2.
Calculating the deflection of a concrete slab is complex, and is generally outside the scope of this
Guide. It is inextricably linked to the extent of cracking of the slab, so early striking, also based on
crack control, may have an effect on the deflection. The spreadsheet at Annex F includes the option
to allow some cracking in the slab, as permitted in the forthcoming Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39).
Recommendations in design codes generally limit the ratio of basic span to effective depth for
beams and flat slabs depending on the support conditions. This is based on limiting the total
deflection. This gives an acceptable serviceability condition for most flat slab structures. Clause
3.4.6.3 of BS 8110: Part 1 (Ref. 36) states:
BS 8110 CI 3.4.6.3
Basic spadeffective depth ratios are based on limiting the total deflection to spad2.50 and this should
normally ensure that the part of the deflection occurring after construction of finishes and partitions will
be limited to spad500 or 20 mm, whichever is the lesser, for spans up to 10 m.
Typical deflection/span
ratio 11250
Within the elastic limits, deflection is proportional to load. This proportionality will, however, be
lost if serious flexural cracking develops. Studies at the ECBP during construction showed that,
though some limited cracking may have occurred around the columns, the deflections could be predicted reasonably closely if the cracking was ignored (Ref. 2). The assumption of proportionality
between loads and deflections therefore remains reasonable when considering the same flat slab
with similar loading patterns. Obviously, changing from a distributed to, say, central point loading
would affect the moment and the deflections.
There remains the question whether increased creep resulting from early loading could result in
long-term increases in deflection. Results from the ECBP over the first eight months or so of
the life of the structure tend to confirm that the effect is not great. However, a linear relationship
was found between the long-term deflection (currently 500 days) and the minimum value of the
parameter cf,lfcu)~~6(w,,,/w)for a slab up to the time considered. It would thus appear that this
parameter (Equation 2 ) conveniently takes adequate account of any variations in the effects of
creep, elastic modulus and tensile strength (i.e. all significant mechanical properties of concre t e).
Deflection proportional
to loads
Calculations on the ECBP slabs (Ref. 2 ) have been made to predict the overall change in long-term
deflections at 3000 days compared to those at 180 days as measured. This consideration is
necessary to predict possible long-term deflection of the slab to reduce the effect on movement of
internal partitions, etc. The results show that the calculated difference in instantaneous deflection
between striking the supports at 24 hours (5.7 mm) compared to striking at 7 days (4.3 mm) is only
1.4 mm on the 7.5 m spans. The calculations assumed that the slab was not cracked. In all cases the
deflections of the 7.5 m spans were well within the specification limits.
Research on the effects of early striking and on deflections of slabs in general is ongoing (Refs 40
and 41). It is accepted that the early striking and subsequent use of a slab to support the next slab,
Long-term creep not

a problem
Calculated instantaneous
deflection at ECBP:
5.7 mrn at 1 day
4.3 rnrn at 7 day
6.4 Assessment of concrete strength at early age
Early striking increases

long-term deflections
will lead to some increase in long-term deflection over that predicted for a similar slab struck at
seven days (the comparison did not take account of any construction operations loads).
Long-term deflection
increase is about
+ 25% for 24 hour
compared to 7 day strike
+ 15% for 3 day compared
to 7 day strike
Early indications from the research (Refs 2, 40 and 41) for the typical floor slabs at the ECBP
suggest that, when using the striking principles in Section 6.2, long-term deflections will increase
by about 25% when striking at 24 hours, and by about 15% when striking at three days, compared
to the predicted long-term deflections (neglecting peak construction load) had the slab been struck
at seven days. The comparison to the seven day strike is given as the PWD is likely to have used
the seven day strike in the initial calculation of long-term deflection.
Although the instantaneous deflection caused by early striking is increased, when considered with
the overall design, the statement in BR 394 (Ref. 2) is still considered to be valid:
Early loading will not have a significant effect on the total deflection in normal circumstances.
6 4 As~ssmelmuoff cocmclreue sUrelmgUh a%earlly age

Importance of reliable
strength assessment
Use the 95%

confidence limit
Air-cured cubes underestimate in situ strength

particularly in winter
It is important for users of this Guide to understand that the principles for striking recommended
are different from previous ideas, and, to obtain the full economic advantages of early striking, the
reliable assessment of the equivalent cube strength of the actual concrete in the critical area at very
early age is needed.
Since it is not possible to obtain the characteristic strength of the in situ concrete, an approach is
adopted in which the location of the weakest concrete in the slab is identified and the lower bound
to the in situ strength at this location determined. The lower bound is taken as the lower 95%
confidence limit to the in situ strength at this critical location.
The rate of gain of strength of concrete at very early age, i.e. in the first 48 hours, is fast, and to be
able to strike the slab within this time without damage, a realistic assessment of the actual strength
of the concrete is needed. Traditionally this would be obtained from testing cubes, often cured
alongside the slab, and these are reasonably representative of the concrete. CIRIA R136 (Ref. 3 1)
confirms that, for suspended slabs up to 300 mm think, the differences in maturity between cubes
cured alongside and the in situ concrete are small, and such methods are acceptable. However,
evidence from the testing programme carried out jointly by the Queens University of Belfast and
the University of Liverpool (Ref. 42), suggests that, under winter conditions at least, air-cured
cubes are likely to have much lower maturities and therefore to significantly underestimate in situ
strength at very early ages.
Pull-out test: BRE

preferred method
Pull-out tests involving pre-planned inserts, LOK test, in the actual concrete structure were shown
to be the preferred method of very-early-age strength assessment for striking. (Ref. 32)
Where was concrete

sampled?
As striking times are reduced, where and when the concrete sample is taken become increasingly
important. Take the example of a slab pour started on Day One at 0900 hours and not completed
until 1500 hours on the same day. Next morning at 0900 hours, cubes from the first batch of
concrete will now be 24 hours old, whereas those from the last batch only 18 hours old. This
difference in time can be critical when considering early striking. The strength gain relates directly
to the hydration of the cementitious content of the concrete. As, in the UK, water is generally added
at the concrete batching plant, the travelling time for the ready-mixed concrete truck, of possibly
up to an hour, needs to be added. This adds to the time after placing and makes the youngest
concrete in the example 19 hours old.
Measure time from water

added for relevant
concrete (not relevant
if in situ testing)
This Guide recommends that, for assessing the strength of concrete for early-age striking, time is
measured from when the water is added to the cement for the relevant concrete. The time is not
relevant when measuring the in situ strength of the actual structure.
Is it then prudent to strike in the same order as the concreting? This requires an understanding of
what striking really means. To be able to remove the soffit formwork the falsework load-bearing
members (the vertical standards) have to be destressed - this is simply done by undoing each head
or base jack a few turns. (The starting point is covered in Section 7.6.) Although on a large area it
might be thought practical to lower the entire formwork at once, in practice the sequence will be
progressive, with the initial lowering by a few turns quite quickly (working from an adequate
platform) followed over time by removal of the supports. Thus a large area can be struck very
57
quickly, certainly faster than it was concreted; hence the recommendation is that the weakest
concrete in the new slab to be struck should govern the striking time.
Other things being equal, one would anticipate that the concrete at the bottom of the slab will be
stronger than that at the top. This has been shown to be the case by in situ concrete strength measurements. This difference is a function both of the maturity of the concrete and of the inherent
differences caused by vibration and water movement (bleeding).
Top vs boj
measuren
The underside of the concrete slab will be insulated by the sofit formwork, which will retain the
heat of hydration and prevent water loss; in contrast, the top surface of the slab will be more
exposed and have lower early strengths. As the days continue these differences will proportionally reduce. Further, the area most likely to crack first due to flexural bending is the top surface
near an internal column, thus the top surface of the concrete near an internal column is representative of the most critical area in terms of cracking. (In terms of deflection the potential cracking
of the bottom surface in the span is more important, but the strength of the concrete in this location
is greater.)
On multiple spa1
concrete at the 1
adjacent to inter
towards end of
likely to be
Knowing the order and layout of the concrete pour, the critical areas for concrete strength determination for early striking can be assessed.
On single Spi
concrete at the
at mid-span is li
critical, but me?
at the top surfac
lower boi
Access to concrete laboratories for early strength cube tests can be restrictive, so other ways of
assessing early strength may be faster and more convenient. The BCA Best Practice Guide Early
age strength assessment of concrete on site (Ref. 32) is based on one of the research tasks from the
ECBP (Ref. 42), and recommends that early striking is determined by pull-out tests on the structure.
Although it is not within the scope of this Guide to discuss the merits of the various ways of
assessing the strength of concrete, relevant observations for flat slab building construction are
included here:
BCA Guide Ei
strength as6
Cubes cured alongside and stored on the slab under similar conditions are likely to give
lower bound estimates (Ref. 32). Although this method is not recommended for very early
striking, it has been included in Table 1 for site use. The results are conservative but the full
benefits of early striking may not be achieved, particularly in cold weather. The number of
cubes tested will depend on the confidence limits expected and the correlation achieved.
Because the cubes are not testing the actual concrete, an allowance may have to be made in
the correlation to obtain the estimated characteristic strength. CIRIA Report RI36 (Ref. 3 1)
recommends a factor of 1.25 to cater for the uncertainty of the test method when using cubes
for early-age strength assessment.
Not ideal m
CIRIA R136 fact
Temperature-matched curing (TMC) is suitable for the larger building site and is more
accurate than cubes cured alongside. TMC permits earlier striking than reliance on air-cured
cubes, but is dependent on where the temperature sensor is placed in the flat slab. The point
selected for the sensor should be 50 mm below the upper surface and be representative of the
concrete considered to be critical. It is relatively expensive.
Because the cubes are not testing the actual concrete, an allowance may have to be made to
obtain the estimated cube strength of the in situ concrete in the critical area. CIRIA Report
R136 (Ref. 31) recommends a factor of 1.25 to cater for the uncertainty of the test method
when using cubes for early-age strength assessment.
Wet-cured cubes, cured in a curing tank on site to BS 1881: Part 11 1 (Ref. 43), are not
representative of the actual concrete strength and should not be used for early strength
assessment for striking.
Not suita
Rebound hammers (the best known is the Schmidt hammer) need extensive calibrating
against cubes from the concrete in question, and can give unreliable results if not used
correctly. It is a non-destructive testing technique. CEB Bulletin 243 (Ref. 44) states:
Not relial
The rebound hammer is easy to handle and allows testing of large areas in a short time. It is ideally
suited for determining the variation of the concrete quality over the different sections of the structure.
Concrete structures that show great differences in the results obtained by the rebound hammer will
automatically need a greater number of strength tests. Other tests may indirectly give an indication
on the compressive strength of the concrete.
58
CIRIA R136 fact
The rebound hammer test is still used extensively, such as in proprietary tunnel form systems,
but is not considered suitable for early-age strength determination.
Recommended use of LOK
test. Result is based on
average of four readings
read off correlation
curveltable
(e)
The LOK pull-out test is recommended in the BCA Best Practice Guide (Ref. 32). It requires
a cast-in insert and the reading from each test is recorded. The equivalent concrete cube
strength is now read off a correlation curve/table for the concrete. The number of individual
readings to establish the equivalent cube strength of the slab should be predetermined. This
Guide recommends that the result is based on the average of four readings. The LOK test is
an accepted test method and was first included in BS 1881: Part 207 (Ref. 45) in 1992.
Although a reliable test, it can be operator sensitive. Operators should be trained and
competent in its use. One of the undoubted successes of the ECBP on formwork was to see
the change in opinion of the frame constructor over the use of the LOK tests, from initial
scepticism to reliance! Inserts are tested as required. They proved very valuable as a basis for
confirming the concrete strength for very early striking.
A comment from the Task 2 report on the LOK test:
A further innovation adopted on ECBP, which has implications for the falsework, was the use of
cast-in inserts (LOK tests) to determine concrete strengths. At the beginning of the project, these
were used as research, in order to correlate the LOK test results with cube strengths. However, as
confidence in their use increased, they were used to back up the cube results.
The correlation is not mix-specific: either the manufacturers correlation curves/tables can be
used or curves/tables can be established on site for a specific concrete. It is important to use
the correct correlation curve/table for the confidence limit assumed. There is evidence that for
more specialised concrete, e.g. high-performance, air-entrained concrete, the correlation of
the LOK test is not as good as for typical structural concrete used in building construction.
Not mix-specific
Use correct correlation
curve
Correlation curves for fewer than four readings to establish the 95% confidence levels can be
established for specific concretes - this could reduce the number of tests, but might delay the
time of striking if the correlation showed a higher average value was needed.
Use of less than

four results
Not recommended
(f)
The Cap0 test is another pull-out test but, although it does not require an insert to be cast in,
it does require a reamed hole to be drilled in the concrete after casting. It is more timeconsuming than the LOK test to carry out and is not suitable for very early striking. See also
the Best Practice Guide (Ref. 32).
(g)
Pull-off tests involve attaching a metal block to the concrete and measuring the force to pull
off the block; the metal block is either attached to the surface, or by coring the concrete and
breaking off the core, to a level near-to-surface. The test is designed for site use and normally
six tests are recommended. It was not found to be suitable for early-age striking as the epoxy
resin gave problems at low temperatures, and with moist concrete. Until new developments
overcome the problems, pull-off tests are not recommended for early striking strength
assessment.
(h)
Other tests for strength assessment are being developed and should not necessarily be ruled
out for use; what is important is to establish confidence in the strength prediction.
This Guide has demonstrated that successful striking at early age, as envisaged in Section 6.2,
requires the temporary works management to assess the lower bound concrete strength with
confidence in the youngest area of the just-cast slab.
Although this Guide recommends the use of the LOK test as a pull-off test for early-age strength
assessment, Table 1 summarises other methods of strength assessment that might be considered. In
practice on site, a combination of techniques for strength assessment will be used, and engineering
judgement will determine the concrete strength for a particular condition.
1s At the ECBP the LOK inserts were fixed in the softit and in the top of the slab approximately in the middle
of a 7.5 m square bay. For those fixed in the softit, a 400 mm square panel was constructed in the softit which
was removed to allow testing of the insert to destruction to take place. No problems were witnessed with the
construction of these panels.
59
~~~
6.4 Assesment of concrete strength at early age
Table 1: Summary of concrete strength assessment methods for early striking.

Number of cubes
or tests carried out
Comment
Average of 4
(recommended)
Use 95% confidence limit of correlation

curves
Less than four
Requires specific correlation curves for

confidence limits
Pull-out Cap0 test
Average of four
Use 95% confidence limit of correlation

curves
Temperature-matched curing
Normal testing
Relatively expensive
Select relevant location for sensor. Mean
is not characteristic (I
Cubes cured alongside and under

the same conditions as the slab
Normal testing
Underestimates strength
Mean is not characteristic ()
Pull-off Limpet test
Average of six
Wet-cured cubes
Rebound test (Schmidt Hammer)
Other tests
Risk assessment
Method of concrete strength

assessment (I)
Pull-out LOK test
(WC)
I Not suitable for early striking

I Not applicable
I Not recommended
I
-
Notes:
All testing should follow the procedures in BS 1881 (Ref. 45).
1.
Where testing is not carried out on the actual structure, e.g. cubes, the relationship between the maturity
2.
and the characteristic strength should be established. CIRIA R136 (Ref. 31) recommends a factor of
1.25 to allow for the testing not being representative of the actual structure.
The number of tests appropriate for each method of strength assessment varies, and engineering
judgement is required. It is often prudent to have the facility to include a spare sample in the
unlikely event of a rogue result. So with the LOK test, casting in sets of inserts allowed one
initially to be pulled; if the concrete was satisfactory the second, third and fourth could then be
pulled and the average strength of four calculated; but if the first was too low, further testing was
delayed. Reference to the correlation curve for the concrete would give guidance, and allow a
judgement to be made on when next to test for early striking.
Test sequence used
It is not recommended that, with the risks involved with early striking and possible failure andor
excessive cracking of the slab, reliance should be placed on only two or three tests.
6.5 Backprop
6.5.1 General
During construction, when the imposed load on a floor slab exceeds its carrying capacity, some of
the load is distributed through the floor, either directly to the foundations or to other slabs.
Four ways to calculate the load in backprops are given in this Guide:
9
Methodone
Use a simple assumption about the percentage of load transferred through supporting slab(s).
This is generally conservative and recommendations on percentages for one or two levels of
backpropping are given in Table 3. This is the method most likely to be used in the initial
calculations for assessing backpropping.
Method One. Table 3:

Section 6.5.3 and
Annex C
Method Two
Use equations to predict the load transfer, knowing the stiffness of the slabs and of the backpropping. This method considers deflection in one plane only.
60
Method Two.
Section 6.5.3
6.5Backpropping
Method Three
This method uses the equations in Method Two but includes simplifying assumptions. It is
likely to be reasonable and to give slightly conservative values in most situations.
Method Three.
Section 6.5.3
0
Method Four.
Section 6.5.3 and Annex F
BS 5975 Section 6.5.2
MethodFour
Introducing deflection coefficients into the equations in Method Two to allow for the location
of the slab and its deflected shape. This gives Method Four a three-dimensional approach to
the shape, and edge panels will behave differently to internal panels of slab. This is a
complex calculation and the spreadsheet on the enclosed CD Rom and in Annex F carries
out this calculation. The spreadsheet also calculates the required equivalent cube strength,
the loading factor, cracking factor and, where required. the effective deflection factor.
Methods for calculating loads in backprops are given in Appendix D of the Formwork Guide (Ref. 5)
and Annex M of BS 5975 (Ref. 6). These give details and calculations for various backpropping
arrangements based on several simplistic assumptions, which are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.2.
The slender, yet economic, structures involved in commercial flat slab designs now envisaged and
demonstrated for the future by the ECBP, have low values of design imposed load compared to their
self-weight, as discussed in Section 3.2. This means that they have less capacity to carry additional
construction loads from higher levels, and thus loads need transferring either to other slabs below
or to the foundations.
Transferring loads directly

to foundations depends on
layout and stiffness of
props and slabs. See
Sections 7.4 and 7.5
Where a building has only two slabs to be cast (the top slab could be a roof), then, as each slab is
built and allowed to take up its deflected state unpropped, additional loads from backpropping can
be transferred direct to the buildings foundations - the slabs already cast acting as packing
between each floors propping. The research (Ref. 32) showed that this arrangement did not
transfer all the load directly to the foundation slab, contrary to conventional thinking. Only if the
backpropping is directly under every falsework standard can a reasonable percentage be transferred
to the foundations. This is discussed in more detail in Sections 7.4 and 7.5.
Little advantage
backpropping through
more than one level
In multi-storey construction, with three or more floors to construct, it is impractical to carry the
additional loads direct to the foundations. Backpropping can interfere with following trades and
programming will be affected by extensive backpropping. The aim is to minimise interference by
limiting the amount and number of levels that need backpropping. In this case, the floors below the
one being constructed need to carry the loads. The proposed method of calculation is shown in
Sections 7.4 and 7.5. It should be noted that the research (Ref. 2) concluded that very little
advantage was gained by backpropping through more than one level at Cardington.
Strength of supporting
slab is critical
At each stage of the backpropping procedure critical conditions apply. These need to be
carefully considered and are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.3. The strength of each slab being
used to carry load needs to be checked. The strength of the supporting slab, particularly the one
immediately beneath that being cast, is nearly always the most critical, both during falsework
erection when it is only just cast, and later during the concreting process. The arrangement of
the backpropping, and the strength of the lower floors may also become critical and will affect
the load distribution.
Excel Spreadsheet Annex F
To assist TWDs, an Excel spreadsheet for Method Four written by the University of Leeds and first
published with the BRE Report BR 394 has been updated to allow for pre-loading of backprops. A
CD ROM containing the spreadsheet and accompanying manual is enclosed with this Guide. The
operating limits and instructions are given in Annex F.
6.5.2 Backpropping assumptions
The main assumptions currently used to design backpropping, which are generally accepted as
giving conservative results, are presented and then considered in the light of the work from the
ECBP (Ref. 2). The current assumptions are:
Assumption 1
Slabs behave elastically.
Assumption 2
An imposed construction operations load is applied at all times.
Assumption 3
The density of concrete is 25 kN/m3.
Assumption 4
Propping between floor slabs and the falsework shoring supporting the soffit
formwork is rigid. (i.e. does not change in length with load).
61
6.5Backpropping
Assumption 5
The load on the supporting slab from the falsework is uniformly distributed and the
backpropping generates a uniformly distributed support system eom underneath the
slab.
Assumption 6
The load transferred through a supporting slab can be proportioned pro rata to
the stiffness of the floors considered.
Assumption 7
Backpropping is installed with zero pre-load.
Assumption 8
The effect of backpropping on deflections is ignored.
Assumption 9
Effects of temperature changes are ignored.
The forces that have been measured in the backpropping to flat slabs in buildings (Refs 2 and 37)
are significantly lower than predicted from the above assumptions, with generally only 30% of the
loads being transferred into lower floors and into the backpropping, compared to up to 50%
predicted in conventional theory. A table comparing the loads transferred using the BS 5975
method and that proposed in Method One is shown in Annex C.
See Figure 27
The following paragraphs discuss the assumptions stated above, and highlight some of the new
concepts that are recommended for backpropping of flat slabs in building construction, offering
solutions and guidance where necessary. The completed floor slab that is directly carrying the
construction of the new slab, known as the supporting slab, is shown to be critical for load-carrying
capacity at several stages of construction.
Assumption 1
The slabs behave elastically
Reasonably elastic behaviour occurred with the slabs at the ECBP, which were significantly more
slender than current practice. Therefore elastic behaviour is likely with similar solid slab structures,
although not necessarily for waffle or trough floor slabs. The considerations for striking are
generally for the slab to remain within its serviceability limits, so that it remains reasonably elastic.
However, there will be some cracking in the slab which will exhibit some non-linear behaviour and
provide redistribution of the moments.
Assumption 2
Supposition
considered true for
solid slab structures
An imposed construction operations load is applied at all times
TWDs need to consider the load applied by operatives during concrete placing, and also any imposed
load on floors after casting, such as for inspection. These construction operation loads are transient.
Three questions arise out of the measurement of loads in the backpropping.
(a)
Should the sofit formwork and its associatedfalsework be designed to carry the construction
operations load during concrete placing?
This is currently assumed as an imposed construction operations load of 1.5 kN/m2 (see
Section 4.2 and BS 5975 (Ref. 6)). This represents an equivalent concrete thickness of only
60 mm, i.e. about 18-20% of the load.
The considered view is yes, and the TWD should allow for this load when designing the
temporary works. The load is transient and moves with the concrete as each area of slab is
cast: once the concrete is placed and the top surface finished off, it is not trafficked by operatives for several hours.
(b)
Design soffit formwork and

falsework for construction
operations load of
1.5 kN/m*
(Service Class 2)
Should the construction operations load during concrete placing, as discussed in (a) above,
be considered when checking the carrying capacity of the supportingfloor and/or any backpropping?
Initial thoughts would suggest that it should be included, or at least at a lower value of, say,
0.75 kN/m2 (Service Class 1 loading).
62
This is really a question of risk assessment, and should be What is the likelihood of an actual
load being applied?* If it were only one value of Service Class 1 loading, and was ignored in
the calculations, but then occurred, the increase in load of only 6% (maximum) is unlikely to
cause distress to the slab.
Calculations at Section 6.6

show it to be only 1.1%
for the ECBP slabs
There is some sense in checking the design of the floor supporting the falsework to take a
lower value of imposed load. On a rapid construction programme, simultaneous operations
may lead to operatives working both under and on top of the soffit formwork. Thus the risk
is considered reasonable to reduce loading at this stage. Certainly, if the area were delineated
See also the discussion in

Annex E and consideration
of the load combinations
for rare conditions
6.5Backpropping
and access restricted, it would be possible to eliminate this load on the supporting slab.
It should be noted that this loading condition may not be the most critical stage for the
supporting slab, as discussed later.
(c)
Not necessary to design
backpropping for
construction operations
loads unless other
activities known
Should backpropping calculations include an allowance for the imposed load on the
supporting floors?
Again this is risk assessment, and this Guide recommends that, unless known activities are
being carried out on the floors in question, it is not necessary to design the backpropping for
imposed loads from construction operations on previously cast floor slabs. If operations such
as storage or block-laying are likely to be carried out on the lower floors, then due allowances
will be required.
The construction operations loads were shown at the ECBP to be non-existent. Quoting from the
Task 4 Report (Ref. 2), (see also Figure 27):
The output from the various load cells (on the backprops) do not suggest that major construction loads
were detected, and it is clear that most slabs below that being concreted carried very little construction
load permanently.
This does not mean that TWDs need not design for construction operation loads arising, for example,
from other trades activity on the recently cast slabs. At the ECBP not all the panels of the building
were fully instrumented. Individual buildings will have different risks depending on the structural
shape, configuration, finishes, etc. For example, a building with internal block walling might require
storage areas for the blocks on the floors, plus defined working areas for block laying on lower floors,
giving significant construction operation loads in the building that need to be considered.
Assumption 3
Density of concrete for temporary works considerations
In the design of reinforced concrete flat slabs the PWD generally assumes a concrete density of
24 kN/m3 (see Section 3.2). This value will include the reinforcement. The same value for density
will also be used by the TWD when carrying out the calculations for the backpropping.
There is divergence of opinion among TWDs over the value of density of concrete containing reinforcement to be used when designing sofit formwork and falsework. The steering group found that
those dealing mostly with building work often use the lower value of 24 kN/m3, whereas those
handling both building and heavier civil engineering structures use 25 kN/m3; the latter is the value
used in most determinations of concrete pressure against vertical formwork. BS 5975 (Ref. 6) states
a value for concrete density of 2500 kg/m3, i.e. 24.52 kN/m3. The higher value agrees with the
recommendation in DD ENV 1991-2-1 (Ref. 11) for a density of 24 kN/m3 plus 1 kN/m3 for
reinforced concrete and a further 1 kN/m3 for unhardened concrete (see Section 4.3). This
suggests 26 kN/m3 for the density of reinforced wet concrete, which is more than the value of
24-25 kN/m3 generally accepted in the UK.
Design of falsework use
concrete density in the
wet condition, 25 kN/m3
It is recommended that, for the design of falsework for normal flat slab construction, concrete
density be considered in the wet condition, i.e. 25 kN/m3.
The slabs at the ECBP, even with the heaviest level of reinforcement, had reinforced concrete dry
densities slightly less than 24 kN/m3 (Ref. 2), justifying the previous recommendations.
Assumption 4
Propping considered to be rigid
This is obviously not correct, as the propping members act elastically, and change in length with
load. The moduli of elasticity (E) for the two most common propping materials are:
Steel
200 x 106kN/mZ
Aluminium
Do not mix steel and

aluminium propping
Equation 9
69 x 106kN/mZ
Because the prop materials have such different elastic moduli, mixing props on a single floor (i.e.
steel with aluminium) must be avoided. When props are mixed there will be a complex load redistribution between the props of different materials and the slab; as load increases, the aluminium
members will shorten and load will distribute through the slab and to the stiffer steel members:
Change in prop length =
Increase in load x Overall length of prop

Cross -sectional area of prop x Modulus of elasticity
63
6.5Backpropping
It is recommended that suppliers provide the stiffness properties (in kN/mm) for their proprietary
propping. Stiffness is inversely proportional to height of propping, so a longer prop is less stiff. For
example, at the ECBP, the stiffness of the 3.5 m long aluminium backprop used was 25 kN/mm.
This stiffness value is used in the backpropping spreadsheet in Annex F.
Typical values for elastic shortening of falsework are given in Section 5.6.
The approximate stiffness of an adjustable steel prop of 3.5 m length is 35 kN/mm. Introducing this
stiffness into the four spreadsheet examples in Annex F reduces the load carried by the supporting
slab by 4 5 % . This correspondingly increases the load attracted to the stiffer backprops and
transfers load to the lower slabs. It is therefore reasonable to assume that changing from aluminium
to steel backprops in these examples does not significantly alter the load transfer.
Assumption 5
Suppliers to give
prop stiffness
At ECBP for prop lengths of
3.5 m, values used were:
aluminium 25 kN/mm
steel 35 kN/mm
Steel backprops reduce
bad in SuPPofiing slab
(approx. 4 to 5%)
Load applied and supports assumed to be uniform4 distributed
The assumption of an applied uniform load on the slab being supported by backpropping, also as a
uniform load, is a convenient design concept for the backpropping.
In building construction, the falsework loading the supporting slab is likely to be a series of point loads
on a 3.0 x 2.4 m grid giving leg loads during construction in the order of 50 to 60 kN. The supporting
backpropping often has a larger individual leg capacity and is arranged on a larger grid. Thus the actual
deflected shape of the supporting slab has an effect on the final loads transferred through the floors.
The relative arrangement of falsework and backpropping is shown in Research Report BR 394
(Ref. 2) to have a significant effect on the force transmitted through the supporting slab into the
backpropping. Considering first the effect in only one plane, Table 2 illustrates the proportion of
load transferred through the slab, which varies from 25 to 50%, depending on the end restraint
system adopted. The load transferred to the backpropping will be less than the load required for the
falsework such that Case (b) is rarely justified, and can be ignored.
Thus the recommendation of this Guide is to fit the backpropping below the supporting slab at third
points, as illustrated in Figure 14 Case (d). It should be noted that it is not normal to include
backprops in the line of the columns, so one bay of slab with backprops at third points has four
props per bay.
When the three-dimensional deflected shape of a slab is considered, the movement of the various
members and their method of support becomes very complex - certainly far too difficult to accept
as a simple method for building flat slabs. By way of illustration, Figure 14 gives an indication of
the effect in one plane (two dimensions only) of two different propping arrangements.
Predicting the actual load spread through a structure in three dimensions is complex and many
factors are involved, such as the relative stiffness of the floors and the preload induced when backpropping is introduced, which is discussed later. When the deflected shape and different resultant
loads are allowed for at the propping positions, it is possible to show mathematically that only
about one-third of the assumed load is actually distributed through the supporting slab into the
backprops, see Table 2 and Figure 14.
Table 2: Effect of falsework and backpropping locations.
I 1
Case Falsework
(a)
Backpropping
Comment
I Uniformly distributed I Uniformly distributed I Conventional theory
(b) [As detailed

(c) At 1/3 points of span
I Directly below
Proportion
w, /
Wbl
I 50%
I Not generally practicable I 50%
At mid-span only
Not ideal on long spans
3742%
(d)
Uniformly distributed
At 1/3 points of span
Recommended
3 2-3 7%
(e)
Uniformly distributed
At mid-span only
Not ideal on long spans
25-3 1%
1
I
Notes:
1. The Research Report (Ref. 2) checked this ratio for simply supported members, fully fixed members and
propped cantilevers. The variation in the ratios calculated is shown in this column. The lowest value of
25% occurred on the fully fixed member condition for Case (e) only; the next lowest was 30%.
2.
64
The load applied to the slab from the falsework is wp.The load in the backprops below the slab is wb,.
Fit backpropping
at third points
6.5Backpropping
Falsework
Case (c) see Table 2
Case (d) see Table 2
Figure 14: Effect on deflected shape of different backpropping positions.

Use Method One Table 3
It is recommended that the percentages of the load transferred through slabs for backpropping
calculations are as in Table 3. This is Method One for calculating the loads in the backprops. This
gives significantly lower loads transferred than the current assumption that each supporting floor
takes the same proportion of the applied load, assuming similar stiffness of each slab.
Assumption 6
Supporting slab carries

67% to 75% of the
construction load
Load carried by a sIab is proportional to its stirness
Distribution of load through the supporting slab has been demonstrated in Task 4 not to be directly
proportional to the stiffness of the floor(s). Task 4 has shown that the supporting floor is always
required to take between 67 and 75% of the construction load, even when more levels of backpropping are introduced. A comparison of the original BS 5975 assumptions with the research
findings on proportion of load carried by the supporting slab is shown in Athex C.
The important conclusions in Table 3 is that, for one level of backpropping, 70% of applied load is
taken by the supporting slab and only 30% is transferred through the slab to the backprops.
Various arrangements of backpropping were used in the research in Task 4 which clearly showed
that the supporting slab contributes significantly to the support of the new slab.
Appears to be a limit on
PWD ratio of imposed to
self-weight load
The corollary of the 70% limit (with Method One) on the load on the supporting slab is that, unless
the constructor transfers all the backprop loads to the rigid foundations of the building, there
appears to be a limit to the ratio of loads that PWDs can accept when assessing the self-weight and
service loads imposed on suspended slabs in multi-storey construction.
The recommendation of this Guide, that only 30% is transferred to lower floors, gives the relationship:
70% added load on the supporting slab I spare capacity
Equation 10
See also Section 4.3
where added load is the concrete weight of the newly cast slab.
Depending on the order of backpropping, the weight of the temporary works and possibly the
construction operations load may need to be added to the concrete weight.
Spare capacity is the value of load that any slab can carry at the time considered, after deducting
its self-weight, and possibly any other loads. The Task 4 research (see Annex A) has shown that,
in most cases, it is the supporting slab that is critical, but other floor slabs require checking as their
load history is established. It is important to understand that the spare capacity may not be the total
of the PWDs imposed loads on the slab. For example, if backpropping is inserted after the
falsework is erected on the slab, then the net spare capacity of the slab is the PWDs imposed load
less the weight of the falsework and formwork for the next slab.
There are three cases to consider:
1.
Equation 10 is true and construction can continue safely without the supporting slab being
overloaded.
2.
Equation 10 is not true because the full design strength of the slab has not yet been achieved.
In this case the slab cannot be loaded until the required concrete strength has been achieved.
Once the concrete has gained sufficient strength Equation 10 becomes true, as Case 1.
65
6.5Backpropping
3.
Equation 10 is not achievable, even after the concrete slab has gained full design strength. In
this case construction would load the slab above its design service load, and could theoretically cause damage. The risks involved in proceeding should be considered by the PWD and
TWC. This is discussed in Section 6.6 and in detail in Annex E.
Theoretical load above the

design service load
As an example, taking the values from the ECBP from Sections 4.3 and 3.2, using the reinforced
concrete density of 24 kN/m3 (Column 2 at Section 4.3), and assuming that the concrete has
achieved its full 28-day characteristic strength gives:
Spare capacity
1.00 + 0.50 + 0.50 +
2.50
= 4.50 kN/mZ
(partitions) (raised floor) (ceiling) (imposed load)
Added load
6.00 + 0.50 + 0.75 +
0.75
= 8.00 kN/m2
(slab weight) (falsework) (2 x operations load)
and, using Equation 10, gives:
70% (added load) = 70%
8.00 = 5.60 kN/m*,
which should be 54.50 kN/m2 (spare capacity), which is not true.
In this example, Case 3 will apply. Alternative proposals for consideration by the PWD are discussed
in Section 6.6.
Assumption 7
Backpropping is installed with zero pre-load
When installing backprops between the lower floors they are often fitted as finger-tight. They
often do not incorporate frames or devices to keep them upright, so the operatives always take up
the slack when fitting them, to ensure that they do not become a safety risk and fall over. Loadcell measurements on backprops at Cardington and Reading (Refs 2 and 37) showed that loads up to
19 kN have been generated in these props during installation, although a more usual figure would be
10 to 15 kN. The worked example in Annex D uses the measured values of 8.5 kN as the pre-load in
the props, giving about 0.60 kN/m* as a distributed load.
The Excel spreadsheet (Annex F) includes the provision for pre-loading the backpropping, and an
estimate of, say, 6 kN in each prop would seem to be reasonable. Compared to the likely loads of, say,
60 kN at design stage, this pre-load is significant. The pre-loaded backprops actually help the load
distribution, because loading the supported slab upwards, and pushing the lower slab downwards, has
the effect of reducing the 70% load in the supporting slab when the full falsework load is applied.
Estimate: pre-load in
backprops of 6 kN
The physical operation of installing backprops that do not fall over when first fitted has been
shown to induce some pre-load into the system. This is one of the reasons why Method One in
Table 3 recommends 70% transfer of load in the worst case compared to the theoretical 75% (Task
4 recommendation) for stiff two-dimensional structures. See the worked example in Annex D.
How then can a site effectively and safely pre-load backprops to advantage? Provided similar props
are used, the change in length is directly proportional to the load, see Equation 9, so for a given
storey height and type of prop, turning the adjusting collar a set amount initiates a crude measuring
device for pre-loadl9. Perhaps proprietary suppliers of props should have available information on
the pitch of the thread form used, as mm extension per complete turn or by stating the individual
prop stiffness (in kN/mm) per metre.
How to pre-load props?
Calculating the prop extension required to achieve a particular pre-load is complicated by the
stiffness of the slabs which deflect with load, thus changing the elongation etc. The prop stiffness
(in kN/mm), translated by the TWC into load per turns, and hence the number of complete turns on
the adjusting screw to give this extension, may be impossible to calculate.
Assumption 8
The effects of backpropping on deflections
Measurements on the slabs at the ECBP, with up to two levels of backpropping, showed that all the
slabs performed satisfactorily and that deflections were within the intended design code limit of
(span / 250). This gives a deflection limit of 30 mm on the 7.5m spans at ECBP. Even the deflection
19 In practice it was found difficult to control the pre-load at ECBP, even with load cells installed, because of the
tendency to transfer load between adjacent props as one is tightened up, due no doubt to the thin flexible slab.
66
Deflections of ECBP floor

slabs struck early are
within design limits
6.5Backpropping
.-
...
of the floor slab where backpropping was prematurely struck (see Section 4 3 ,floor 620 was within
specification.
The BRE Report (Ref. 2) details the sequence of backpropping used, part of which is reproduced
in Figure 27.
Assumption 9
Ambient changes
affected prop load
Eflects of temperature changes ignored
To date, temperature has been ignored in backpropping, but at the ECBP the forces in the backprops
varied over time, even where no major operation (such as pouring concrete or striking the
formwork) was taking place. It became apparent that there was often a correlation between changes
in the backprop forces and variations in ambient temperature. The temperature of the aluminium
backprops is likely to follow the ambient temperature quite closely. The concrete structure,
however, changes temperature much more slowly. Thus, when a rise in temperature occurs, the
props heat up and expand. This expansion will be resisted by the structure, which will not have,
changed temperature significantly and hence will not have expanded, and the compression force in
the backprops increases. These changes may be due in part to the effects of temperature on the
instrumentation itself and the type of load-measuring device used.
The change in prop length depends on the stiffness of the props, original length (the propping
height), the temperature change and the material of the props. Approximate coefficients of thermal
expansion are:
8 x 10-6per"C
Concrete with limestone aggregate
10 x 10" per "C
Concrete with granite or basalt aggregate
12 x 10" per "C
Concrete with flint or quartzite aggregate
10-12 x 10" per "C
Steel
22-24 x 10" per "C
Aluminium
It can be seen that, when adjustable steel props are used for backpropping, provided they are not in
full sunlight, the concrete structure and the steel props generally expand a similar amount, whereas
thermal changes in aluminium propping affects the load in each prop. It has been shown from the
measurements at the ECBP that a 5C increase in temperature caused an increase of some 10 to
15% in the backprop forces, of up to about 3.75 kN per prop.
In practical terms, an on-site temperature variation of, say, 20C is possible, with corresponding
changes in prop forces. It is hard to see how this temperature effect could be anticipated, or even
accommodated in any backpropping design, other than within the normal factors of safety employed,
but its effects are now recorded.
6.5.3
Loads in backprops
The four methods of backpropping mentioned in Section 6.5.1 allow for one or two levels of backpropping, as shown in Figure 15. The figure also illustrates the symbols and nomenclature used in
this Guide. The following Sections explain the background to the four methods
Stiffness in kN/mm
The stifkess of the slab or backpropping is the load required to give a unit movement on a given
part of the structure. Stiffness is generally expressed in kN/mm.
Method One - Use ofpercentages of load

The use of Table 3 is the simplest method of predicting the loads transferred through the slabs on
backpropping. It shows the percentages of the imposed construction load that are transmitted
through the supporting floors and into the props. The table shows the percentages for a new slab
cast with no backpropping, with one level backpropped, and then with two levels of backpropping
(see Figure 15). Where two levels of backprops are inserted it is assumed that the backpropping of
each slab is similar, i.e. props are above each other on the floor above.
Results about 24 months after casting floor 6 seem to indicate that it will have a maximum midspan deflection
of 25 mtn (1 :300) after the instantaneous deflection on striking of about 10 mtn on the 7.5 x 7.5 m bays.
20
67
6.5Sackpropping
~
Stiffness
One level propping
Load
Two levels of propping
Slab to be cast
Falsework
Supporting slab 1
ss1
Backprops
'b
Lower slab 2
SS2
Wbl
Backprops (when fitted) Sb

Lower slab 3
Wb2
ss3
Figure 15: Diagrammatic representation of backpropping of suspended slabs.
Table 3: Method One -percentage of load distribution from temporary works loads.
Location
Load
New slab being cast
Total wp
No backprops One level of backprops Two levels of backprops
On slab
On slab
100%
100%
FalseworWformwork
100%
On supporting slab 1
100% Wp
In backprops
In backprops
On slab
In props
100%
100%
70% wP
100%
65% wP
30% wp
wbl
On lower slab 2
In props
30% wP
35% wP
23% wp
wb2
12% wp
12% wp
On lower slab 3
Method Two - Use of simplified formulae

The Task 4 report (Ref. 2) has established Equation 11 for the calculation of loads in backprops,
assuming that the slabs have been struck individually and have taken up their deflected shape, prior
to installation of the backpropping, as shown diagrammatically in Figure 15, for one and two levels
of backpropping. The analysis assumes that the structure is in one plane, effectively supported on
two opposite edges only. The stiffnesses of the slab and the backpropping are required.
Analysis in two dimensions
For one level of backprops, as shown on the left hand side of Figure 15:
Equation 11
where
wp
w,, =
load in the falsework supports

load in the backprops between the supporting slab and the slab below, i.e. the first
layer of backpropping
6.5Backpropping
S,,
S,,
sb
stiffness of the supporting slab at the time considered

stiffness of the lower slab under the supporting slab at the time considered
stiffness of the backprops.
For two levels of backprops, as shown on the right hand side of Figure 15:
Equation 12
Equation 13
where
wb2
load in the lower level of backpropping.
S,,
stiffness of the lowest slab at the time considered.
The lower slab is the rigid foundation. Equations 11, 12 and 13 can be used where the backpropping
is taken direct to the foundations, in which case either the lower slab 2 for one level of backpropping, or the lower slab 3 for two levels of backpropping, is the adequate foundation, and hence
either
S,,
or S,,
= CO
CO
as appropriate.
Method Three - Further simplified formulae

Two dimensions and slabs
at least twice the stiffness
of backpropping
The Task 4 Report (Ref. 2) recommends that, to calculate realistic loads in backpropping, the slabs
will be at least twice as stiff as any backpropping introduced.
s,
This makes -
ss2
2 and Sb
sb
2 and gives the following revised equations.
For one level of backprops, as shown on left side of Figure 15:

Equation 14
wbl
wP
[3
2)
For two levels of backprops, as shown on the right hand side of Figurel5:
Equation 15
WL,
We
Equation 16
The lower slab is the rigid foundation. Where support is taken from adequate foundations,
Equations 14, 15 and 16 can be used, in which case either the lower slab 2 for one level of backpropping, or the lower slab 3 for two levels of backpropping, is the adequate foundation, and hence
either
S,,
00
or S,, =
CO
as appropriate.
This is further discussed in Method Four below.

The recommended method of applying these equations in practice is shown in Sections 7.4 and 7.5.
69
6.5Backpropping
Method Four - Three-dimensional consideration

The backpropping spreadsheet in Annex F, takes into account the relevant changes in stiffness for
the slabs and props, and gives a more precise calculation in three dimensions for the movement of
the slabs. This is known as Method Four. The spreadsheet method generally predicts that 75% of
the load will be carried by the supporting slab for internal panels. It can cater for up to 12 backprops
per bay under different loading conditions.
Three-dimensional analysis
See Annex F
In comparing the measured loads on the backprops at the ECBP, it was shown (Ref. 2) that, on
average, the original BRE spreadsheet tended to underestimate the backprop forces by about 6%
because it did not account for any pre-load in the backprops. The spreadsheet with this Guide can
allow for pre-loaded backprops.
Discussion of methods
Method Two
Referring to the earlier assumptions for Method Two and for propping discussed in Section 6.5.2,
and used in BS 5975, if the backpropping is rigid and infinitely stiff, and the slabs have the same
stiffness, then:
S,,
= S,, = S,,
and & = CO, giving:
for one level of backpropping
wbl
= 50% wp
(from Equation 11)
for two levels of propping
wbl
= 67% wp
(from Equation 12)
and
wbz = 50% wbl
(from Equation 13)
Substituting gives
wb2 =
33% wp
This agrees with the earlier predictions for backpropping from BS 5975 with the loads being
distributed equally to the three floors.
See Table C1 in Annex C
Consider the effect of the slabs still having similar stiffness, but with the backprops as stiff as the
floors
i.e.
S,,
= S,, = SS3= Sb
This gives:
wbl
= 33.3%
wp
(from Equation 11)
wbl
= 37.5% wp
(from Equation 12)
and
wb2 = 33.3% wbl
(from Equation 13)
Substituting gives
wb2= 12.5% wp
Method Three
If, in Method Three (the further simplified method), the slabs discussed previously are of similar
stiffness, then
s,, = s,, = ss3

and the slabs are at least twice as stiff as any backpropping introduced. This gives:
wbl
= 25.0% wp
(from Equation 14)
This is the source of the theoretical value of 75% of the load into the supporting floor if the
backprops take only 25% of the load. This gives:
wbl= 26.7% wp
(from Equation 15)
and
wb2 = 25.0% wbl
(from Equation 16)
Substituting gives
wb2 = 6.7% wp
In practice, constructing a vertical building with work moving upwards means that the backpropping is installed similarly at both levels such that the installed capacity of the lower propping
is designed for wb2 = wbl
70
6.5Backpropping
Method Three - Two-storey building on rigid foundations.

If the foundations on the left side of Figure 15 are rigid, then Ss, = 00, giving:
Propping all the way to
the ground on two-storey
building load on slab
is 67% wp
wbl
33.3% wp
Thus the load taken by the supporting slab is 66.7% wp and, contrary to general beliefs, when
propping all the way to the ground, not all the load is transferred directly to the rigid foundation.
Method Three - Three-storey building on rigid foundations
If the foundations on the right side of Figure 15 are rigid, and the slabs are of similar stiffness, then
S,, = S,, and S,, = 00, giving
for two levels of backpropping
wbl
= 27.2% wp
Propping all the way to

the ground on three-storey
building load on slab
is 73% w,,
Thus the load taken by the supporting slab, contrary to general beliefs, is 72.8% wp even when
backpropped all the way to the ground, as not all the load is transferred to the foundations.
Agreed procedure
Whenever backpropping is required, an agreed sequence should be established before work starts.
See also Section 7.7. The sequence should establish the principles, and the exact layout should be
understood by the operatives on the site. The significance of correct propping has been highlighted
by this Guide, and the following extract from the Task 4 Report (Ref. 2) is relevant:
Importance of sequence
being understood by
operatives
6.5.4 Sequence and installation procedure for backpropping
Some years ago (1991) an attempt was made by the British Cement Association to investigate backpropping forces by monitoring them on site. The results were so variable that they were effectively
uninterpretable. It was discovered that one of the reasons for this was that construction operations were
being carried out on floors which supported backprops and, where it was found that a particular prop was
in the way, it was temporarily removed and then replaced. Clearly, such a procedure makes a complete
nonsense of any attempt to calculate backprop forces with any accuracy. If the economic operation of a
construction site requires that backprops should be able to be moved in this way, then the use of sophisticated calculation methods are a waste of time and the results simply misleading. Only the simplest
possible approach would be justified and even this could lead to an underestimate of the loading on the
slab supporting the props.
It is probably not enough simply to instruct operatives not to move backprops. Sites are can do places
and operatives are used to using a considerable degree of initiative in getting the job done. If things such
as backprops are getting in the way of what they are doing, they are not likely to ask permission but simply
shift them, and, they will tell themselves, quite correctly, who will ever know anyway?
If it is felt desirable to design backpropping systems in a more rigorous way then it has to be recognised
that construction of the slabs in multi-storey buildings must become a precision operation where the
contractor can reasonably guarantee that the props and backprops are placed in the agreed positions at the
appropriate time and that they are not moved prior to the time for their removal defined by the construction
programme.
Deflection results from
sixth floor reported
at Section 6.5.2,
Assumption 8
At the ECBP a controlled procedure was issued which was generally followed by the site staff.
However, in the absence of site supervision, the backprops between the fifth and sixth floors were
removed before striking the seventh floor! In theory this should have caused additional cracking
and deflection of the sixth floor, but this was not measured in practice, because of the conservative
estimate of the construction loads discussed previously.
TWC to prepare an
understandable, and
consistent, repeatable
procedure
The TWC should prepare, in advance of construction, an understandable, consistent, repeatable procedure for managing the backpropping and to take advantage of the findings discussed, particularly the
controlled pre-loading of the backprops. The application of the sequence to backpropping is covered
in detail at Section 7.7 together with a typical backpropping layout planning chart in Figure 27.
The timing of the installation of the backpropping can be critical. If a floor has just been struck,
and the falsework is being moved up directly from underneath to be seated on top of the newly
struck floor, the strength of this new supporting slab can become critical. At the time of its complete
striking it may have to carry not only its own self-weight, but also the weight of the temporary
works plus any operative loading while they are re-erecting it. Thus backpropping might be
required very quickly after striking to transfer these extra loads caused by this stage of construction
to the lower floors.
71
6.5Sackpropping
In general, backpropping should be (re)installed at the earliest available opportunity to ensure

maximum distribution of loads through to the slab beneath.
It has already been seen that pre-loading the backpropping may be advantageous in transferring
loads through the structure.
6.6 Loading a slab U 0 above the design serwice lload

6.6.1 Introduction
During the early life of a slab, there are occasions when construction loads, w,will, in theory,
exceed the slabs design service load, w,,,.Most commonly this situation occurs when the young
slab supports loads arising from concreting the slab above. The problem is likely to be most
apparent when self-weight is a high proportion of the characteristic design load: in other words,
where live load (imposed load plus superimposed dead loads such as services and finishes) is small
compared to the self-weight of the concrete.
By way of illustration, using the example from the ECBP in Assumption 6 in Section 6.5.2, which
used the full construction operations imposed load of 1.5 kN/m2, Equation 10 gives a theoretical
loading applied to the supporting slab of
70% (8.00) = 5.60 kN/mz which has to be I 4.50 kN/mZ(spare capacity)
Calculation presupposes
that supporting slab has
achieved full strength at
time of early loading, and
that PWD has accepted
such a proposal
Removing one value of 0.75 kN/mZ, i.e. reducing the construction operations load to 0.75 kN/mz,
from loads gives
70% (8.00 - 0.75) = 5.08 kN/m2
Thus the theoretical increase in the design service load is:
(6.00 + 5.08)
= 1.06 = 6%
10.50
If there is no construction operation load on any slab, then the added loads reduce to:
70% (8.00 - 1.50) = 4.55 kN/mZ
The phenomenon of loading a slab to above the design service load is not new, and many such slabs
are so constructed and have been shown to perform perfectly adequately. The purpose of specifying
a construction method is to limit deflections. In practice there are several ways of overcoming the
apparent difficulties of theoretically overloading the slab during construction.
The main issues to focus on are:
*
reviewing the loads to be resisted
reviewing combinations of loads
considering appropriate limit states

testing the in situ strength of the concrete
using appropriate partial safety factors (y).
The aim is to allow contractors to deliver quality structures safely and economically. Specifically,
the three proposals in Section 6.6.2 are intended to ensure that construction loading does not
adversely affect slab performance at either the serviceability or ultimate limit state.
6.6.2 Proposals
Pending further research, it is recommended that the following course of action should be taken
when considering young slabs supporting loads from concreting operations above. Each part of the
four principles should be considered in turn by the TWD and PWD who should agree on those to
be adopted. Agreement presumes that both TWD and PWD are confident that many of the uncertainties encountered at design stage become known at construction stage or are adequately provided
for in the method of construction and are adequately documented.
The proposals are based on theory presented in Annex E (which addresses both the serviceability
and ultimate limit states). They presuppose that the slab(s) under consideration is (are) substantially
72
See fuller explanation

of theory in Annex E
6.6 Loading a slab to above the design service load
the same as the one(s) above it. Changes in configuration, e.g. additional thickness, holes at one
level and not above, may significantly concentrate loads, moments, etc. Such cases should be dealt
with separately.
Proposal 1
To assess the temporary case at serviceability limit state (SLS) apply the two principles for
loading and striking flat slabs, i.e. check:
See Section 6.2
Loading factor (F, ) =
Equation 4
Total design construction load on slab - - w I1.0

Total design service load on slab
Wser
and
;er)($r
Cracking factor (Fer) = -
Equation 5
where
I 1.0
total unfactored load on the slab in kN/m2, including self-weight, a proportion of self-weight of supported slabs and construction imposed loads.
w,,, =
total unfactored characteristic design load on the slab in kN/m2, including

self-weight, the weight of services, finishes, partitions etc and imposed
loads used for the design of the permanent work.
If Equations 4 and 5 are not met, ensure that proposals 2a and 2b are both complied with.
Proposal 2a: At serviceability limit state (SLS)

Use load combination factors, e.g. Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39) with frequent combination
factors of 0.5 and 0.421 for independent loads.
*
Use temporary load cases of:

- 1.5 kN/m2 on formwork and 0 kN/m2 on supporting slab by denying access to such
areas and disallowing its use for storage during concreting operations, and
- 0.75 kN/m2 on formwork and 0.75 kN/m2 on supporting slab for access and inspection.
*
With respect to Equation 5, allow use of higher grade of concrete such thatf, >feu so that
Equation 5 (extent of cracking and punching shear check) is satisfied.
Relax Equation 4 to allow w to exceed w,,,to an extent to be agreed such that Equation
17 (below) is satisfied.
To prevent inelastic deformation/yielding at supports, ensure:

W
Equation 17
Pb
%er
where riser is the ultimate design load (ULS: gk = 1.4, qk = 1.6)
Pb
Moment at section after redistribution

= Moment at a section before redistribution
Quasi-permanent load combination factors of 0.2, 0.3, 0.6 or even 0 (relating to snow loads) might also be
considered - but would make relatively little difference to the Equation 4 ratio w/w,,,.Effects of pre-load in
the props are ignored
21
73
Proposal 2b: At ultimate limit state (ULS)

Adopt a fourth criteria as
- I 1.0
Equation 18
riser
where n is the ultimate construction load (ULS: gk = I .2, qk = 1.2)
Use Eurocode rare combination factors of 1.O and 0.5 for independent loads.
Use load cases as in proposal 2a.
Use a yf factor of 1.2 for ultimate loads, for both g, and Q.
f , > 0.85f,, (partial safety factors, ym, reduced through elimination of uncertainties).
Disregard relatively small increases in ultimate bending moment, shear and bond
capacities created by increasingf, beyondf,,.
6.6.3 Effects of proposals

The effects of the proposals on the construction of multi-storey flat slabs can be illustrated by
examples of where theoretical problems may occur and the increase in concrete strength required
to overcome these. Figures 16, 17 and 18 are based on flat slab thicknesses in the Reinforced Concrete
Council publication Economic concrete frame elements (Ref. 12) and the following assumptions:
Density of concrete = 24 kN/m3
One level of propping, i.e. 70% carry-through of loads
Allowance for self-weight of formwork with falsework = 0.50 kN/mZ.
Proposal 1
According to Proposal 1, Equation 4, there are many theoretical cases of temporary overload. For
example, the flat slabs at the ECBP span 7.5 m, and support a total imposed load of 3.5 kN/mZ
(2.50 kN/mZ plus 1.00 kN/mZ for partitions: see Section 3.2). According to Figure 16, the slab
would have been temporarily overloaded by just under 20%. Using the specific loads at the ECBP,
Beeby (Ref. 6) estimated they were overloaded by 10% to 15%.
Proposal 2
This proposal is in two parts: Proposal 2a considers the serviceability limit state (SLS), and Proposal
2b the ultimate limit state (IXS), using appropriate load combination factors, partial safety factors, etc.
Proposal 2a: SLS
The serviceability limit state may be satisfied by ensuring thatf, exceedsf,, by the amount indicated
in Figure 17. Essentially this requirement limits the extent of cracking to that assumed in the
original design. If the specification of a higher strength concrete is required, its additional cost may
make alternative procedures more attractive. On the other hand, the required strength may arise
through usual margins in concrete strength.
Figure 17 suggests that, to avoid damage in the ECBP slabs, f , should have been greater than
approximately 1lO%f,,. In the event, the one slab whose strength,f,, was less than 1lO%f,, at the
time of concreting the floor above, has deflected most.
To prevent inelastic deformation it is necessary to consider construction loads in relationship to

design loads and the amount of redistribution assumed in the design. In this respect wh,,,should
be less than p , (as defined above). Typically, designers might use up to 20% redistribution (a p
factor of 0.80), so this requirement will usually be non-critical. However, 30% redistribution is
allowed in design codes of practice (a P b factor of 0.70) and as may be seen from Figure 18, this
requirement might become critical.
Proposal 2b: ULS

To satisfy the ultimate limit state it is necessary to limit ultimate loads and to ensure that the
concrete is of adequate strength.
74
6.6 Loadina a slab to above the design service load

-
10.0
7.5
5.0
0
W
cn
Br
2.5
~~
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
SPAN - rn
Figure 16: Extent of

theoretical overloading
of flat slabs due to
concreting operations
above - based on
Proposal 1, Equation 4
10.0
7.5
I
0
5.0
cn
2.5
1.5
I
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
SPAN - rn
Figure 17: Proposal

2a: fc/fcurequired to
satisfy Equation 5 at
SLS.
10.0
7.5
D
U
5.0
20
2.5
1.5
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
SPAN - m
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
Figure 18: Proposal

Za: w/n,,, should be
less than pb to satisfy
Equation 17 at SLS.
Notes to Figures 16, 17 and 18

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Span = continuous multiple span

IL = imposed load:
1.5 kN/m2, e.g. residential
2.5 kN/mZ,e.g. ofices
5.0 kN/m2, e.g. commercial offices
7.5 kN/mz, e.g. storage/plantrooms
10.0 kN/m2, e.g. storage
A superimposed dead load of 1.5 kN/m2 has been assumed to allow for finishes, services, etc. on all but
residential where no allowance was made.
Construction imposed loads: for Figure 16 construction loads of I .5 kN/m2 at the level of concreting
and 0.75 kN/m2 at the level of the slab supporting the false work. For Figures 17, 18 and 19 refer to
proposals for values, combination factors and g factors.
f, = characteristic concrete strength required (at the relevant time)
f,, = characteristic concrete strength at 28 days as assumed in design and as specified.

For the purpose of illustration the charts and examples relate tof,, = 35 N/mm2
75
,
~
Situations where nln,,, > 100% are probably not acceptable without special measures being taken,
such as checking specific moment and shear capacities. Figure 19 suggests that the slabs at the
ECBP (7.5 m span, 3.5 kN/m2 imposed load: 2.50 kN/m2 plus 1 .OO kN/m2 for partitions) were not
overloaded. Slabs with low imposed loads and long spans need special attention.
See Section 3.2
Compared to the SLS requirements, the ULS requirement forf, > 0.85f,, (based on punching shear
criteria) is probably not often critical.
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
1.5
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
SPAN - rn
10.0
11.0
Figure 19: Proposal

2b: n/nxr should be
12.0
less than 1.0 to satisfy
Equation 18.
6.6.4 Alternative measures

Consideration of the above proposals and implicit theory may result in unsatisfactory temporary
loadings, uneconomic construction, uneconomically high grades of concrete, and/or lack of agreement between TWD and PWD. In such cases several practical steps can be taken. These include:
Use two levels of prop. Transfer of loads becomes 65% (compared to 70%) and overloads decrease
by 3%.
Backpropping Method One

(Section 6.5.3)
Design temporary case as worst case. The contractor may choose to increase reinforcement to allow
construction to proceed as required.
Use innovative construction methods, for example:
construct column strips before middle strips - this results in more stop ends but less load is
experienced by column strip below.
similarly, construct beams before slabs
hang formwork off columns.
These alternative approaches should be discussed and agreed between the PWD and TWD and
incorporated into the method statement and/or safety plan. Some may have implications on liability
and all will probably have implications on cost.
In summary, whatever approach to construction is agreed and adopted it must be documented in

method statements and safety plans as appropriate. Above all it must be adhered to.
It is recommended that, for backpropping considerations only, subject to confirmation in the site
risk assessment and in the temporary works design brief, no imposed construction operations loads
need to be considered.
76
See backpropping
and Section 6.5.2,
Assumption 2
This Chapter introduces the method for calculating when formwork can be struck and what backpropping may be required for straightforward flat slab buildings. To assist readers, a worked
example based on the ECBP to illustrate this method is included in Annex D.
Check critical conditions
At each stage of construction the critical conditions to be checked are:

0
Striking should be
agreed in advance
the strength of the slab before striking

the strength of the supporting slab when subject to additional loads from the temporary works
or concreting the next slab
the arrangement of backpropping.
Striking of flat slabs should be agreed in advance, and removal of supports should not commence
until permits to strike are issued.
The proposed method can only be considered if the flat slab under construction meets certain
criteria:
(a)
The slab is in situ reinforced concrete or a composite with participating or non-participating

permanent formwork, such as thin precast concrete units.
(b)
Maximum equivalent thickness of dense concrete 350 mm22.
(c)
The slab is not post-tensioned or cast on thick precast, prestressed participating concrete
units.
(d)
The slab is two-way spanning with or without beams, or one-way spanning with beams.
(e)
The cast slab is intended to be struck and become self-supporting before any additional loads
are placed on it.
(f)
The reinforcement has been positioned within specification.
(8)
Where backpropping is considered, the suspended slabs at each level are of similar construction,
thickness, etc.
(h)
No more than two levels of backpropping are used.
Action if controls on
striking not introduced
Where these criteria cannot be met, or adequate controls cannot be introduced to control the site
operations, the striking and backpropping should be discussed with the PWD and the TWD to
establish the requirements for the contract. Information may be obtained from the contract specification, notes on the PWD drawings, CIRIA R136 (Ref. 31), BS 5975 (Ref. 6), etc.
Construction staff to be
fully aware of implications
The operations of backpropping, loading and striking slabs should only be carried out under supervision. Where early striking to the proposed method is planned it is essential that the technical staff
involved are fully aware of the implications of the procedures and method to be adopted. To assist
readers, a flowchart of the procedures involved in striking is shown in Figure 20.
Striking flowchart Figure 20

Control loading on slabs
Calculation of the striking strength requires the TWC to assess the imposed load on various slabs,
particularly where backpropping is to be used. The TWC should ensure that the assumptions made
in the calculations are applied in practice, and that site control can avoid unplanned loading of the
slabs, e.g. with pallets of blocks, machinery, reinforcement. See Section 4.3.
Where backpropping is required to transfer loads through the building, the TWC should prepare, in
advance of construction, a clear, consistent, repeatable procedure; a flowchart of the procedures
22 The depth of 350 mm was chosen as representative for the research. A thicker slab is stiffer and the ratio of the
loads (deadimposed) is likely to be different, thus the steering group limited the method to 350 mm thickness.
77
7.1 General
involved in backpropping is shown in Figure 2 1. The procedure will manage the backpropping, and
take advantage of the latest findings, particularly the controlled pre-loading of the backprops.
Complex instrumentation, expensive monitoring equipment, etc. is rarely justified. What is
required has to reflect the expertise of the site personnel and their supervision, be practicable and
conform to the designers performance requirements for the final structure.
Backpropping flowchart
Figure 21
Whether backpropping is required, and whether it is placed on one or two levels, is discussed in
Sections 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5.
Sections 7.3,7.4 and 7.5
When planning backpropping, the sequence and resultant loads on the lower slabs should be
considered at an early stage. A typical example taken from the ECBP is shown in Figure 27 and
discussed in Section 7.7.
Consider sequence see Figures 26 and 27
Information required when planning the striking and backpropping is summarised in the checklist
in Table 4. Reference may also be made to the flowcharts in Figures 20 and 2 1.
Table 4: Checklistfor striking and backpropping procedures.

Units with
default values
Likely
source
Section
PWD
7.1
n/a
PWD
3.1
kN/m2
PWD
3.2
y / ~What is the unfactored design imposed floor load?
kN/m2
PWD
3.2
y / ~What is the characteristic concrete strength?
N/mmz
PWD
days
PWD
Check Item
y/N
I Does the slab comply with the flat slab criteria (a) to (h) above?
y / ~What is the column layout and number of storeys?

What are the self-weight (dead) loadings assumed in the design?
y/N (slab self-weight, partitions, flooring, ceiling, services, etc.)
Y/N
At what age is this strength to be considered?
n/a
y / ~Is it based on cube strength or cylinder strength?
PWD
PWD
4.7
TWC
6.4
0.5kN/mz
TWD
4.2
kN/mZ
TWD
4.3
How will the early concrete strength be assessed?

y/N (e.g. LOK test, cubes cured alongside)
What is the formwork system, and what is the self-weight allowance
y/N for the falseworWformwork load?
Y/N
What is the design construction load during concreting?
y/N
What density of concrete will be used in the calculations?
24 kN/m3
TWD
4.3 and 6.5.2,

Assumption 7
Y/N
What is the likely imposed load on a floor after striking?
0.75kN/mZ
TWD
4.3
Y/N
Is there confidence that the reinforcement has been positioned with the
correct cover? In particular, too much cover to the top mat reinforcement at
column positions will reduce the slab capacity to carry construction loads.
TWC
Does the risk assessment allow the construction operation loads to be
6.5.2,
Assumption 2
y/N ignored in the backpropping calculations?
Will the floor be struck completely to become self-supporting and to

y/N take up the instantaneous deflection?
y/N
Will steel or aluminium backprops be used?
TWC
aluminium
Will the preloading of the backprops be controlled, and if so, what is

y/N the value of the required pre-load?
What is the layout of the backpropping?
y/N Are one or two levels of props being installed?
- y/N
Which method of calculating the loads in the backprops will be used?
y / ~Have the supervisory staff been informed of the agreed procedure?

Are the site supervisory staff aware of the permit to load and the permit
y/N to strike forms and their location?
78
TWC
TWC
I
I
Method
1 , 2 , 3 or4
TWc
TWD
TWC
6.5.2,
Assumption 7
6.5.3
TWC
Figs 20 and 2 1
TWC
4.5
STRIKING FLOWCHART
or obtain advice
method of concrete
trength assessment?
TWD and TWC
construction load
at time of striking
*
Cannot be struck and
needs propping.
Refer to PWDand TWD.
See Section 7.2, Figure 21
More than 1.0
Less than 1.O
loading factor.
Equation 4,
factor Csf Use Figure22
Agree with
PWD and TWC
Calculate required equivalent cube

strength for striking 4 req.
Use Equation 19, Section 7.2
--4
Establish equivalent cube strength of concrete for

critical area as agreed. Use correct correlation
curves/tables to give the 95% confidence limit.
striking procedure. See Figure 26

and Section 7.6
Figure 20: Flowchart for striking flat slabs in buildings.
Note: It is assumed that safety during striking has been considered, including working platforms, material
handling, etc.
79
7.1 General
TWD whether to proceed.
Select backpropping calculation method

(Section 6.5.3)
METHOD ONE:
See Table 3 (recommended)
METHOD TWO:
Formula (2D)
METHOD THREE: Formulae (2D) simplified
METHOD FOUR: Spreadsheet (3D)
Annex F
Refer to
TWD and PWD
Calculate loads.
Follow backpropping procedures (install and removal)

See Section 7.7
Figure 21: Flowchart for backpropping #at slabs in buildings.
80
Calculate loads in props

and supporting slabs.
7.2 Method to establish required concrete strength

The strength of a given concrete slab required during a particular construction operation can be
calculated using Equation 6, having first satisfied the requirement that the loading factor in
Equation 4 is less than unity (see Section 6.2). This approach is covered in a simpler and perhaps
more understandable way in the steps below.
Step 1
Calculate the total unfactored design construction load23 on the slab (w)
Step 2
Establish the unfactored design service load on the slab (w,,,)
Step 3
Check if w,,,is greater than w. If it is, the operation must not be carried out, and
repropping or backpropping is required. Refer to the PWD, TWD and/or the TWC.
Step 4
Calculate the loading factor (from Equation 4):

Loading factor = Total design construction load - -w
Total design service load
Wser
Equation 4
Using this loading factor, read off the required concrete strength factor (C,J fiom Figure 22.
Step 5
1.1
1.o
0.9
0.8
Pa0
0.7
0.6
(3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
01
''
O!I
012
' '
013
014
0!5
016
017
018
CONCRETE STRENGTH FACTOR Csf
' '
019
Figure 22: Graph of

I!O I I,',
loading factor against

concrete strength
factor.
Notes:
1. Values of ratio of loading above 1.O should be used with care, and only with the approval of the PWD and
TWC.
2. Figure 22 is a graphical representation of Equation 8.
Step 6
Ask for the characteristic design strength of the concrete slab cf,,) in N/mmz.
Step 7
Calculate the required equivalent cube strength Cf,,,) of the concrete in the critical area
for performing the construction operation, using values from Steps 5 and 6:
fcreq = C,
Equation 19
where
23
fcreq
f,,
(i.e. Step5 x Step6)

required equivalent cube strength of the concrete in the critical area at
the time of striking in N/mm2
Depending on the sequence of construction, this may or may not include the formwork weight.
81
c,,
f,
Step 8
concrete strength factor from Figure 22
characteristic design strength of the concrete in N/mmz
Check that the slab has achieved the required strength in the critical area24.
If in any doubt ask the TWC
7.3 No backpropping required

During the construction of a suspended slab, see Figure 23(a), the TWD will establish the total load
during construction (w,)(see Section 4.3). This will include the self-weight of the new slab
(generally using a reinforced concrete density of 24 kN/m3), the self-weight of the temporary
works, plus the superimposed construction load during the concreting operation (1.5 kN/m*).
In order to be able to cast the new slab, the supporting slab should be strong enough to carry its own
weight (again calculated using a reinforced concrete density of 24 kN/m3) plus any finishes already
applied and the applied load (w,).This was referred to earlier as the spare capacity. Provided the
calculated (spare capacity) w, all that is required is for the concrete strength of the supporting slab to
have reached the required strength, determined in Section 7.2. By inspection, if the floors are similarly
designed, this will rarely occur on suspended slabs as the supported slab is already supporting itself!
If the new slab is a first floor, cast on suitable foundations, see Figure 23(b), then the total load
during construction (w,)is transferred directly to the foundations.
In order to strike the falsework, in both Figures 23(a) and (b) the required concrete strength of the
new slab will have to be ascertained from Section 7.2. It is assumed that the slab will be struck and
allowed to deflect prior to the construction of any further floor slabs.
New slab to be cast
Falsework
Imposed load (wp)
Load
( wp)
Supporting slab 1
Foundations
Lower slab 2
(a) Cast on slab
(b) On foundations
Figure 23: No backpropping.
7.4 One level of backpropping

The previously cast floor slab is now the upper supporting slab for the next level of construction.
The TWC should establish whether this supporting slab has sufficient spare capacity at its very
early age to support the self-weight of the temporary works and possibly some imposed construction
operations load at the time considered. As the supporting slab matures its capacity should increase
up to its design service load capacity. The recommendation that the supporting slab is always
considered to take the weight of the formwork and falsework for the next slab should be kept in
mind. This overcomes the onerous requirement to place the backprops in position before formwork
can be moved up the building. In certain fast-track systems of flying forms and large tables this will
always be the case as formwork is struck from below to be immediately moved up. The intention
should be to install the backpropping at the earliest opportunity.
24 Only the LOK test and the Cap0 test are tests of the actual in situ concrete, and can be considered to indicate
directly the equivalent cube strength of the in situ concrete (see Section 6.4). Other methods of test may
require the average result from tests to be greater than the calculated required equivalent cube strength as
calculated above.
82
7.5 Two levels of backpropping
New slab to be cast

Falsework
Imposed load (70% wp - f p )
Supporting slab 1
Imposed load (30% wp+ Pp)
Lower slab 2
Foundations to be adequate
Lower slab 3
(a) Suspended
(b) On foundations
Figure 24: Backpropping one level.

Note: Loads shown are from Table 3 (Method One).
In considering the backpropping for a suspended slab, see Figure 24(a), during the construction of
the new slab, the TWD will establish the total load during construction (w,)(see Section 4.3). This
will include the self-weight of the new slab (calculated using a density of reinforced concrete of
24 kN/m3), the self-weight of the temporary works, but with no superimposed construction load
(see Assumption 2 in Section 6.5.2).
The load in the backprops (wb, ) may be estimated from Method One, as shown at Figure 24, or be
calculated using either Method Two and Equation 11 or Method Three and Equation 14.
Knowledge of the relative stiffness of the components is of course required. The additional load on
the supporting slab will then be the difference (w,- w,,,). This loading often governs the speed of
construction at a critical stage. The TWC must ensure that both the supporting slab and the lower
slab 2 have gained sufficient strength before casting the new slab. The more accurate method to
predict the loads, once the arrangement of the falsework and backpropping is known, is to use
Method Four. Use of the spreadsheet is shown at Annex F.
Pre-loading the backprops by an agreed amount (P,) reduces the imposed load on the supporting
slab, and increases the load on the lower slab. The concrete strengths related to load capacity at
each stage of construction need to be considered in the backpropping sequence.
66.7% wp load in
supporting slab. Method 3
Section 6.5.3,
Assumption 3
Destress the falsework,

allow new slab to deflect,
then remove backprops
When a second floor is cast, such as Figure 24(b) with one level of backpropping direct to the foundations, then providing the supporting slab has been allowed to take up its deflected shape, the load in
the backpropping is also calculated from Equation 1 1 with S, = CO, possibly with the pre-load added.
Having established the backpropping procedure, the order of removal will affect the loading
on the floors. If any backprops are removed prematurely, the full load (w,)will be suddenly applied
to the supporting floor, with serious consequences. Thus the only acceptable method of
removing the backpropping is to strike the falsework fnst, allow the new slab to deflect, and then
remove the backpropping.
7.5 Two levels of backpropping

The two previously cast floor slabs are now the supports for the new slab, with the most recently
cast being the critical supporting slab.
The TWC should first establish whether this supporting slab has sufficient spare capacity at its
very early age to support the self-weight of the temporary works and some imposed construction
operations load at the time considered. As the supporting slab matures its capacity should increase
up to its design service load capacity. The recommendation that the supporting slab is always
considered to take the weight of the formwork and falsework for the next slab should be kept in
mind. This overcomes the onerous requirement to place the backprops in position before formwork
can be moved up the building. In certain fast-track systems of flying forms and large tables, this
will always be the case as formwork is struck from below to be immediately moved up. The
intention should be to install the backpropping at the earliest opportunity.
83
7.5Two levels of backpro~pinq
New slab 10 be casi
Supporting slab 1
Imposed load (23% wp)
Lower slab 2
Imposed load (12% wp + Pp)
Lower slab 3
Adequate foundahons
(a) Suspended
(b) On foundations
Figure 25: Backpropping two levels.

Note: Loads shown are from Table 3 (Method One).
In considering the backpropping for a suspended slab, see Figure 25(a), during the construction of
the new slab and placing the concrete, the TWD will need to establish the total load during
construction (w, ) (see Section 4.3). This will include the self-weight of the new slab (calculated
using a reinforced concrete density 24 kN/m3), but again, with no superimposed construction load
(see Assumption 2 in Section 6.5.2). The self-weight of the falsework and formwork may not
necessarily be carried through to the backprops, because if erection has commenced before
installing the backprops, the supporting slab will already be supporting this load.
The load in the two levels of backprops (wb,and wb2)may be estimated from Method One, as shown
in Figure 25, or calculated using either Method Two and Equations 12 and 13 or Method Three and
Equations 15 and 16. Knowledge of the relative stiffness is of course required. The load on the
supporting slab 1 (Figure 25) will be the difference (wp- w,,,). This loading often governs the speed
of construction at a critical stage. The TWC must ensure that both the supporting slab 1 and the
lower slabs 2 and 3 have each gained sufficient strength before casting the new slab.
The more accurate method of predicting the loads, once the arrangement of the falsework and the
backpropping is known, is Method Four. Use of the spreadsheet is shown at Annex F.
Pre-loading all the backprops by an agreed amount (P,) reduces the imposed load on the supporting
slab, and increases the load on the lowest slab, but this depends on the magnitude of pre-loading.
If the preloading is the same, there will be no net effect on the load on lower slab 2, but there would
be an advantage for lower slab 3 because of the extra spare capacity now available - the backpropping load wbz will be less than wb,.The concrete strengths related to load capacity at each stage
of construction need to be considered in the backpropping sequence.
It is interesting to note that the work at the ECBP suggested that there was little benefit in backpropping through more than one floor in terms of relieving the load in the most critical supporting
slab. This was discussed in Assumption 6 in Section 6.5.2.
In a three-storey building, such as in Figure 25(b), with two levels of backpropping direct to the
foundations, providing the supporting slabs have been allowed to take up their deflected shape, and
the lower floor backprops destressed and repositioned before casting the new slab, the load in the
backpropping is also calculated from Equations 15 and 16 with S,, = 00, with any pre-load added.
72.8% wp load in
supporting slab. Method 3.
Section 6.5.3
Having established the backpropping procedure, the order of removal will affect the loading on
the floors. If any backprops are removed prematurely, the full load (w,) will be suddenly applied
to the supporting floor, with serious consequences. Thus the only satisfactory method of removing
the backpropping is to strike the falsework first, allow the new slab to deflect, and then remove the
backpropping. The order of removal of backpropping should be from the top down, with props
between the supporting slab and slab 2 removed before those between slabs 2 to 3.
Order of removal of
backpropping affects loads
It should be noted that this method applies more load on the supporting slab. Inspection of Table 3
shows that the physical effect of erroneously removing the lowest group of backpropping from slab
84
7.6 Sequence of striking sofit formwork
2 to 3 will have a limited effect on slab 2, increasing the loading by about 12%. This is well below
the loads likely to have been used on this slab 2 for previous construction of slab 1, and the slab is
unlikely to be harmed. Table 3 also illustrates the limited value of backpropping through more than
one floor as a way to reduce the loading on the supporting slab.
7.6 sequence off striking somu ffaDlrmwolrk

The order of striking soffit formwork is important. The concept of the temporary works may dictate
the procedure adopted - for example, flying forms will not permit any propping to be left in place
- and the exact procedure needs to be considered. See the Formwork Guide (Ref. 5). There will be
safety considerations, as discussed earlier.
The TWD should set out the method and procedure for the removal of soffit formwork. Working
platforms and material handling will have been considered in conjunction with the TWC andor the
proprietary supplier.
The key principles for striking flat slabs are illustrated in Figure 26 and listed here:
1.
Obtain approval to strike. This Guide recommends that the 'permit to strike' is a site-signed
written document. Check that there is a relevant signed form.
2.
Check the safety precautions for operatives and other persons during striking operations,
particularly guardrails and crane control.
3.
Sofit formwork to reinforced concrete slabs should be struck in two stages.

First, ease all the supports by about the same amount (about one or two turns for a prop),
Second, starting at mid-span, remove the supports, working towards the columns or walls.
See Figure 26(a). This ensures that all the load is not left on the last few supports at mid-span,
which may cause reverse bending and cracking in the new slab.
Start striking slabs

at mid-span
Order of striking internal

and edge panels can
affect load distribution.
Preferably the PWD should
specify the order
4.
The action of post-tensioning flat slabs, see Figure 26(b), will tend to lift the slab off the soffit
formwork. It is still recommended that, unless specified otherwise, striking of post-tensioned
slabs starts mid-span.
5.
On multiple slab areas, comprising internal and edge panels between columns etc, the PWD
may have made design assumptions about the order of striking the supports. These assumptions
should be communicated to the site. If this is not done, it is suggested that the TWC proposes
MidsDan falsework load
(e) Post-tensioned concrete cantilever
(b) Post-tensionedconcrete slab
-'m
6,
Strike slab
either
beam
side
first
(c) Reinforced concrete slab on beam($
Figure 26: Sequence of striking flat slabs.
85
7.6 Sequence of striking sofit formwork
to the PWD to start by strilung the internal bays first, followed by edge and corner bays. This
order limits the mid-span deflections and, more importantly, controls the bending moment
induced in perimeter columns during construction.
6.
Where beams are involved, with either one- or two-way slabs, the procedure should be to
strike the slabs on either side of the beam, before striking the beam, again starting the beam
striking at its mid-point. See Figure 26(c).
With slabs on beams,

strike slab first, followed
by the beams
7.
Where the soflit form is part of a projecting cantilever, such as at balconies, start the removal
from the tip of the cantilever and work towards the column, beam or wall. See Figure 26(d).
8.
Post-tensioned concrete cantilever slabs, Figure 26(e), will deflect the adjacent span and may
increase the load on the falsework. In such cases discuss the striking procedures with the
PWD and TWD.
Always strike cantilevers

from the tip. Take
particular care with
stressed cantilevers
The practice of striking areas of soflit tables with compressed air should be very carefully controlled.
Crash striking of soflit formwork should never be allowed.
7.7 Sequence of insPaQOin
ova0 offbackprop
The TWC should prepare, in advance of construction, a clear, consistent, repeatable procedure
in order to manage the backpropping. The findings of the work on the ECBP, particularly the
controlled pre-loading of the backprops, should be kept in mind in order to ensure the most effective
procedure.
The backpropping sequence will differ from contract to contract, and this Guide can only give
suggestions to enable the various aspects to be considered.
Before establishing the procedures, the following aspects may need to be considered.
(a)
Self-weight and imposed loads.
(b)
Magnitude of construction operations loads.
(c)
Layout of the temporary works on the supporting slab. The method of removing and replacing
the formwork between floors can affect the floor loading.
(d)
Will the formwork be placed on the supporting slab before the backprops are inserted? The
order affects the load calculations for both the backprops and the supporting slab.
(e)
Method of striking falsework between uses.
(f)
(8)
Layout and material of the backpropping.
(h)
Stiffness of the various existing concrete floors, at the time considered. This requires an
estimate or results of the concrete strength in the slabs.
(i)
Pre-load in the backpropping, if any is assumed.
0)
Slab strengths required to carry the loads as a result of the backpropping arrangement, and
implications for the imposed loads that might be carried on each floor.
Stiffness of the backpropping.
The presentation format of the procedure is important and a suggested diagrammatic approach is
shown in Figure 27, using the calculation methods given in this Guide and also showing the results
from the ECBP research.
The timing of installing the backpropping can be critical. If a floor has just been struck, and the
falsework is being moved up directly from underneath to be seated on top of the newly struck floor,
the strength of this new supporting slab can become critical. At the time of its complete striking it
may have to carry not only its own self-weight, but also the weight of the temporary works plus
any operative loading while they are re-erecting it. Thus backpropping might be required very
quickly after striking to transfer the extra loads from this stage of construction to the lower floors.
In general, backpropping should be (re)installed at the earliest opportunity to ensure maximum
distribution of loads to the slab beneath.
It has already been seen that pre-loading the backpropping can be advantageous. This requires careful
planning if the backpropping procedure has assumed that all the backprops in a floor have to be
86
Standard calculation
Operation
Diagram
In
P'OP
itage
Was on
slab
h slab
now
Measured
In
Prop
6.75
11.30
52
I1 days
6.75
6.0
24
25 h
11.30
6.75
6.0
55
12 days
2.48
6.75
8.00
6.7
6.75
6.75
6.0
8.00
8.00
0.7
Insert backpropping
between first floor and
second floor
0.7
6.1
0.6
6.75
6.75
8.00
10.70
6.6
6.52
6.00
10.32
47
13 day
8.20
65
24 day
2.20
1.80
6.75
7.80
8.00
6.0
23
43 h
10.70
6.75
6.0
48
15 day
7.80
6.75
6.0
65
26 d a y
Strike backprops
4-5 March 1998
2.48
1.25
Stnke formwork to
third floor and move
materials up onto the
third floor.
28 February 1998
(1 100 h)
Concrete third floor

26 February 1998
(1 500 h)
1.25
Erect formwork and
Fix reinforcement for
third floor
[N/mmL)
2.48
Strike formwork to
second floor 14
February (1 500 h)
Strike backpropping
to first floor 17
February (0800 h)
h"
On
slab
6.5
8.25
zoncrete second floor
13 February 1998
:1400 h)
Zoncrete
Figure 27: Typical backpropping layout planning chart from ECBP.

Notes:
1. In use on site the 'measured' values would not be included, and the concrete strength only established as the work progressed and would
not be included in the initial chart.
2. The information is based on the published results from the construction of the second to third floors (Ref. 2).
3. The standard calculation values agree with the proposals in this Guide. See Annex D for the worked example and explanation of the values.
4. Construction operation loads are not considered in the backpropping calculations.
7.7 Sequence of installing and removal of backpropping
pre-loaded in order to reduce the resultant imposed load on the supporting slab. Although theoretically
possible, it is difficult to pre-load props a stated set amount when positioned between relatively
flexible concrete slabs. It is considered reasonable, as already discussed in Assumption 7 in Section
6.5.2, to allow in the calculations for some general value of pre-load in backprops.
The removal and destressing of backpropping should be carried out with the same care as striking
the formwork and falsework. The following needs considering:
1.
2.
Has approval been given to remove the backpropping?

If the jacks for destressing the backprops are at the top or high up, working platforms will be
required.
Approval to remove
backpropping
Working platform needed if
jacks used at high level
3.
Start destressing the backpropping for slabs near the centre, working towards the supports for
columns or beams. Where the backpropping supports cantilevers, always start destressing at
the end of the cantilever and work towards the supports or beams.
For slabs, start at centre;

for
start at tip
4.
Where there is more than one level of backpropping, check with the TWC the exact order of
removing the props - generally the upper levels should be destressed before the lower levels
- but it depends on the sequence already agreed.
Check prop sequence

where more than one level
The installation of backpropping is covered in Section 6.5.4, which includes a recommended procedure
when pre-loading is specified by the TWD. The removal of backpropping should be to an agreed
procedure, and some guidance follows:
1.
Obtain approval to remove the back props. Refer to the site written permit to strikehemove
backpropping. This might be a different permit to that for the stnking of the slab soffit
formwork.
2.
Check the safety precautions for operatives and other persons during removal of propping.
Long props can be heavy and difficult to handle.
3.
Supervisors should especially check that the individuals removing the backpropping are
aware of the floor level on which to start and the sequence agreed.
4.
Backpropping to slabs should be removed in two stages. First, ease the props by about the
same amount (about one turn). Second, starting at mid-span, remove the supports working
towards the columns or walls. This ensures that all the load is not left on the last few
backprops at mid-span, which may cause reverse bending and cracking in the new slab.
5.
On large slab areas, comprising internal and edge panels between columns etc., remove
internal bays first, followed by edge and corner bays, to limit the mid-span deflections.
6.
Backpropping to staircases may need guidance on order of removal - check with the TWC
on the sequence agreed.
9.8 AccideonUaU owerUoadiung off sUabs

The prevention of accidental overloading of a slab, for example, by inadvertently placing a heavy
bundle of reinforcement onto the newly cast slab at mid-span, such as that recorded in the Reading
site monitoring (Ref. 37), depends on the site management and control procedures. This control is
now more important as flat slab structures become leaner. It was for many years a rule of thumb
on site that repropping for such an eventuality with props with a capacity of about 25% of the slab
self-weight should be provided (Ref. 5).
Research at the ECBP project demonstrated that the performance of the thin floor slabs has
exceeded their specification requirements, but also identified that, with such structures, the process
and the control become more critical as the structures become leaner.
Unless the site risk assessment identifies accidental overloading of new slabs to be a risk, then
repropping for such an eventuality is not recommended for normal flat slab construction. See also
the worked example on the second floor at the ECBP, calculated in Annex D.
88
8 References
Note: References in the Annexes are included here
PARTNERS IN TECHNOLOGY 1996. Project: A radical redesign of the insitu concrete

frame process, Department of the Environment Project Reference BRE/SDD/ECBP. BRE,
Garston, 1 April 1997, 26pp.
BEEBY A.W. A radical redesign of the in-situ concrete frame process, Task 4: Early striking
of formwork and forces in backprops. The University of Leeds, Building Research Establish
ment. Report BR 394, London, 2000, 106pp.
Sir JOHN EGAN (Chairman). Rethinking construction. The Report of the Construction Task
Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the scope for improving the quality and
efficiency of UK construction. DETR, HMSO, London, 1998.
HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE. Managing health and safety in construction.
Approved code of practice. HSE Books, Sudbury, 2001. 100pp. Publication HSG 224.
(Includes the Construction and Design and Management Regulations.)
5.
THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Formwork - a guide to goodpractice. Slough, Second edition,

1995, 320pp. Special Publication CS030.
6.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 5975: 1996. Code of practice for falsework.

London, 1996, 134pp. Including AMD 9289 December 1996.
7.
CONSTRUCT. National structural concrete specification for building construction. British

Cement Association, Crowthome. Second edition, 2000, 72pp. Ref: 97.378.
8.
THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Plain formed concrete finishes. Crowthome, 1999, 45pp.
Technical Report 52.
9.
CONSTRUCT, A guide to contractor detailing of reinforcement in concrete. Crowthorne,

BCA, 1997, 26pp. BCA Publication CSG/OOl.
10. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 6399: Part 1: 1996. Loadings for buildings.
Code of practice for dead and imposed loads. 16pp.
11. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDISATION. ENV 199 1-2- 1, Eurocode 1:
Basis of design and actions on structures - Part 2- 1: Actions on structures - Densities, seEf
weight and imposed loads. 1995, 50pp. Published as BSI document DD ENV 1991-2-1:
1996.
12. GOODCHILD C.H. Economic concrete frame elements. Reinforced Concrete Council,
Crowthome, 1997, 128pp. BCA Publication Ref: 97.358.
13. BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. BCA Guide: Kickerless construction. Crowthome,
1988, 6pp. Ref. 47.023.
14. BENNETT D.F.H, Advances in concrete construction technology. BCA, Crowthome, 1989,
17pp. Ref. 97.309.
15. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION. Permanent formwork in construction. Joint CIRIAKoncrete Society Report, London, 200 1,
174pp. CIRlA Publication C558.
16. STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1996, No. 1592, Health and Safety - The Construction
(Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London,
2 September 1996, 24pp.
17. HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE. Protecting the public -your next move. Health and
Safety series booklet HS(G) 151, HSE Books, Sudbury, 1997, 52pp.
89
References
18. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, BS 5973: 1993. Code of practice for access and
working scaffolds and special scaffold structures in steel. London, 1993, 108pp.
19. BRAGG, S.L. Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Falsework. Her Majestys
Stationery Offce, London, June 1975. 151pp.
20.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Draft prEN 128 12. Falsework - performance

requirements and general design. Draft for Public Comment 97/102975DC, London, April
1997, 40pp. (When implemented will partially supersede BS 5975: 1996.)
21.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS EN 1065: 1999. Adjustable telescopic steel

props -product specijkations, design and assessment by calculation and test. London, 1999,
35pp. (Replaces BS 4074.)
22.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Draft prEN 13377. Prefabricated timber formwork

beams - Requirements, classification and assessment. Draft for Public Comment
98/109758DC, London, November 1998,24pp.
23.
HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE. Safe use of lifting equipment. Lifting Operations
and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, Health and Safety series booklet L 113. HSE
Books, Sudbury, 1999,62pp.
24.
PRECAST FLOORING FEDERATION. Code of practice for the safe erection of precast
concretejooring and associated components. Leicester, 200 I , 99pp.
25.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS EN 1263-2: 1998, Safety nets. Safely requirements f o r the erection of safety nets. London, 1998. 12pp.
26.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS EN 1263-1: 1997, Safety nets: safety requirements, test methods. London, 1997, 30pp.
27.
The Manual Handling Operations Regulations. HMSO, 1992. SI 1992/2793.
28.
THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Checklist f o r erecting and dismantling falsework. Crowthorne,

November 1999,24pp. Ref. CS 123.
29. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY. Checklist for assembly, use and striking of formwork.
Crowthome, April 2003. 28pp. Ref. CS144.
30.
BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Concreting f o r improved speed and efficiency, Best

Practice Guide for In-situ concrete frame buildings. Crowthorne, July 2000,4pp. Ref. 97.502.
31.
CONSTRUCTION PIDUSTRY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION.

Formwork striking times - criteria, prediction and methods of assessment. London, 1995,
60pp. Report R136 (supersedes CIRIA Reports 67 and 73.)
32. BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Early age strength assessment of concrete on site. Best
Practice Guide for In-situ concrete frame buildings, Crowthorne, May 2000, 4pp. Ref.
97.503.
33.
PRICE W.F. Curing concrete. Concrete, Vol. 32, No 8, September 1998. pp. 9-10. Current
Practice Sheet 1 12.
34. HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE. Health and safety in construction. HS(G) 150 Rev. I ,
HSE Books, Sudbury, 200 1, 124pp.
35.
The Health and Safety at work etc. Act. HMSO, 1974. ISBN 0 10 537774 3
36.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 81 10: Structural use ofconcrete Part 1: 1997.

Code of practice for design and construction. London, 1997, 122pp inc AMD 9882
September 1998.
37.
KAMALA N., DICKENS J, and PALLETT P.F. Site measurement of loads in shores and
reshores, Concrete. Vol. 30, No. 2, March/April 1996. pp.16-17.
38. BEEBY, A.W. Criteria for the loading slabs during construction. Structures and Buildings,
Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers. Vol. 146, No. 5, May 2001. pp.195-202.
39.
90
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDISATION. ENV 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2:

Design of concrete structures. Part I : General rules for buildings. 1992. Published as BSI
document DD ENV 1992- 1-1,274pp.
References
40.
HOSSAIN T.R. and VOLLUM R.L. Modelling the deflection of reinforced concrete slabs
under time varying loads. Concrete Communication Conference 2000, University of Birmingham, June 2000, Proceedings. BCA, Crowthorne, Ref. 98.003. pp437448.
41.
BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Influence of serviceability on the economic design of

concrete structures. DETR Project 3913536 cc 1824, Crowthorne, 2000. (To be published as
Defections in concrete slabs and beams. Concrete Society Technical Report, 2003.)
42.
BUNGEY J.H., LONG A.E., SOUTSOS M.N. and HENDERSON G.D. Early age
acceptance of concrete (Improved quality management). CRC Ltd, London, 2000. BRE
Report BR 387.
43. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 1881: Part 111: 1983. Method of normal curing
of test specimens (20C method). 8pp.
44.
COMITE EURO-INTERNATIONAL DU SETON. Strategies f o r testing and assessment of

concrete structures. CEB Information Bulletin No. 243, Guidance report from the Task Group
5.4 on Assessment, Maintenance and Repair, Lausanne, 1998, 185pp.
45.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 1881 : Part 207: 1992. Testing concretes.

Recommendations f o r the assessment of concrete strength by near-to-surface tests. London,
1992,20pp.
46.
SADGROVE B.M. The strength and deflection of reinforced concrete beams loaded at early
age. CIRIA, London, 1971. Technical Note 3 1.
47.
REYNOLDS G.C. Bond strength of deformed bars in tension. Cement & Concrete Association, Slough, 1982, 23pp. Technical Report 548.
48.
INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS. Appraisal of existing structures. London,

1996. 106pp.
49.
HIGHWAYS AGENCY. BA 44/95. Assessment of concrete highway bridges and structures.
91
ANNEX A - The Cardington Project
A 1 Construction
As part of the European Concrete Building Project (ECBP), a seven-storey in situ reinforcedconcrete-framed building was constructed at the Building Research Establishment (BRE)
Cardington Laboratory (Figure A 1). The construction and its associated process research were performed under the then Department of the Environments Partners in Technology (PiT) programme
through a contract led by BRE (Ref. 2). The process research was divided into six Tasks:
Task 1: Re-engineering the concrete frame business process
University of Cranfield.
Task 2: High performance formwork
University of Birmingham
Task 3: Improved rebar information and supply
University of Loughborough
Task 4: Early striking of formwork and forces in backprops (Ref. 2)
University of Leeds
Task 5: Process efficient concreting
Imperial College
Task 6: Early acceptance of concrete (Ref. 42)
University of Liverpool and Queens University, Belfast
Figure A I : View of
completed building
---
Previous page
is blank
93
Guide to flat slab formwork and falsework
The building had seven floors (six floors and a roof). It represented an imaginary office block in
central Bedford, with one side facing onto Bedford High Street.
The overall plan area was 22.8 x 30.3 m (690 m). Each floor was of flat slab construction, 250 mm
deep, with service voids and stair areas at each end of the building. A cross-section and plan of the
building are shown in Figures A2 and A3.
Columns were on a wide 7.5
7.5 m grid, giving a structure 3 bays wide by 4 bays long.
To suit modem commercial buildings the soffit height and column length for each floor was kept
constant at 3.5 m. The soffit height was different on the ground to first floor because the building
was built on the strong floor in the laboratory and pad foundations approximately 700 mm deep
were used. Thus to maintain the column length at 3.5 m, the actual ground to first floor soffit height
was about 4.2 m.
The first six floors were constructed using in situ construction; the top floor (floor seven - the roof)
used two thicknesses of precast concrete planks as permanent formwork with an in situ concrete
topping. The thicker concrete planks, incorporating the bottom reinforcement, had a 75 mm-deep
x 200 mm-wide joint filled with Densit. Each floor of the building was cast in one pour necessitating formwork for the whole slab area to be erected.
Two sizes of column were used: internal columns were 400 mm square and perimeter columns were
400 x 250 mm. Twenty columns per floor were used, six square and 14 rectangular. The columns
were the same size all the way up the building: high-strength concrete was used in the first three
sets of columns, i.e. up to the underside of the third floor slab.
Although a stair void was designed at each end of the building, only one stairway was actually
installed in precast concrete; it was in a Z to half landings and stitched together on the half
landing with the proprietary material Densit.
As no walls were to be used, lateral stiffness was considered a problem by the PWD and, after
striking the floors formwork, steel tension cross-bracing was installed in two directions to provide
horizontal stability to the building. A general arrangement of the building is shown in Figure A3.
For the first six slabs, three formwork systems were supplied, each being used on two floors.
Observations were made by on-site researchers of the use of each of the systems and comments were
obtained from the contractors operatives, the contractors site management and other construction
professionals. The intention of the study was not to compare the systems used, but to consider each
of the systems on its own merits. A brief description of the systems follows.
A2
Eqwipment for Floors 1and 2 - Props and timber beams
This equipment was used to model the traditional approach to concrete slab construction. The props
were aluminium rather than conventional adjustable steel props, and were fitted with a proprietary
four-pronged forkhead that held a 240 mm-deep proprietary primary timber lattice beam. Another
layer of similar proprietary timber beams, known as secondaries, was placed transversely on top of
the primaries, and the plywood was fixed to the secondary members.
The props were stabilised during initial erection using a proprietary tripod.
First floor propping height was about 400 mm higher than the second floor because of the height of the
column pads. This required props of extension length from 3000 mm to a maximum of 3985 mm.
The spacing of the secondary beams was determined by the 488 mm safe span of the plywood. The
centres of the props were determined by the capacity and layout of the primary beams, and were
generally on a 2050 x 1283 mm grid.
The total weight (plywood + beams + props) = 7.4 + 16.0 + 7.4 = 30.8 tonnes
A3
Equipment for Floors 3 and 4 - Ischebeck Titan Ltd
The Ischebeck Titan system comprises vertical aluminium props, called Size 4 Titan Legs, supporting
two levels of aluminium beams which support the plywood. The primary beams were twin-web
94
Annex A - The Cardington project
I*
Figure A2: Typical

cross-section of ECBP.
A
7500
I:
Hanger floor to fall
7500
.
D
I(
7500
22.8 rn x 30.3
Figure A3: Plan of

building.
95
225 mm-deep Titan beams and the secondaries were twin-web 150 mm-deep Titan beams. Jacking
was accommodated at the bottom of the system. The system was generally made up into six- and
12-legged tables with horizontal frame sections bolted to the Titan Legs.
The complete arrangement of legs, frames, beams and plywood were handled as tables between
floors, the largest being 8.0 x 6.4 m in plan.
The total weight (plywood + Titan beams + Titan legs) = 7.4 + 14.6 + 9.1 = 3 1.1 tonnes
A4
Equipment for Floors 5 and 6 - Kwikstage Shoring 55
The Kwikstage Shoring 55 kN system is a steel skeletal system. It comprises a head and base
adjustable jacking system with vertical uprights, and is laterally stabilised by two levels of ledgers
and transoms known as Shoring Ties. The grid arrangement used (1.8 x 1.8 m) was not the most
efficient use of the equipment but it was all that the project could procure for the contract. The
arrangement of supports was also dictated by the continued use of the on-site Ischebeck Titan
aluminium beams used in construction of two of the lower floors.
Total weight (plywood + Titan beams + Kwikstage) = 7.4 + 15.0 + 20.0 = 42.4 tonnes
A5
Floor 7 - Birchwood Omnia Ltd - Precast plank and Densit
Precast concrete planks 75 mm thick and 2.0 x 7.2 m in area were used on half of the roof floor.
These thick planks incorporated the bottom mat of reinforcement. A gap between planks 200 mm
wide and 75 mm deep was filled with a proprietary cementitious product, called Densit which
was mixed on site, to effectively lap the reinforcement at this location. A top mat of reinforcement was
fitted and the remaining 175 mm topping concrete placed conventionally.
The other half of the roof floor utilised 30 mm-thick precast concrete planks, known as thin
planks, supplied in 2.4 x 7.4 m sizes and regarded as non-participating; thus reinforcement and
concrete was conventional on this section of the floor with the planks replacing the face contact
material and acting as permanent formwork.
The falsework used to support the two types of precast plank was an adaptation of the Ischebeck
Titan system on a slightly different grid. It comprised Titan legs and beams in one direction, plus
some extra beams on the edge of the building.
Weight (Titan beams + Titan legs) = 4.2 + 7.8 = 12.0 tonnes
96
~-
~~~~~~~
ANNEX B - Temporary works design

brief checklist
This checklist covers the basic information likely to be needed by a TWD starting a design. Not all
items are required on all contracts, and the list is not intended to be exhaustive. Reference should
be made to the design risk assessment that will be prepared as the design is formulated.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Administration and contract
1.
Contract name, company reference number, and TW reference number as appropriate.
2.
Is it a tender or a confirmed contract?
3.
Is the equipment to be purchased, hired, or a combination of both?
4.
If a firm contract, give details of the frame contractor, principal contractor, andor main
contractor as necessary.
5.
Name, address and contact details of the PWD.
6.
Name, address and contact details of the Planning Supervisor.
7.
Name, address and contact details of the TWC.
8.
What insurance cover is required?
9.
Apart from Reg. 13, do the CDM Regulations apply? (Generally if the work is not notifiable.)
10. Date when the temporary works design is required.

11.
Up-to-date detail and general arrangement drawings.
12. Copies of existing programmes and relevant specification clauses: if none, assume the
National structural concrete specifcation for building construction (Ref. 7).
13. Copies of (or extracts from) the Health and Safety Plan.
14. Structure for which a TW scheme is required, together with brief description.
15. Location of site: access, exposure, height, surroundings, etc.
16. Site restrictions: overhead cables, noise limits, enclosure requirements, etc.
17. Statutory restrictions on the site: local air rights, pavement licences, etc.
Construction
18. Types of surface finish required.

19. Are the sofits flat? Details of any residual cambers required by the PWD.
20.
Structural dimensions on curves and gradients so that they can be identified and easily set
out, and checked, on site. Can the required curved surfaces be formed in straight lines, as
individual facets? If so, state the allowable offsets to aid setting out.
21.
Details of available cranage and maximum planned lift (in kg) over sofit area, and outside
limits for handling tables. LOLER (Ref. 23) gives specific requirements for lifts.
22. Is there a requirement for external scaffolding, andor total enclosure?

23. Has provision been made in the original planning for debris protection fans and have relevant
approvals been sought for their use on site?
24.
Has the reinforcement been detailed by the contractor? (See Ref. 9)
25.
What are the design arrangements for the stair flights? Can they be used to speed up the
temporary works?
26.
Any details by the PWD of safety guardrail connections during construction?
97
27.
Method of placing and compacting the concrete, e.g. pumping, crane, skip.
28.
Type and position of specified Construction joints, and accepted methods of forming joints.
29.
Information from the PWD on design service loads, density of the reinforced concrete,
assumed characteristic strength of concrete, etc.
30.
Included in the PWD information, what tolerances have been allowed for in the PWD design.
This is particularly necessary where precast units are involved in the TW process.
3 1.
Safe load capacity of the foundation slab? (as bearing pressure in kN/m2).
32.
Agreed method of concrete strength assessment, e.g. LOK test, cubes cured alongside.
33.
Sequence of concreting, and limitations on size of pours.
TEMPORARY WORKS
Information and procedures
34.
Does the PWD andor the TWC have a preconceived concept for the temporary works?
35.
Is an independent check required on the TW calculations?
36.
What material or equipment is available for use?
37. What is the likely level of competence of site operatives, training required, and quality of
supervision? Possibly include statements on past performance.
38.
Method of material handling envisaged between formwork uses?
39.
Work at height requires legal consideration of access and the provision of suitable working
platforms, for all operations at height. Protection can also be achieved by keeping operatives
away from exposed edges.
40.
Suitable working platforms and edge protection on all sofit formwork, and on column forms
preferably on all four sides, should always be shown on drawings.
41.
What attachment points for temporary access and fall prevention equipment are required?
42.
Will temporary enclosure of the structure be provided?
43.
Details of loading-out platforms envisaged and planned. Including likely equipment to be

used on the platforms. Design for imposed loads from, say, 4.5 to 20 kN/m2.
44.
Material likely to be used for face contact material to give surface finish required.
45.
Where proprietary suppliers are involved, they should be requested to submit calculations as
part of their final contract to supply, generally only after receipt of order.
46. Number of copies of each drawing required. Ideally the format should also be specified, e.g.
A4 black and white.
47. Procedure to be adopted to ensure that the specified construction sequences are observed.
Information may be needed to assist the TWD and the TWC to write the procedures for
striking and controlling backpropping. This could include the permit systems.
48.
Any training required for operatives in strength assessment testing? e.g. LOK test.
Columns and walls

49.
Column kickers - minimum 100 mm - recommended for perimeter columns.
50. Are the columns square or round?

5 1.
Do the columns have heads? This will restrict the type of column formwork suitable. If heads
are required, presumably square columns have square heads, circular columns have round
heads, etc.
52. What are the details of the slab fixings for the temporary column stability props, and have
tripping hazards been reduced in the design?
53. Unless stated otherwise it should be assumed that column concrete will be compacted using
internal vibrators. The use of external vibrators dictates significantly heavier and stronger
column forms together with special fixing devices for such vibrators.
54. Are the supporting columns/walls to be cast 20 mm into the new slab?
98
Annex B - Temporary works design checklist
Soffits, slabs and falsework

55.
Weights of handled units of tables, column form sections, etc., should be stated. LOLER (Ref.
23) gives specific requirements for lifts.
56. Category of sofit form release agents to be used.

57. Early consideration of handling lengths of beams, etc., such as on manually struck areas of
sofits, should be encouraged.
58. Include information on the limitations to any backpropping, e.g. number of levels, location
assumed for backprops, programme requirements for installation, any pre-loading required.
59. What are the backpropping assumptions with regard to loads on slabs, construction operations
loads (risk assessment on operations loads, if any applied), one or two levels backpropped,
etc?
60.
What density of reinforced concrete is to be used in the falsework design? (The value for the
backpropping will generally be established at 24 kN/m3.)
61. Attention should be paid in designing table forms at the edges of structures.
62. Position and details of any clean-out openings, access panels for LOK tests, etc.
99
ANNEX C - Comparison of load

transferred
Predicting the actual load spread through the structure in three dimensions is complex, and was
discussed in detail in Assumption 5 in Section 6.5.2.
When the effects of the deflected shape and resultant different loads are allowed for at the propping
positions, it is possible to show mathematically that only about one-third of the assumed load will
be actually distributed through the supporting slab into the backprops: see Table 3 and Figure 15.
This is significantly less than.the assumption made in BS 5975 (Ref. 6), and previously assumed
for flat slabs.
Table C1 reproduces the information in Table 3 for Method One (Section 6.5.3), with the addition
of the values assuming that each supporting floor takes the same proportion of the applied load,
assuming similar stiffness of each slab, as suggested in BS 5975 (Ref. 6).
Table C1 shows the percentages of applied load distributed from casting a slab: with no backpropping, with one level backpropped, and then with two levels of backpropping - assuming that
the two levels of backpropping are identical, i.e. exactly above each other on the floor.
Table C1: Percentage of load distribution from temporary works loads.
_N_ o
Location
Load
New slab cast on

falsework
wp
I
Supporting slab 1
backprops
100%
Previous
BS 5975: 1996
On slab In prop
100%
100%
100%
One level of backprops
Now proposed
Method One
On slab In prop
100%
70% wp
100%
100%
33% wp
Backprops
Lower slab 2
Backprops
Lower slab 3
Notes:
1. Assumes lower and supporting floors have been struck, have taken up their deflected shape and are carrying
their own weight.
2. Floor loading from imposed loads and self-weight not considered.

3. Strength of slabs to carry applied loads not considered.
4. All floors are suspended.
100
100%
100%
100%
100%
50% wp
Two levels of backprops

Previous
Now proposed
BS 5975: 1996
Method One
On slab In prop On slab In prop
65% wP
ANNEX D - Worked example of striking

and backpropping to second floor
at the ECBP
D1
General
This example considers both the striking of the ECBP second floor and its subsequent use with
backpropping to support the casting of the third floor. The stages of the operation are shown in
Figure 27. The second floor was cast using a specified characteristic strength C37N concrete with
accurate strength determination for striking from the averages of LOK tests in situ and temperaturematched cube results. The measured loads in the props and the actual concrete strength
determinations are also shown in Figure 27.
The flat slab was a 250 mm-thick solid reinforced concrete slab on a column grid of 7.5 x 7.5 m.
The project required each floor slab to be fully struck and allowed to take up its instantaneous
deflection prior to construction of subsequent floors. Thus it conforms to the criteria in Section 7.1,
and the proposed method of establishing concrete strength in Section 7.2 can be used, and is shown
diagrammatically in the flowchart in Figure 2 1. The TWC had agreed that construction operations
loads were not to be considered in the backpropping considerations. (See Assumption 2 in Section
6.5.2.)
When the third floor was cast, this second floor became a supporting slab and was backpropped
down one level with four props. The calculations of backpropping loads for three of the four
methods of calculating backprop loads are discussed in Section D10.
The method follows the nomenclature and order given in Sections 7.2 and 7.4. The calculations for
both the floor loading and the backprops are considered in similar terms as load per unit area to
assist direct comparisons.
D2
Loadings
The total load on the floor slab when it is struck is its self-weight (calculated using a reinforced
concrete density of 24 kN/m3) plus the construction operations load for access on top of the slab.
This is one of the loads used to check the striking requirement, as summarised below:
24 kN/m3 )
Self-weight of concrete slab
6.00 kN/m2
(i.e. 0.25
Superimposed construction load
0.75 kN/m2
(i.e. Service Class 1 loading)
Self-weight of formwork
nil
Step l a Hence:
total second floor load at striking24 (w) =
6.75 kN/m2
(see Figure 27 Stage 6)
If formwork is to be erected on this slab then:

Additional imposed load (BS 5975)
0.75 kN/mZ
Self-weight of the formwork
0.50 kN/mZ
Step Ib Hence revised load at striking (w) =
(see Section 4.3)
8.00 kN/m2 (see Figure 27 Stage 7)
24 This assumes no additional loading directly from any formwork moved straight on to the struck floor from
beneath, such as being struck out and moved immediately upwards using table or flying form systems.
101
Second floor slab struck
.
.
.
.
7
Load (w) 6.75 kN/m*
Falsework
Heads lowered and slab

allowed to deflect
First floor slab
Backprops
\Load
(w) 8.00kN/m2
Foundations
Figure D1: Situation aRer striking second floor.
The PWD's design service loadings were as follows:

Self-weight of
concrete slab (floor 2)
6.00 kN/m2
partitions
1.OO kN/m2
raised floor
0.50 kN/mZ
ceiling services
0.50 kN/m2
Superimposed office floor load
(i.e. 0.25 x 24 kN/m3 )
2.50 kN/mZ
Step 2 Hence:
PWD's design service load (wSer)= 10.50 kN/m2
D3
To establish the criteria for striking
Step 3 Having established the values for both w at Steps l a and l b and wserat Step 2 above, the
first check confirms that:
w,,,(10.50 kN/m2) is greater than w (6.75 kN/mZ)

Step 4
OK
w - 6.75
Loading factor = Total design construction load -- -=
wser
10.50
0.643 = 0.64
The loading factor F, is less than 1, so the operation can proceed.

Step 5 From Figure 22 look up the concrete strength factor, C,, for a loading factor of 0.64. This
gives a Csfof 0.47
Step 6 For the second floor, the specified characteristic strength C37 i s h u= 37 N/mmz
Step 7 Hence the required equivalent concrete cube strength in the critical area from the method
of strength assessment from Equation 19 is
f,req = Csffcu= 0.47 x 37 = 17.39 N/mm2

Although the formulae used are based on the cracking factor, for completeness, the previous
values can be used to verify that the cracking factor is less than or equal to 1 from:
= 0.642 x 2. 127.6= 0.642 x 1.572 = 1 .OO
Hence both striking criteria F, I 1.O and F,, I 1 .O are satisfied.

The second floor was actually struck on 14 February 1998 at a strength of 24 N/mmz
(Figure 27 Stage 6).
102
Annex D - Worked example of striking and backpropping to second floor at the ECBP
D4 Further considerations - strength assessment

As stated in Section 6.4(e), the use of the LOK test based on an average of four readings gives the
direct value of the equivalent concrete cube strength of the in situ concrete at the test location.
Using LOK tests, the site would need to obtain the average of four readings (Ref. 32) by reading
off the equivalent cube strength from the correct correlation curve or table. It is, of course,
important to ensure that the test location represents the critical area of the concrete slab for striking.
In this example at, say, an average of 18 N/mm2 from the four results, the slab could be approved
for striking.
If the concrete is to be struck using cubes cured alongside as the only method of strength
assessment, because they are not directly representative of the in situ concrete, as discussed in
Section 6.4 (a), the mean of the cube results needs to be increased to obtain the lower bound
strength:
Mean of air-cured cube results
= required
equivalent cube strength
factor
At the time of writing, information on the magnitude of this factor was not available. This would
need to be discussed between the PWD and the TWC. Indications from earlier Reports, such as BR
394 (Ref. 2) and CIRlA 136 (Ref. 3 l), suggest that this factor might be between 1.10 and 1.25, but
will never be less than unity.
Step 8 If the factor was 1.25, the revised equivalent cube strength required is
fcreq= 1.25 x
0.47 x 37 = 21.7N/mm2
In this case it had already been determined that the slab had reached this strength at the time of
striking.
Note that it may be necessary to also check the strength requirement of the first floor in order to
establish whether the backprops could be removed. In this case the floor strength had reached
55 N/mm2 at time of striking out the second floor (Figure 27 Stage 6).
D5 Second floor
erection
- Backpropping consi
erations for falsework
Considering different stages of construction will arrive at the required minimum concrete strength
needed for operating the system.
The next operation on the second floor will be to erect the temporary works for the third floor. See
Stage 7 in Figure 27. This will require the full construction operations load and the weight of the
formwork to be considered.
From Step 2 in Section D2, the total load on the second floor slab (w)is now 8.00 kN/m2.
Thus
w
Loading factor = Total design construction load - -- 8'oo = 0.762 = 0.76
wser 10.50
From Figure 22 look up the concrete strength factor C,, for a loading factor of 0.76. This gives a
Csfof 0.63
If the strength is assessed with the LOK test based on the average of four readings, the required
equivalent cube strength is the average of the four results:
Required equivalent cube strength is
fCreq
= C,, f,,= 0.63 x 37 = 23.3 N/mm2
This slab had actually reached a strength of 24 N/mm2 at the time of striking, so the operation of
erecting formwork on the second floor, shown as Stage 7 (Figure 27), could have started immediately. However, had striking been carried out at the lower bound value, i.e. if the average results
had only been 17.4 N/mmz (Section D3), construction work on erecting and assembling the
falsework and formwork for the third floor could not have started on this floor slab until it had been
backpropped, or the slab concrete had matured and reached 23.3 N/mm2.
103
D6 Second floor
third floor
- Backpropping considerations for casting the
The temporary works arrangement was to insert one level of backpropping from the underside of the
second floor to the first floor slab, shown diagrammatically in Figure D2 and also in Figure 27, Stage 8.
The TWC needs to verify the loads that are to be carried by the supporting slab 1, i.e. the ECBP
second floor slab, from concreting the new slab (third floor) scheduled for 26 February. It is normal
to assume that the backprops have been fitted after the formwork has been erected. This was the case
at the ECBP. This means that the weight of the formwork is already being carried by the supporting
second floor.
Self-weight of concrete slab (third floor)
Formwork self-weight
Construction operations load
Hence falsework imposed load (w,)
6.00 kN/m2
(i.e. 0.25 x 24 kN/m3)
nil
nil
(see Assumption 5, Section 6.5.2)
=
Supporting slab self-weight (second floor)

Formwork self-weight on supporting slab
Hence total construction load w
6.00kN/mZ
6.00 kN/mZ
0.50 kN/m2
(on unpropped second floor)
12.50 kN/m2 > 10.50 kN/mZ( W J
This is larger than the PWDs total design load, so backpropping is confirmed as essential.
As constructed, one level of backpropping was used and the following sections calculate the results
assuming Methods One, Three and Four. See Section 6.5.3 and Figure 15. The results from the
three methods are compared alongside Figure D2 in this annex.
D7 Method One
- Backprop loads by w e (ob percentages of load
Using Table 3 for one level of backprops gives the load in the supporting slab, i.e. the second floor
slab, when casting the third floor of 70% of w,.This is Stage 9 at Figure 27.
Thus the imposed load on the supporting slab (second floor) is 70% of 6.00 kN/mZ= 4.20 kN/m2
and the total construction load on the second floor will be 6.00 + 0.50 + 4.20 = 10.70 kN/m2.
This is greater than the PWDs design service load of 10.50 kN/mZand approval will have to be
sought to load the slab above the service load. See Section 6.6 and the discussion in Section D12.
The load in the backprops is 30% of wp= 30% of 6.00 kN/mZ= 1.80 kN/mZ,which gives a total load
in the first floor slab of (6.00 + 1.80) = 7.80 kN/mZ.
D8 Method Three
formulae
- Backprop loads by use of further simplified
Using the assumption that the slabs will be at least twice as stiff as any backpropping introduced,
Equation 14 (Section 6.5.3) can be used to calculate the backprop loads.
The relative stiffness of the first floor (SSJ and the supporting slab (&,) are needed to calculate
the backpropping forces. The lower floor is likely to be stiffer than the supporting slab as it will
be about three weeks old at the time of casting the third floor. Records show that the relevant
cube strengths were 47 and 65 N/mmz, and elastic moduli ( E ) 36.01 and 40.12 kN/mmZ,respectively.
S
36.01
Let us assume that the ratio SI
= 0.90 say
Ss,
40.12
~
104
Equation 14 gives the load in the backpropping directly under the second floor as:
Thus the imposed load on the supporting floor slab is 6.00 - 1.54 = 4.46 kN/m2
This assumes that the falsework was placed on the slab before the backpropping was installed.
Thus the total construction load on the second floor using Method Three will be
6.00 + 0.50 + 4.46
10.96 kN/mZ
Again, this is greater than the PWDs design service load of 10.50 kN/mZ and approval must be
sought to load the slab above the service load. See Section 6.6 and the discussion in Section D12.
D9 Method Four
- Backprop loads from spreadsheet
Using the values of load from the known arrangement of falsework and backpropping used to cast
the third floors, the Method Four spreadsheet results for an internal panel, an edge panel and
a corner panel with one level of backpropping are shown as Examples One, Two and Three in
Annex F.
The results show the loads in the backprops as 1.29 kN/mZ for the internal panel and 1.53 kN/m2
for the edge panel, increasing to 1.74 kN/mZfor the stiffer corner panel. Note that in calculating the
load in the backpropping the value of 6.00 kN/mZ was used, i.e. excluding self-weight of the
falseworWformwork. The self-weight is included in the design construction load when considering
the supporting slab.
In the worst case, the supporting slab 1 (the internal panel), i.e. the second floor slab, has an
imposed load when casting the third floor of:
(wp - wb,)= (6.00 - 1.29 + 0.50) = 5.21 kN/m2
This is greater than the spare capacity 25 of the supporting slab, i.e. the second floor, at 4.50 kN/m2
(assuming that the second floor has reached its full 28-day strength).
The calculated total construction load on this second floor, excluding any construction operations
loads, is now shown in the output26 as:
w,,, = 5.21 + 6.00 = 11.21 kN/m2

The value of 11.21 kN/m2 represents a theoretical load above the total service load (wser)of about
11.21- 10.50
~ 1 0=
0 6.76 = 6.8%
10.50
giving a loading factor F, = 1.07. However, no account has been taken of any pre-load in the
backprops or cracking in the slabs.
When the fourth floor was cast, backpropping was increased to two levels. The analysis at Example
Six in Annex F shows, yet again, that, without pre-loading the backprops, the supporting slab was
theoretically loaded to above its service load. Example Six shows w,,, = 11.11 kN/mZ, which
represents an increase as follows:
11.11-10.50
10.50
~10=
0 5.81 = 5.8%
giving a loading factor F,
25
1.06.
The realistic spare capacity is the design service load less the actual self-weight, i.e. 10.50 - 6.00
= 4.50 kN/m2.
26
Note that the self-weight here is the second floor slab on its own, without any construction loads.
105
D10 Discussion
A summary of the results from three methods discussed is shown in Figure D2.
Summary of loads (kN/m2)by Method:
Third floor being cast
Slab
ONE
THREE
FOUR
6.00
6.00
6.00
( Falsework designed in all cases for 8.25 2 7 )
Supporting slab
i.e. Second Floor
Lower slab
i.e. First Floor
In second floor
10.70
10.96
10.76 to 11.21
In backprops
1.80
1.54
1.29 to 1.74
In first floor
7.80
7.54
7.29 to 7.74
Foundations
Figure D2: Backpropping one level.
These calculations also show that the third floor slab cannot be cast until approval has been
received from the PWD to load the slab above its design service load. This also implies that the
supporting slab has gained, at least, its full 28-day strength. This is discussed in Section D12 of this
Annex and in Annex E.
Note that it may also be required to assess the strength of the concrete in the lower slab, i.e. the first
floor, as well, before casting the third floor, though because of the small amount of load transferred
it is rarely a problem, unless the pre-loading is excessive.
If backpropping were extended down to the rigid foundation level andor pre-loaded, then the
parameters would be changed and casting might be possible earlier. This demonstrates the complexity of the backpropping considerations, and emphasises the need for careful control and use of
detailed procedures.
D11 Second floor - Pre-load of backprops and allowance for

cracking
Perhaps the reason why the supporting slab is rarely overloaded in practice is because of the
pre-loading of these props when installed. The backprops were placed at third points in a slab, and
therefore four props took the load.
The approximate area supported by each prop is 7.5ox7.50 = 14.,m2
4
Using Method One and percentages of load (See Section D7) gives the load per backprop as
approximately 14.1 x 1.80 = 25.38 kN per prop.
The aluminium prop used for the backpropping had a stated pitch of 36 mm per turn of the collar,
and the assumed stiffness was 25 kN/mm, so to pre-load the supporting slab by, say, 25 kN requires
1 mm of prop extension, i.e. only 1/36th of a rotation or 10". This takes no account of the stiffness
of the slab above and below, and assumes them to be infinitely rigid.
This small amount of movement in the prop is most likely to be nearly always taken up by 'fingertight' and, as already stated, pre-loads of 12-1 5 kN were regularly recorded. This is one reason why
the measured values of load were low, and the floor slabs were not actually shown to be distressed.
Assuming that the pre-load is distributed as a uniform load gives an equivalent floor load of
0.60 kN/mZ; this reduces the second floor loading. This equates to an estimate of 8.50 kN per
27 The design of falsework is recommended for the wet condition of reinforced concrete density of 25 kN/m3
with full construction operations load of 1.5 kN/m2 (see Assumption 3 in Section 6.5.2).
106
backprop. The Method Four calculation for one level of backpropping with pre-loaded props is at
Example Four in Annex F. Comparing Examples One and Four shows that the load reduces on the
supporting slab and increases on the first floor, giving:
revised load on supporting floor
6.00 + 0.50 + 4.10
10.60 kN/m2
revised load on first floor
6.00 + 1.90
7.90kN/m2
The value is still greater than the designers service load of 10.50 kN/mZ and construction could
only continue with the approval of the PWD.
Where the PWD allows some cracking in the slabs, as recommended in Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39), the
values will change. Assuming a distribution coefficient of 0.2 and a ratio of curvature of 0.3 gives
the revised calculation at Example Five in Annex F. This shows that, for the same slab, with only
one level of backpropping, the loading factor F, = 1.O, allowing construction to proceed.
The actual loading is as follows:
w - 10.51
Loading factor = Total design construction load - - --=
w,,, 10.50
1.001
From Equation 7, the concrete strength factor C, for a loading factor of 1 .OO 1 gives a C,, of 1.002.
If strength is assessed with the LOK test based on an average of four results, the required characteristic concrete strength is:
fcreq= C, xfcu= 1.002x37 = 37.08 kNlmm2 (as stated at foot of Example Five)
The calculation shows that with one level of backpropping a negligible stress of 0.2% is recorded.
From Figure 27 Stage 9, it is noted that the equivalent cube strength in the supporting slab 2 was
47 N/mm2 on the day of casting the third floor (26 February).
If a value is to be entered for the distribution coefficient other than zero then a value for the
uncrackedkracked ratio of curvature should also be entered. It would be safest to enter a default
value of unity (1) for the ratio of curvature - in practice this ratio will usually be in the range
0.25-0.3 3.
Note that the load in the backpropping actually measured on site during installation of backpropping
on the ECBP was 0.60 kN/mZ(Figure 27 Stage 8). This seems to vindicate the assumptions made in
this section, and explains why such structures may not have been unduly overloaded during
construction in the past.
When the similar exercise is carried out on the fourth floor construction with two levels of backpropping, shown by comparing Example Six with Examples Seven and Eight in Annex F, it is noted
that the loading factor reverts to unity both when pre-loading the props to 8.50 kN (Example Seven)
and also when allowing for cracking and pre-loading to 6.0 kN (Example Eight).
The calculation shows that with two levels of backpropping a negligible stress of 0.8% is recorded.
It is noted that, in all the cases discussed, the supporting slab is required to have achieved the
equivalent 28-day cube strength of 37 N/mmz.
D12 Second Floor - Discussion on loading to above the service

load
At the ECBP advantage was taken of the fact that the actual strengths achieved even at relatively
early ages (say 14 days) were much higher than the characteristic cube strength. This is discussed
at Section 6.6 and also explains how the concrete slabs were able to be cast.
Considering the worst case from Method Four of load on the second floor (Example One) gives:
w
1 1.2 I
Loading factor = Total design construction load - - - - = 1.067 = 1.07
wser 10.50
107
Guide to flat slab forrnwork and falsework
From Figure 22 look up the concrete strength factor C,, for a loading factor of 1.07. This gives a
CSfOf1.10.
Hence the concrete strength required is
fcreq
= Csfxfc, =1.10~37=40.7N/mm
This load above the design service load was checked at the ECBP and approval was given to
proceed. As already stated, the concrete strength at the time of casting the third floor was
47 N/mmz (see Figure 27 Stage 9). This approval is reasonable, particularly when considering that
no pre-loading or allowance for cracking had been included in the calculations above. The use of
the spreadsheet vindicates the approval in Examples One to Six.
In practice, the principle of loading the slab to above the service load should be considered by the
PWD in discussion with the TWD. The considerations at serviceability and ultimate limit states are
discussed as Proposals 2a and 2b in Section 6.6.2. A fuller treatise is given in Annex E.
The PWD will need to check the area of tensile reinforcement, as well as the compressive strength
of the concrete at the time considered. Reinforcement areas may be more than the minimum
required, and this is often the reason why approval to proceed can be given.
The construction operations load is the load that is or is not going to affect the slab. It was not
measurable at the ECBP, yet it needs to be seriously considered. The calculations have assumed that
it may be ignored for the purposes of checking the loads in the slabs and the backprops. It is for the
TWD and the PWD to determine the magnitude, if any, to be allowed. For example, the assumption
that the construction operation loads may be reduced is considered at the serviceability limit state
(SLS) in Table E l in Annex E. It shows that, considering loading combinations, the likely load is
0.53 kN/m2 SLS on the supporting slab. Thus adding in the likely percentage of the concrete load
(at 70% from Method One), and assuming the falsework already on the supporting slab, would give
a total construction load on the supporting slab of:
(6.00
70%) + 0.53 + 0.50 + 6.00 = 11.23 kN/mZ
This is in excess of the total construction load stated 'at Method Four of 11.21 kN/mz. Thus the
PWD needs to be involved to verify whether the slab can accept this loading at early age. Perhaps
pre-loading the backprops, as discussed in Section D 11, together with strictly followed procedures,
are the solution in such cases.
D13 Second floor - Backpropping considerations for accidental

overloading
To avoid overloading a new slab accidentally, props with a capacity of 25% of the slab self-weight
should remain in place. This gives a propping capacity of 25% of the supporting 6.00 W/m2 =
1S O kN/m2. As this is generally less than the installed capacity of the backpropping, no extra backpropping is needed for accidental loading.
D14 Fourth floor - Distributed load from falsework

The construction of the fifth floor, supported from floor 4, used one level of backpropping. The
falsework was considered as providing a uniformly distributed load onto the fourth floor, and nine
backprops were used, positioned at quarter points.
The analysis, in Examples Nine and Ten in Annex F, shows that the loading factor and cracking
factors are less than unity. Where pre-loading is not considered, the full 28-day strength of the
fourth floor has to be achieved before casting. When the backprops are estimated as pre-loaded to
only 6.0 kN each, the required equivalent cube strength is only 3 1 N/mmz.
It should be noted that the effect of pre-loading the backprops can influence the load required to be
carried by lower slabs. In Example Ten the program delivers a warning on the screen that the load
on the middle slab (slab 2) of 9.00 kN/m2 is approaching the value of the supporting slab load of
9.50 kN/m2. This recommends that a manual check on the capacity of the lower slab 2 should be
carried out. In practice, it should be older and hence stiffer than the supporting slab, and may not be
a cause for concern. The printed output from the spreadsheet gives values for the supporting slab.
108
ANNEX E - Theory of loading a slab

to above the design service load
Introduction
El
This annex explains the reasoning behind the proposals in Section 6.6 for dealing with temporary
overloading of flat slabs.
CIRIA Report 136 (Ref. 31) lists the factors that need to be considered when setting criteria for
striking formwork (collapse, deflection, freeze-thaw damage, mechanical damage, moisture loss,
colour variation, durability, thermal cracking and shock, and site requirements). However, with
respect to theoretical overload of slabs, as with striking of slabs, the main concerns are deflection
and collapse.
The two principles proposed in Section 6.2 for early striking of slabs are:
- - w I 1.0
Loading factor (F, ) = Total design construction load on slab Total design service load on slab
Wser
Equation 4
and
[Cr)[gj
Crackingfactor (Fer) = -
Equation 5
where
I 1.0
f,
total unfactored design construction load on the slab in kN/mZ

total unfactored design service load in kN/m2
characteristic concrete strength at the time of striking in N/mm2
f,,
characteristic strength of the concrete in N/mmz.
w
w,,,
=
=
As has been shown in Section 6.6, using these two principles directly to check the slab when it is
supporting concreting loads above can lead to many situations where the slab is theoretically overloaded. Such slabs could be classed as being unbuildable without being redesigned for the worst
load case of construction. While this is an option, the intention here is to investigate more considered approaches that allow design and construction teams to deliver economic concrete
structures safely.
In order to deal with these theoretical overload situations it is necessary to first look more closely
at theory and the underlying assumptions used in the above criteria and apply engineering
judgement. These judgements should be agreed between the PWD and the TWD as giving safe and
satisfactory performance.
E 2 Theory: base criteria

Equations 4 and 5 are based on work by Beeby (Ref. 2) and essentially deal with deflection and
collapse. It is proposed that these same principles form the basis for checking a slab during the early
part of its life when it is used to support falsework, formwork and concreting loads to the slab above
in multi-storey construction.
Summary One
Use Equations 4 and 5 as the basis for checking temporary overload of flat slabs during
construction.
109
E3
Loads
E3.1 Load factors: independent loads

Currently, in line with BS 5975 (Ref. 6), a construction operations load of 1.5 kN/m2 is applied to
the floor being concreted and 0.75 kN/m2 on all other slabs. For structures (cf. falsework), it is
generally accepted that, where several statistically independent forms of loading are applied simultaneously, the probability of them all being at their maximum value at the same time reduces with
the number of loads to be considered. This is not covered explicitly by BS 8110,(Ref. 36) but
Eurocodes apply this concept and apply factors to imposed loads depending whether they are
considered rare, frequent or quasi-permanent.
With ultimate loads, it may be in order to use the most onerous factor and consider the rare loading
case. Considering Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39), Beeby (Ref. 2) suggests that combination factors of 1.0
and 0.5 may be appropriate: these would give the rare load case, the greater of
0.70 + (gks + 0.5 + qks)
Equation 20
either
(gku+qk, 0.5)
or
(gku + qku)
0.70 + (gks + 0.5 + qks
where
gk,
characteristic dead load of the upper slab (being concreted)
qks
characteristic imposed load of the supporting slab
0.5 kN/m2
general industry allowance for weight of formwork and

falsework (Ref. 5)
0.70
Method One carry-through factor (assuming one level of backprops) from

Table 3 in Section 6.5.3, i.e. 70% of the loads from the slab being concreted are carried by the supporting slab. If two levels of backprops are
used this reduces to 0.65 (i.e. 65%).
Equation 2 1
0.5)
The case is less clear for deformation. With long-term deflection, quasi-permanent loads are taken:
combination factors of 0.2,0.3,0.6 or even 0 (in the case of snow) are used depending on the nature
of the loading and use of the structure. In the case of temporary overload affecting cracking and
deflection it may be prudent, until proven otherwise, to use the more onerous frequent factors.
Beeby (Ref. 2) suggests that factors of 0.5 and 0.4 may be appropriate for a frequent load case. The
load to be considered would now be the greater of
either
(gku+qk,
or
(gk,
+ qk,
0.5)
0.4)
0.70 + (gks+ 0.5 + qks x 0.4)
Equation 22
+ (gks + 0.5 + qks
Equation 23
0.70
0.5)
E3.2 Load duration

The duration of overload is likely to be short. It should be stressed that the problem occurs only for
about 12 to 18 hours until the slab being poured becomes self-supporting. At the ECBP no
significant construction imposed load was detected in the props. See Figure 27.
Duration is not a mitigating factor for the ultimate limit state - an overload is an overload. However,
in the serviceability conditions there are many factors to take into account that are the subject of continuing debate. These considerations had a bearing on the rare and frequent factors proposed above.
E3.3 Load allowances.

It may be argued that it is unreasonable to allow both 1.5 kN/m2 at the upper level and 0.75 kN/m2
at lower levels during concreting operations. For instance, it is usual to cordon off the area below
concreting operations and make it inaccessible during concreting and indeed until the slab is struck.
Provided the area is cordoned off and not used for temporary storage it may be argued that, for the
duration of the 1.5 kN/m2 load, a concurrent allowance of 0.75 kN/mZfor construction loads may
be inappropriate.
The concern here is with the structure and the structure has much more continuity and robustness
than the temporary works for which the concreting imposed loads are intended. Indeed it is difficult to envisage the 1.5 kN/mZimposed load co-existing on a moving front of concrete operations
with the full dead weight of concrete on anything other than a local scale.
110
Annex E - Theorv of loadinu a slab to above the desisn service load
E3.4 Temporary load patterns

Temporary load patterns may differ from permanent load patterns and should be considered. BS 8 110
(Ref. 36) load patterns are for all spans loaded or alternate spans loaded. The fact that the 'live' load
(n - gk) experienced by the slab is likely to be applied as a wave of point loads as concreting operations on the slab above proceed makes little material difference to bending moment coefficients.
Usually the supporting slab will be complete and the degree of continuity in the slab will be as
assumed in the design. However, if this is not the case, e.g. if only three of five spans are complete,
special consideration must be given to temporary moments, e.g. end span bending moment coefficients may be different and internal spans may become temporary end spans. There is also likely
to be less redundancy during the construction phase than when the structure is complete.
In terms of the permanent works design, the temporary overload might be considered as being a
load test on a structure that has yet to be accepted by the main contractor or client, i.e. it is at the
specialist contractor's risk until accepted.
Obviously safety must not be compromised and all parties must be satisfied with methods of construction proposed, but specialists should know their business and be well placed to make suitable
judgements. Collapse is unlikely to be an issue as considerations of serviceability are generally
more critical.
E3.5 Loads: self-weight of formwork and falsework
Although it is general in the industry to allow 0.5 kN/m2 for the self-weight of the formwork and
falsework to flat slabs up to 350 mm thick, some systems may be different. Precast permanent
formwork suppliers have used a value of 0.25 kN/mZ to allow for the falsework. (See Ref. 15.)
E3.6 Pre-loads in back props
The effect of pre-loading backprops is to transfer a load equal to the pre-load from the slab above
to the slab below.
Controlled pre-loading of backpropping may be feasible, but it requires strict procedures to ensure
correct installation and maintenance. Nonetheless the normal installation of backprops and handtightening instills a pre-load in the props which at the ECBP equated to between 0.3 and 0.7 kN/m2,
i.e. approximately 6 kN per prop. One proprietary supplier's aluminium props are stated as having
a stiffness of 25 kN/mm at 3.5 m extension and one full turn equivalent to 38 mm extension. In
theory, to obtain 6 kN in such a prop would entail only a 2.4" turn. This is entirely feasible, but not
normally measurable without the use of load cells and special methods. While pre-load should not
normally be relied upon, it may certainly be used in mitigation.
E3.7 Load combination factors
Tables El and E2 show the effects of using load combination factors.
Summary Two
For ULS use Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39) rare combination factors for independent load factors of
1.0 and 0.5.
For SLS use frequent combination factors of 0.5 and 0.4.
Summary Three
If access below concreting operations is denied during concreting operations then, so far as
the permanent structure is concerned, a concurrent allowance of 0.75 kN/mZfor access below
formwork might be ignored. Two load cases should then be considered:
1S O kN/mZabove with 0 kN/m2 below, and
0.75 kN/m2 above with 0.75 kN/mZbelow.
E4
Deflection: Serviceability Limit State
Deflection of concrete sections is inextricably linked to the extent of cracking and the degree to
which the cracking moment is exceeded.
111
Table El: Loads and combinationfactors at serviceability limit state (SLS).

Construction imposed
load (kN/m*)
Upper
Combination
factor
Carry
through of
loads
Construction imposed load

for supporting slab qkss
(m/m2)
Notes
Lower
TOP
Bottom
Max
1.5
0.75
1.o
1.o
70%
1.80
1.80
1.5
0.5
0.4
70%
0.53
0.53
1.5
0.4
0.5
70%
0.42
1 level of props and

deny access below
formwork
0.59
1 level of props
I Between concreting operations and striking

0.75
0.75
0.5
0.4
70%
0.56
0.75
0.75
0.4
0.5
70%
0.59
Table E2: Loads and combinationfactors at ultimate limit state (ULS).

Construction imposed
load (kN/m2)
Upper
Combination
factor
Carry
through of
loads
Construction imposed load

for supporting slab qkss
(kN/m2)(char)
Lower
TOP
Bottom
0.75
1.o
1.o
70%
1.80
1.80
1.os
1.5
Notes
Max
f i o L r e i n g operations
1.5
0.5
1.o
70%
0.53
1.5
1.o
0.5
70%
1 .os
)cretin;
operations and striking

~~
0.75
0.75
0.5
1 .o
70%
1.01
0.75
0.75
1.o
0.5
70%
0.90
1.01
1 level of props
Flexural cracks occur when moments produce tensile stresses that exceed the concretes tensile
strength. According to the most recent studies tensile strength is proportional to (cube strength)o.6.
Moment is proportional to load. Hence w,,,lfcu0.6 is a measure of the cracking implicit in the design.
Beeby (Ref. 2) showed that crack width and curvature are related to (1 - k Cf,,,Wlw>); thus the factor
(wlfc 0.6) helps describe stiffness and hence deflection.
Equation 5 ensures that the extent of cracking (and instantaneous deflection) induced during construction does not exceed the value implicit in the design of the member under service conditions.
This criterion may be considered as being a little onerous as long-term deflections, e.g. to
Eurocode 2 (Ref. 3 l), are usually based on quasi-permanent loads (see Load factors: independent
loads in Section E3.1) and allow for duration of load. In the proposals adopted in Section 6.6,
some recognition of the temporary nature of the load has been allowed in the loading (by adopting
the frequent factors of 0.5 and 0.4 for construction imposed loads).
112
1 level of props and

deny access below
formwork
Annex E - Theory of loading a slab to above the design service load
Equation 4 is seen as being not unreasonable for members significantly cracked under service
loads. In effect it also limitsf, tof,,, which guards against normal consideration of ultimate failure
due to bending.
Although based on lower levels of load, Sadgrove (Ref. 46) concluded that early loading of slabs
made little difference to long-term deflection. Repeat loading tends to reduce creep so it may be
argued that an initial overload induces deflection, normally associated with creep, before the
finishes are applied.
It is generally accepted that early loading (i.e. early striking) does not have a significant effect on
total deflection in normal circumstances. Likewise, it may be argued that a temporary overload will
have little effect on long-term deflections. (Creep is influenced by age at loading but the effect of
creep on deflection is small in comparison to the effects of cracking.) In the case of a young slab
supporting concreting operations above, the excess loads are temporary only. Beeby remarks:
If the [construction] load did exceed the service load, the cracks would exceed the values implicit in the
design while this load was applied but would reduce in size on removal of the load. This would probably
not have a significant long-term effect on performance. (Ref. 2)
If w > w,,,,cracking and deflection can be restricted by using a higher grade concrete, i.e. by
increasingf,, such that principle 2 is satisfied.
It might be argued that exceeding the design service load during construction was not serious and that the
inequality [criterion I ] above could be relaxed. It is doubtful that designers would consider significant
overload during construction as being reasonable and so major violation of inequality 1 should be
avoided. (Ref. 2)
The question arises: but what is major?, is it 10% or, say, 30%?
If, as stated above, Equation 4 is there for structural members that are assumed to be substantially
cracked due to service loads, any overload will cause more cracking and deflection. However, iff,
is allowed to exceedf,, to the extent that Equation 5 is satisfied, then the serviceability limit states
of cracking and deflection should be no worse than that implicit in design. This situation will of
course be temporary and from practical experience largely recoverable and not detrimental to the
long-term performance of the member. Obviously excessive overload would cause irrecoverable
deformation, which would be apparent before the member is offered for acceptance. To ensure no
inelastic deformation at supports, the temporary serviceability moments should not exceed the
design moment (at ultimate limit state). Presuming similar support conditions, this can be done by
ensuring w/n,er < pb (Equation 17). This limit becomes critical when levels of redistribution
approach 30%. At 20% redistribution (as assumed in the moment factors in Table 3.12 in BS 81 10
(Ref. 36)), this limit is likely to be less critical.
Summary Four
0
For SLS, use a higher grade of concrete and allowf, to exceedf,, such that Equation 5 is
satisfied.
Providing Equation 5 is satisfied, ensure ultimate capacities are not exceeded. i.e. check ULS.
Ensure
-<
pb
nserv
E5.1
Bending
It can be shown quite easily that the bending moment capacity of a lightly reinforced section is
relatively unaffected by concrete strength. Increasingf, abovef,, does not significantly increase the
moment capacity of the section, Mcap.
For more highly reinforced members with concrete strengths belowf,, the relationshipf, o.6/fCu 0.6
bears reasonable comparison to the relationship of moment capacity to designed moment capacity,
Mcap/Mcapfcu.
Figure E l shows the relationship for a C28/35 concrete.
113
150 I
200 mm solid slab 0.28%,

T12 @ 2008 250 mm2/mT,
cover 25 mm
+T16
@ 2008 250 mm2/mT,
cover 25 mm
+T20 @ 2008 250 mm2/mT,

cover 25 mm
---
Beam 300 x 450 mm deep,

1.78%, 3 T32B and 2 T20T,
30 mm cover all round
+'cu/35
I
20
10
30
50
40
f , (N/mm2)
Figure E l : Typical ultimate bending moment capacity graph for a C28/35 concrete.
Abovef,,, there is little increase in moment capacity. Very often sections may be detailed with
excess capacity, but without reverting to the design calculations on every section it is not possible
to rely on this being the case.
E5.2 Shear
The most critical condition for the ultimate limit state is likely to be shear. Figure E2 shows the
relationship for a typical C28/35 concrete. Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39) assumes that shear strength v, is
proportional tofc0.666 ,whereas BS 8110 (Ref. 36) assumes that shear strength is proportional to
fC0.333. Thus forf, If,,, the use of Equation 5 is close to the more onerous condition for checking shear.
Abovef,,, assuming shear strength is proportional tof,
capacity.
0.666
may lead to an overestimation of shear
140
120
100
80
60
40
2o
010
20
30
40
50
& (N/mm2)
Figure E2: Typical ultimate shear capacity of a C28/35 concrete.
E5.3
Bond
Ultimate bond strength is, according to Clause 3.12.8.4 in BS 8 1 10: Part 1 (Ref. 36), proportional
tof,,o3. BS 8110 Table 3.26 is based on original work by Reynolds (Ref. 47) whose work is based
114
Annex E - Theorv of loadincl a slab to above the desicm service load
on Tepfers bond expression, which in turn relates bond strength directly to concrete tensile
strength. As stated in Section E4, concrete tensile strength is taken to be proportional tof, 0.6.
Table 3.26 in BS 8 1 10 is derived from an equation that includes a term (0.5 + c/D),where c is cover
and D is the diameter of the bar. The table assumes that c equals D, whereas, particularly for slabs,
c > D.For example, using a 16 mm bar with 20 mm cover would lead to a 17% increase in ultimate
bond stress using these expressions.
Local bond checks are not required in BS 8110.
Equation 18
It would appear prudent to ensure that the ultimate performance of the member is not compromised,
and further to ensure that capacities are not exceeded in the temporary case. This can be done by
checking that
&
n
- 2 1.0
nser
where
riser =
ultimate construction load (ULS: gk = 1.2, qk = 1.2)

ultimate design load
(ULS: g,
1.4, qk = 1.6)
Summary Five
Relatively small increases in ultimate bending moment, shear and bond capacities created by
increasingf, beyondf,, should be disregarded in the assessment of the temporary overloads.
To ensure capacities are not exceeded, ensure n I riser.
E5.4 Load factors: temporary nature of load
CIRIA Report RI36 (Ref. 31) proposed that, for lightly reinforced sections, a safety factor of 1.2
should be used for dead and construction loads.
A precedent has been set for the reduction of the partial safety factors for loading in the Institution
of Structural Engineers Appraisal of existing structures (Ref: 48) and CEB Bulletin 243 Strategies
for testing and assessment of concrete structures (Ref. 44).
The factor of safety for load y is made up of three components, such that
Equation 24
Yf
where
YfI
Yn Yn
yf,
load variation factor
yn
load combination and sensitivity factor
yn
structural performance factor
If dimensions and densities are known so that it is possible to calculate the self-weight accurately
then it may be possible to justify a reduction in yfl to 1.05. The yn factors should not change, as the
probabilities remain the same for assessment, i.e. yn = 1 .O. If measured dimensions, including any
eccentricities due to construction inaccuracies, are used in the assessment process and realistic or
conservative assumptions are made about the mechanisms of load transfer then it may be possible
to reduce yn to 1.15. Putting these together gives a possible yr of 1.2 for dead load.
CEB Bulletin 243 also suggests the possibility of a reduced safety factor for limited periods. This
is primarily aimed at the period between inspections. However, it may be possible to draw an
analogy between the temporary period between inspections and the temporary period before further
strength is gained. This should not be seen as an additional reduction in addition to the yf of 1.2,
but as a further justification for the yr value of 1.2. This reduction in the partial safety factor
maintains the same reliability overall.
Summary Six
A value of 1.2 may be used for yf in the temporary situation provided both TWD and PWD are
confident their assessment is sufficiently rigorous that many of the uncertainties encountered
at design stage are known.
115
E5.5 Material factors of safety

The material factor of safety (ym) is made up of two components:
Ym
Equation 25
= Yrn1.Ym2
where yrnl takes account of possible reductions in the strength of the material in the structure as a
whole compared with the characteristic value deduced from control specimens and ymztakes account
of possible weaknesses of the structure arising from any other cause.
Traditionally, factors for concrete assume cube tests rather than tests on concrete in the structure.
Where an average of up to four tests on the in situ concrete is used (e.g. LOK tests) a smaller
margin is in order. A precedent has been set for reducing partial safety factor for materials. BD
44/95, the Highways Agency Advice Note Assessment of concrete highway bridges and structures
(Ref. 49) and the Institution of Structural Engineers Appraisal of existing structures (Ref. 48)
allow reduced yrnfactors when used with worst credible strengths.
The worst credible strength is defined in BD 44/95 as the lower bound to the estimated in situ
strength. It is essentially the worst value of that strength that the engineer, based on their experience
and knowledge of the material, realistically believes could be obtained in the structure under
consideration. This value may be greater or less than the characteristic strength of the materials
assumed at design stage. Since this value eliminates some of the uncertainties associated with the use
of characteristic strengths appropriate to the design phase, reductions may be made in the partial
safety factor for materials.
For the purposes of this report, an analogy is drawn between the worst credible strength for the
assessment of bridges, etc. and the in situ characteristic strength used in and required for assessing
striking times andor temporary .overload.
Reductions can also be made in ymzto give the values of ym presented in Table 4A of BD 44/95,
reproduced in Table E3 below.
In other words, the moment capacity of a section with a concrete strength 80% of the specified
characteristic using ymc= 1.2 is the same as a section with a concrete of the specified characteristic
using ymc= 1.5, as used in normal design. ([ 1.2/1.5] = 0.80)
According to BS 81 10, shear strength is a function o f f , l 3 / ~ ~So
~ . the shear capacity of a section
with a concrete strength of 80% off,, and using ymc= 1.15 is the same as that of a section with
concrete atf,, using ymc=1.25 ([ 1.15/1 .2513 = 0.78)
With respect to punching shear, the requirement to limit face shear to 0.8fCu%will be satisfied by
using yrnc= 1.15 and a concrete whose strength is 85% off,,, presuming the permanent works design
used allowable shear based onf,, with ymc= 1.25. ([ 1.25/1.1 512 = 0.85)
The absolute limit of 5 N/mm2 will be unaffected.
Ultimate bond strength is a function off,%. So the ultimate anchorage bond capacity of a bar in a
concrete whose strength is 80% offu, using ymc= 1.25, is the same as that of a section with concrete
atf,, using ymc= 1.40. ([1.25/1.40]2 = 0.80)
Table E3: Values of materials safety factor y,, at the ultimate limit state. (Rej 49)
Application
Reinforcement I
Concrete in flexure and compression
Shear in concrete
Bond
I
I
Value for use with

Characteristic strength
1.15
1S O
1.25
1.40
Worst credible strength
1.10
1.20
1.15
1.25
Notes:
1. For buildings, BS 8 1 10: 1997 (Ref. 36) gives yms= 1.OS.
2. May be reduced to 1.05 if measured steel depths are used in addition to the worst credible steel strength
116
I
I
Annex E - Theory of loading a slab to above the design service load
Summary Seven
Providing the assessment of the characteristic in situ strength of concrete is regarded as the
worst credible strength, a concrete with a characteristic in situ strength of 85% of the design
characteristic strength,f,,, may, for the ULS, be equated to the design characteristic strength.
(Partial safety factors, ym, may be reduced through elimination of uncertainties.)
117
ANNEX F - Backpropping spreadsheet
Operation of Excel spreadsheet for calculation of backprop loads

F 1 Conditions of use
The spreadsheet calculations for backprop loads on the enclosed CD-ROM are subject to the
following conditions of use, and purchase of this Guide will be assumed to be agreement to the terms
of the use by the vendor.
The spreadsheet is only considered applicable for buildings incorporating solid slabs where the
following criteria are met:
(a)
The slab is in situ reinforced concrete or a composite with either participating or nonparticipating permanent formwork, such as thin precast concrete units
(b)
Maximum equivalent thickness of dense concrete 350 mm28.
(c)
The slab is not post-tensioned or cast on thick precast stressed participating concrete units.
(d)
The slab is two-way spanning with or without beams, or one-way spanning with beams. Note:
where heavy stiff beams support the slab, the method may not be accurate.
(e)
The cast slab is intended to be struck and become self-supporting prior to any additional loads
being placed on to it.
(f)
The reinforcement has been positioned within specification.
(8)
The suspended slabs at each level are considered to be of similar construction, thickness etc.
(h)
There is either one or two levels of backpropping.
F2
Spreadsheet liability
A fundamental condition of use is that the user accepts responsibility for the input and output of
the computer and how it is used.
As with all software, users must be satisfied with the answer the spreadsheet gives and must be
confident in its use. The spreadsheet can never be fully validated but has been tested, both formally
and informally, through members of the steering group. However, users must satisfy themselves
that the use to which the spreadsheet is put is appropriate.
The original Excel program was first issued by BRE in early 2000 as CPROP.XLS with BRE Report
BR 394 (Ref. 2) and amended by Eur Ing Peter Pallett with assistance from several members of
the steering goup. The technical content of the original spreadsheet has been updated to provide
a basis for making allowances for cracking. The operating manual is to clarify its use following
experiences, with operating and testing the spreadsheet.
The initial spreadsheets were checked to try to guard against values outside those that might be
encountered in practice being used. By its very nature, this exercise could not be all-encompassing.
Future developments, such as adoption of European standards with modifications to formulae and
different philosophy, might lead to properties strange to UK users.
The spreadsheet is supplied as an Excel protected spreadsheet.
The depth of 350 mm was chosen as representative for the research. A thicker slab has greater stiffness and
the ratio of the loads (deadimposed) is likely to be different, thus the steering group limited the method to
350 mm thickness.
28
118
Annex F - Backproppins spreadsheet
F3
Introduction
The backpropping spreadsheet gives information for temporary works designers (TWD) and
permanent works designers (PWD) while carrying out assessments of various construction procedures
for the loading of in situ concrete slabs on multi-storey buildings.
Principally, the spreadsheet is used as a tool for understanding the load distribution when loading
slabs with falsework andor backpropping. The use of varying positions of falsework supports and
numbers of levels backpropped during construction made previous determination of the loads
transferred through the building a complex task.
The Excel program, designed and researched from work carried out on the European Concrete
Building Project (ECBP), allows designers to ascertain the effects of their likely actions and predict
the effects on the sequence of operations. It will lead to a greater understanding and safer approach
to backpropping and construction of flat slab buildings. The primary aim is to construct the flat slab
building without detriment to the permanent work. This will involve knowledge of the specification
and performance expected from the structure under consideration.
The essential criteria for the loading of slabs during construction are satisfied if:
Equation 1
Loading factor
F,,, 5 1.0
Equation 2
Cracking factor
F,, I 1.0
A further criterion, from knowledge of the deflections caused by slabs cracking gives
Effective deflection factor
Equation 3
Fe, I 1 .O
The spreadsheet outputs these factors taking into account the known or expected concrete strengths,
type of loading conditions etc. Criteria exceeding unity are displayed in red.
Research found that preloading of the props was normal, and an allowance for this is included. The
spreadsheet also allows advanced users to consider in more detail the effects of allowing some degree
of cracking in the structure, as proposed in Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39) This is discussed in more detail in
Annex G . If in any doubt about cracking considerations, refer to the designers.
Knowledge of the design and construction loads applied to the structure is required. The program
will be used by TWCs to provide advanced information on sequencing, expected concrete strengths
to perform certain operations etc.
The methods of backpropping flat slabs generally allow for one or two levels of backpropping as
shown in Figure F 1. The figure also illustrates the symbols and nomenclature used.
One level of backpropping
New slab to be cast

Falsework
Supporting slab 1
Load
1
1
1
1
From casting slab
.
L
Backprops
Upper level wb,
Lower slab 2
Backprops (when fitted)
m
U
Two levels of backpropping
Lower level wb2
Lower slab 3
Figure F1: Diagrammatic representation of backpropping.
F4
Operation of the Excel spreadsheet
The basic program is called Backpropcalc.xls (425 kb). It is STRONGLY suggested that users
copy the program and create a working copy of the spreadsheet for everyday use, by using file,
119
save as etc. When the program is saved it over-writes the existing version leaving the titles and
layout as the last time used, hence the suggestion that you need to keep the source program.
The program is saved in Microsoft Excel 97-2000 and 5.0/95 97 (*.xls) workbook format. The
Excel program contains four macros built in; these are safe to open.
These spreadsheet written instructions are broadly based on those published in BR 394 (Ref. 6) and
have been modified to suit nomenclature such as supporting slab, backpropping levels, and the
references and numbering are as in this guide. See also Figure F 1.
The operations are in stages, as shown on the right hand side notes in the spreadsheet:
Start up
On loading the program, the first display is a dialog warning about macros, select enable macros
and continue. The spreadsheet is displayed as shown opposite, with a series of operating instructions and grey buttons down the right-hand side.
Although the worksheet is protected, cells with blue numbers require input of information.
General
The program operates on a rectangular panel equal to a single span of the slab in the x and y
directions between columns or beams.
The input information and resulting output are colour coded, basic input in yellow boxes, information and output for the permanent works designer are in green boxes. The in situ actual concrete
information and coordinates of the support positions required are shown in blue boxes. Optional
information, related to whether or not the completed concrete slabs are allowed to crack when
loaded is shown in grey boxes.
Operation of the program is in the stages described below.
STAGE ONE - Input headings and panel type

( I ) Input Date:, Made By: and Page: (blue)
SPACE ... ....
Insert the date, made by and page information manually by clicking on the relevant cell and
amending using the normal Excel formula bar at top of page. The date format is currently set at
24-05-2002 to become 24 May 02 on the spreadsheet. When printing, the spreadsheet is set to print
the date printed at the foot of the page.
(2) Input of title and selection ofpanel type (red)

Click on the right-hand button labelled Insert andor change the title, then the panel type
This will first display a dialogue box, which requests a title for the particular analysis. The size of
the title is limited to the length of the box; this ensures that parts of it are not overwritten by later
actions of the program. If your title is correct click continue, otherwise alter the title and click
OK. The size, colour and underlining of your title are built into the program.
Automatically the next dialogue box displays the possible choices of panel type. The program will
handle four types of panel:
An interior panel of a flat slab (continuous over all edges)
An edge panel of a flat slab (discontinuous over one edge)
A corner panel of a flat slab (discontinuous over two adjacent edges)
A panel supported on four sides by walls or beams.
Either click No change to leave the selection unaltered, or highlight whichever of these is the
most appropriate and click on Amend29
29 Earlier versions of Excel may display a warning or error at runtime when you amend the Panel Type. It is
due to how the visual basic in Excel 2000 and above handles the drawing of the panel layout on the screen. It
does not affect how the program calculates the backpropping loads etc.
120
'I
CONSTRUCT: Guide to Flat Slab Formwork 8 Falsework
Title: The Excel Backproppinq Spreadsheet

Made By: P.F.P.
Date: lIAuglO2
Basic Data (Required)
Falsework a n d Backpropping
Number of falsework supports

Number of backprops per floor
Number of levels of backpropping
Lx (m)
Dimensions of panel:
1 of 1
Page:
Thickness of slabs
25.00
Stiffness of backprops (kNlmm)
----
Estimated preload in each backprop (kN)

Data from Designer of Permanent W o r k
Is falsework erected before backprops?
Characteristic strength of concrete (feu )
NlmmZ
40
Assumed concrete density (if not 24 kN/m3)

Unfactored self weight of slab
kNlm3
kNlm2
24
6.00
Unfactored weight of partitions (w
kNlm2
1.oo
Unfactored weight of finishes (wfin)
kNlm2
1.oo
Unfactored superimposed load on slab

kNlm2
NOTE: Partitions are considered as "live load"
2.50
Lower slab
(2)
Lowest slab
(3)
Panel
Type: Flat slab internal panel

I
Allow cracking
Ratio of
Distribution
coefficient
uncrackedl
(default = 0)
cracked
45
35.49571793
52
37.24828153
65
40.12449494
Co-ordinates of backprop locations
I
6
7
8
9
0.50
1 1 1 I
Properties of concrete
Equivalent
cube strength Modulus of
elasticity, E
'lab
of slab (f,)
(kNlmmz)
(N/mmz)
Supporting
siab (1)-
(YorN)
If Yes, enter the unfactored weight of

falsework for casting new slab (kN/m2)
6.15
1.35
3.75
6.15
3.75
6.15
6.15
6.15
Force in backprops
Backprop
No.
(m)
(m)
Upper level
w b l (kN)
Lower level
wb2 (kN)
1
2
3
4
2.55
4.95
2.55
4.95
2.55
2.55
4.95
29.64
29.64
29.64
14.53
14.53
14.53
4.95
29.64
14.53
39.06
39.06
39.06
39.06
Backprop Calculation OUTPUT

total load from qagbelngcast
load applied30 Supporting Slab(1)
load carried by Upper backprops

load applied to Lower slab (2)
wbl
load carried by Lower backprops

load applied to Lowest slab (3)
wb2
Load (kN)
Load per m2
percent %
351 56
233 00
6 25
4 14
100 00
66 28
118.56
60.43
58.13
58.13
I
I
I
2.1 1
1.07
1.03
1.03
I
1
33.72
17.19
16.53
16.53
Criteria for t h e loading of t h e supporting slab

(1) during construction
Unfactored design construction load
Unfactored design service load
(w con ) see note
(w
Ultimate design load on slab ((LL 1.6 DL 1.4)
10.64
Loading Factor
10.50
(w
Cracking Factor
( F, )
( Fcr)
15.40
kN/mZ
Characteristic strength of slab (28 days) ( f cu )
40.00
Nlmm'
Effective Deflection Factor (FeH)
Required equivalent c u b e strength (fcreq)
40.91
Nlrnrn'
(Allowing for cracking)
Note : Assumes no construction operations load on any completed slabs at the time of casting considered.
Date printed 28/10/02
Version 2.12
121
The title and panel type will now appear on the spreadsheet.
The arrangement of your panel is shown in the diagram on the spreadsheet. Any assumed discontinuous
edges are shown as solid black lines, and are shown in red when assumed supported on the edge.
STAGE TWO - Input basic data

(3) Input basic data at start ofprogram (yellow boxes)
The appropriate information must now be keyed into the two boxes with the yellow title blocks.
The information required is:
The overall panel dimensions (Lx and Ly) in m

For a flat slab panel, the dimensions of the panel are the centre-to-centre spacings of the columns
in the two directions. For a panel supported on four sides, the panel dimensions are the distances
between the centrelines of the supporting beams or walls in the two principal directions.
When deciding which dimension to choose as the span in the x and y directions, it should be noted
that, where one edge is discontinuous, the discontinuous edge is assumed by the program to be the
edge lying along the x-axis (see sketch on spreadsheet for co-ordinate system). The dimensions of
Lx and Ly are shown on the sketch.
Where two edges are discontinuous (a corner panel), then the discontinuous edges are the edges
along the x- and y-axes.
The overall thickness of the slab (h) in mm

The overall slab thickness in millimetres should be keyed in. The maximum thickness is queried if
you input a value greater than 350 mm. The depth is used to calculate the slab stiffness on the
assumption that the slab is solid. For other forms of slab, such as coffered slabs, an effective value
of thickness could be used such that the second moment of area is correctly calculated.
The load applied through the falsework to the supporting slab 1 in kN/m*
This is the distributed load applied through the falsework supports after erection of the backprops.
Thus, if the falsework and formwork for the new slab are erected before the backprops are put in
place, then the load keyed in should not include the weight of the falseworWformwork but only the
weight of the wet concrete and any imposed construction loads likely to be applied during or after
the casting operation. The program later requests the weight of the formwork, if not included in this
load. Obviously the sequence of construction will affect the magnitude of this load.
Although the concrete density of the completed slabs is requested later in the program, the TWD
may wish to allow for a value for density of cast wet concrete greater than that for set concrete.
The number of falsework supports supported by the supporting slab 1 (maximum 12)
The program will handle up to 12 falsework supports. The limit of 12 was chosen because where
more than 12 supports are used on a panel, the resulting backprop loads are very close to those
calculated assuming a uniformly distributed load applied to the slab30.
To assume a uniformly distributed load, key in 0 (zero) for the number of falsework supports.
The number of backprops provided below the supporting slab 1 (maximum 12)
The program will handle up to 12 backprops on a panel. This also is a reasonable practical
maximum. The program does not include any option for treating situations where more than 12
backprops per floor panel are used.
The number of levels of backprops (maximum 2)

The number of levels of backprops is limited to a maximum of TWO levels. The research results
from Cardington (Ref. 2) suggest that in most circumstances further levels of backpropping will
achieve practically nothing. The complexity of the calculations would, however, increase greatly.
30 It can be demonstrated by running the program first for 12 props and, then repeating for a uniformly distributed load, that this is a reasonable assumption for most circumstances.
122
Annex F - Backpropping spreadsheet
The program will also run correctly if you have no backprops by entering a zero (0). In this case,
it removes any backpropping previously entered! This option is useful to justify reasons for
inserting backpropping.
The stiffness of the backprops in kN/mm
As discussed in Section 6.5.2 Assumption 4, the loads in the backprops will vary with the stiffness
of the backprops. Prop stiffness information may not be readily available.
As a guide, the aluminium backprops used at ECBP Cardington and fitted over a storey height of
3.5 m had a stated stiffness of 25 kN/mm. It was calculated that adjustable steel props of similar
length would have had a greater stiffness of 35 kN/mm.
Estimated preload in each backprop in kN
The program can allow for preloading the backprops on installation. When a value is inserted it
assumes that all the backprops will be inserted in a similar way, to an assumed preload value.
Load cells measurements on backprop preloads at ECBP Cardington (Ref. 2) gave equivalent
distributed loads on the floors from 0.3 to 0.7 kN/m2.This equates to individual prop preloads from
4.2 to 9.8 kN per prop. Other research at Reading (Ref. 37) recorded values of preload up to 19 kN
per aluminium backprop.
It is unrealistic for operators on site to install propping under slabs with zero load, as the props
would fall over. Some degree of preloading is considered the norm.
The amount of preload is a function of the type of prop used and the operators method of inserting
the prop. The program requests an estimated value for each prop. It is reasonable to make an
assumption that a preload of say 6 kN in each prop would be inserted.
Is the falsework erected before the backprops? (Y/N)
Reply Y (Yes)
The usual operating condition on site is that the falsework for the new slab that is to be cast is
erected on the supporting slab 1 before any backprops are fitted.
The weight of the falsework and formwork is then directly carried on the supporting slab 1. When
the backprops are subsequently inserted, prior to casting, the load from the new slab is then
distributed through the floors, using the calculations in this spreadsheet.
When checking the strength of the supporting slab 1 to carry out this operation, the total
construction load ( w ) applied will be the sum of the slab self-weight, the weight of the falsework,
plus the percentage of load distributed through the backpropping from the calculations.
Reply N (No)
Occasionally, the backpropping will have been inserted under the supporting slab before the
falsework is erected. In this case the weight of the falsework and formwork for the new slab should
be included in the total load from the casting of the slab. The program inserts a query to check that
you have allowed for this in your loads as load from casting new slab. Click OK if you have
allowed for it, else click CANCEL to enter a new value, then RESET.
Weight of formwork and falsework in kN/m2
As previously discussed, enter the self-weight of the formwork and falsework, if it has not been
included in the Load from casting new slab. In the absence of precise weights, the recommended
value is 0.50 kN/m*.
STAGE THREE - Slab designers data

(4) Input data from designer ofthe permanent work (green box)
The critical slab in any backpropping calculations is the supporting slab 1, i.e. the one directly
below the newly cast slab. Inputting information about this slab allows the spreadsheet to compute
the required equivalent concrete cube strengths.
The information should be readily available from the designer of the permanent works (PWD).
123
Characteristic strength of the concrete
vcu)
in N/mm2
The designers assumed characteristic strength of concrete in N/mmz assumed at 28 days is required.
Assumed concrete density kN/m3

The default value recommended is 24 kN/m3. If you have a known assumed density, enter the value.
The unfactored self-weight of the slab is automatically calculated from the density and thickness
( h ) assumed. If you had entered an equivalent thickness, the self-weight will be calculated incorrectly - this may be overcome by entering the unfactored self-weight manually, before clicking
CALCULATE.
Unfactored weights and superimposed load in kN/mZ

Enter the unfactored loads from the PWDs stated values. Note that the weight of partitions and
finishes are entered separately because it is normal practice to consider partitions as live load.
Note that these entries are all the unfactored design service loads.
Having keyed or altered the information in the yellow and green boxes at Stages Three and Four
above, click on the SET or RESET button located on the right hand side of the spreadsheet.
This will cause the program to carry out some elementary checks on the data and reformat the
spreadsheet. It will clear the main tables identified by the blue headings and remove all your previous
entries.
STAGE FOUR - Enter concrete properties
(5) Concrete properties and prop and backprop locations (blue boxes)
Data relating to the concrete properties and the location of the falsework and backprops must now
be keyed in. Remember to either press Return on the keyboard after every entry, or click on another
cell after entering you< numbers. This is carried out as follows:
Concrete strengths U,) in N/mm2 or elastic moduli (E) in kN/mm2 of the slabs
There are two ways by which the stiffness of the slabs may be defined:
1.
The equivalent cube strengths31 of the slab supporting the falsework, i.e. the supporting slab
1, and the properties for one or two lower slabs which support the backprops, are keyed into
the first column of the blue Properties of concrete table. The modulus of elasticity (E) will
,automatically be calculated by the spreadsheet from the equivalent cube strengths and will be
written into the second column.
2.
Elastic moduli may be keyed directly into the second column of the table and the first column
left blank. The elastic modulus must be given in kN/mm2. In this case, any numbers keyed
into the first column will be ignored.
Note: If numbers have been keyed into the second column directly and it is then desired to
use option (a) you need to click the RESET button to re-instate the equations in the second
column. This will require you to re-enter all the co-ordinates and concrete strength again!
(6) Allow cracking (grey boxes)
Distribution coefficient
(c) and ratio of curvature
The ECBP research results, on which this program is based, did accept some limited cracking of
the flat slabs at the columns. This spreadsheet can be used to include a further allowance should the
designer accept cracking relative to the midspan position for the worst case.
Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39) and Prof. Beebys paper (Ref. 38) introduce these concepts in detail. A short
resume of the theory is included at Annex G of this guide.
In the absence of information from the PWD, it is recommended to use the default values for the
distribution coefficient (&= 0) and ratio of curvature as one (1).
The method of strength assessment, such as the LOK test, will provide equivalent cube strengths. See
Section 6.4 of this Guide and the BRE Best Practice Guide (Ref. 32) on methods of concrete strength
assessment.
31
124
STAGE FIVE - Enter co-ordinates

(7) The co-ordinates of the falsework supports and the backprops (Blue numbers)
The coordinates for the falsework supports and the backprops must be keyed into the appropriate
tables. Co-ordinates are given in metres relative to the axes shown in the sketch on the spreadsheet.
It must be remembered that the panel has to be aligned so that where one edge is discontinuous, the
discontinuous edge is the edge lying along the x-axis (see sketch on spreadsheet for co-ordinate
system). Where two edges are discontinuous (a corner panel), then the discontinuous edges are the
edges along the x- and y-axes.
If a panel type assumes a slab supported on four sides, then backprops should not be located on the
edges. Backprops in these positions will attract zero load and their specification leads to a matrix
which cannot be inverted - the program will fail! To avoid this, the program will not permit you to
insert backprops closer to the edge than 1/12 of the span.
STAGE SIX - Calculate loads and forces

Once all the preceding information has been keyed in, click on the CALCULATE button. If you
have keyed in a coordinate outside the overall panel size, you will be asked to correct the value
before continuing. Re-enter correct value and click CALCULATE again.
The forces in the upper, and any lower, backprops are inserted into the right-hand table.
It will be seen that the average loads applied in each falsework support is also entered in the righthand column of the falsework co-ordinate table. These are simply calculated by assuming that all
props carry an equal load from the applied load added to the supporting slab. If, from knowledge
of the falsework design, this is clearly unreasonable, then revised values may be keyed into the
table. Note though that it will not recalculate the backpropping from your manual entries. If this is
done, it should be checked that the sum of the prop loads remains equal to the load entered into the
basic data table multiplied by the area of the panel.
(8) Backprop calculation OUTPUT

The total applied load, distributed load per square metre and the percentages of the total load
applied from the newly cast slab load, are shown for all slabs and backprops. This is the loading
from the applied load from the casting of the new slab that has been distributed through the floors.
The values will vary depending on the stiffness of the slabs, the backprop stiffness and the layout.
(9) Supporting slab I OUTPUT (green box)
The backpropping calculations are used by the TWC and the TWD to establish criteria for loading
the structure. The important information is the performance of the critical slab onto which the
majority of load is applied. This section of the output calculates the information required by
the construction team in order to assess the risks. It also states the critical factors outlined at the
start of this manual for operation of the relevant loading of the slab.
Unfactored design construction load ( w )

This is the total load applied to the supporting slab. It is the summation of the slab self-weight and
the load applied from the backpropping calculations; shown in green on the backprop output. The
load is reduced by the amount of any preload in the backprops averaged over the panel area.
Where the falsework is erected before the backprops are inserted, the weight of the falsework will
be included in the total construction load.
Note that no construction operations load is assumed on the supporting slab 1. This is a recommendation for backpropping from this Guide.
Where the amount of preload to the backprops is large, there is a possibility that the total load on
the lower slab 2 might become critical. A warning notice is displayed when this load exceeds 90%
of the unfactored design construction load on the supporting slab. As the spreadsheet only
calculates the factors for the supporting slab 1, users will need to manually check whether the
strength of the lower slab 2 is critical.
125
Unfactored design service load (wser)

The total unfactored load assumed by the designer from self-weight, finishes, partitions and superimposed loads. All the relevant data was entered manually at Stage Four.
Ultimate design load (w,,J

Although not used in the backpropping calculations, the ultimate loads are given for information.
They are calculated assuming a partial safety factor of 1.6 on the live load, and 1.4 on the dead
loads. Note that the partitions are considered as a live load.
Required equivalent cube strength Cf,res)

The required equivalent cube strength of the supporting slab 1 to perform the operation of applying
the load from the casting of the new slab is:
Equation 6
=
estimate of equivalent cube strength of concrete at the location in N/mm2
total unfactored design construction load on the slab in kN/m
wse,
total unfactored design service load in kN/mZ
specified characteristic strength of the concrete in N/mm2
where: f,req
f,,
When the required value of equivalent cube strength exceeds the concrete slab strength inserted at
Stage Four, the value off ,req is red and a warning notice is displayed.
Loading factor (F,)

The criteria for considering whether a slab can be safely loaded is:
Loading factor
F, = -51.0
Equation 4
W ser
where: w,,,
Cracking factor (Fer)

The criteria for considering whether a slab can be safely loaded without excessive cracking is
Equation 5
where
f,
estimate of the equivalent cube strength of the concrete at the location,

and previously entered in the properties of concrete box in N/mm2
fCu
w,,
total unfactored construction load on the slab causing cracking in kN/mz
Effective deflection factor (Fern

)
Allowing for the cracking in a slab, Prof. Beeby recommends (Ref. 38), see also Annex G, that the
safe limits of striking are satisfied if the effective deflection factor32 is limited below unity as
Equation 26
where
32
<,,
distribution coefficient dependent on the ratio of stress cracked to actual

design stress
Criteria for loading of slabs during construction (Ref. 42) Equation 8.
126
STAGE SEVEN - Printed output

Clicking the PRINT button on the bottom right-hand side of the spreadsheet will produce a printout
of the page of the spreadsheet on the default Windows printer. The printer options and the printer
should have been set for A4 paper in portrait mode in Windows (default setting).
If you have changed anything since last printing, it is suggested to re-CALCULATE before printing
your page.
To print on another printer, set the paper size, margins, and also to input your own headers and
footers use the file, page setup on the top left of the Excel toolbar. This will allow you to change
the margins, headers and footers. Note that if you print using this method you should only select
the first page to print as
page 1 o f 4
or
page 1 to 1
STAGE EIGHT - Save your work

When the program is saved it over-writes the existing version leaving the titles and layout as the
last time used. It is suggested that you rename your working copy of the spreadsheet for everyday
use, by using file, save as etc.
The program is saved in Microsoft Excel 97-2000 and 5.0/95 97 (*.XIS)in workbook format.
Hints and amending data

(10) Amend basic data
If you want to amend:

Dimensions of panel
Slab thickness
Load from casting slab
Is falsework erected first?

Weight of falsework.
Enter the new value, click a blank box outside of the load box, then click on RESET. This will cause
the program to carry out some elementary checks on the data and reformat and clear the main tables
identified by the blue headings. It will remove all previous entries and, unfortunately, you will then
have to re-enter your data for falsework and propping co-ordinates.
( I l ) Amend number of levels of backpropping
Change TWO levels to ONE level:

Either:
To compare the effect of using two levels of backprops with using one level, run the program
first for TWO levels of backpropping. Leave the number of levels of backprops at 2, but alter
the properties of concrete, by inputting a very low value of modulus of elasticity (E) for the
lowest slab (3) and re-calculate.
Do not enter zero for E as this will result in an overflow failure in the program.
Or
Enter 1 in the yellow box on number of levels, then click RESET. Unfortunately you will then
have to re-enter your data on falsework and propping co-ordinates.
Change ONE level to TWO levels:

If you want to increase from one level to two, having run the program on one level, insert the
number 2 in the yellow box, then click on RESET. This will cause the program to clear the
main tables and remove all previous entries. Unfortunately you will then have to re-enter your
data for falsework and propping co-ordinates.
127
Do not click CALCULATE before RESET as this will result in an error message and failure in
the program.
Change ONE or TWO levels to NO backprops:
If you want to decrease from one or two levels to having NO backprops, insert the number 0
in the yellow box, then click on RESET. This will cause the program to clear the main tables
and remove all previous entries. Unfortunately you will then have to re-enter your falsework
co-ordinate data again.
Do not click CALCULATE before RESET as this will result in an error message and failure in
the program.
( I 2) Amend title and/or panel type
To change the title andor the panel type without changing the concrete properties or the
co-ordinates of the props and backprops, this may be done simply by clicking the Insert and/or
change title panel type button, keying in a new title andor selecting a new bay type and then
simply clicking CALCULATE.
(13) Amend stiffness of backprops

To investigate a different stiffness of the backprops without changing any other parameter, just
change the prop stiffness in the Falsework and backpropping details table.
Remember to click a blank cell after entering the new stiffness, then click CALCULATE.
(14) Effect of different slab stiffness or backprops resting on groundfloor
The program assumes that all slabs are the same thickness and that the only factor affecting their
stiffness at the various levels is the elastic modulus of the concrete. If, however, there are
differences in slab thickness, this may be taken into account by adjusting the moduli of elasticity.
It is suggested that the correct E and thickness are specified for supporting slab 1 and that effective
moduli (Eer)are calculated for lower slabs using the relationship at Equation 27:
where
the overall thickness of the slab considered in mm
Equation 27
hupper
= the thickness of the supporting slab 1 in mm.
This approach may be used to model situations where the backprops are resting on foundations or
a ground floor slab which might be considered to be rigid. In this case, simply key in a large value
for E for the lowest slab.
(15) Examplesfrom ECBP

Ten examples of use of the spreadsheet based on the results from ECBP (Ref. 2) are shown on the
following pages. Table F1 lists the Examples.
The examples are also referred to in the worked example in Sections D9 and D11 at Annex D.
128
Annex F - Backpropping Spreadsheet
Table F1. Schedule of sample A 4 outputs from spreadsheet.
1
I
4-1
Example
Panel type
Floor
being cast
at ECBP
ONE
Internal AB-23
Floor 3
No. of
falsework
supports
Location of
propping
of back
Props
Page
No
Number of
back props
Third points
130
Floor 3
Third points
131
Third points
~~
THREE
Corner AB- 12
Floor 3
FOUR
Internal AB-23
Floor 3
Internal AB-23
Floor 3
12
1
I
Internal BC-23
Floor 4
12
SEVEN
Internal BC-23
Floor 4
12
EIGHT
Internal BC-23
Floor 4
12
I
I
*
FIVE
SIX
12
Floor 5
TEN
Internal BC-23
Floor 5
I
I
I
I
2
2
I
I
Third points
I
I 4
Third points
Third points
Third points
Third points
Quarter points
u.d.1.
Quarter points
- I -
I
I
134
135
4
4
4
133
136
137
+6.00kN
Yes
138
139
6.00 kN
140
129
Example ONE D.9 Internal Panel Floor 3

Date: lISeplO2
Lx ( 4
LY (m)
h (mm)
Thickness of slabs
Load from castina new slab f kN/m2
Made By: P.F.P.
7.5
7.5
250

6.00
Stiffness of backprops (kN/mm)
(E, )
Assumed concrete density (if not 24 kNlm3)

Unfactored weight of partitions (w part)
Nlmm2
kNlm3
kNlmZ
37
24
6.00
kN/m2
1.00
1.oo
2.50

kN/mz
kN/m2
Supporting
slab (1)
Equivalent
cube strength
of slab (f c)
(Nlmm2)
Modulus of
elasticity, E
(kN/mm2)
A7
36.01 39767
0.00
Y

falsework for casting new slab (kNlmZ)
Panel
Or
0.50
~ Flat~ slab
~ internal
:
panel
I
Slab
12
4
1
25.00

.--------------------~
Data from Designer of Permanent Work

Characteristic strength of concrete
1 of 1
Page:
Allow cracking
Ratio of
Distribution
coefficient
uncracked,
(default = 0)
cracked
Lower slab
40.12449494
Lowest slab
n/a
n/a
nla
Co-ordinate System
(default = 1
load in each
falsework
support
2
3
4
5
1.35
3.75
6.15
0.25
1.35
0.30
0.30
0.30
2.70
2.70
3.75
6 15
5.50
in
11
12
3.75
3.75
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
Backprop
No.
X
(m)
(m)
Upper level
wbl (kN)
Lower level
wb2 (kN)
1
2
3
4
2.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
2.50
5.00
2.50
5.00
20.53
15.88
20.53
15.88
nla
n/a
nla
nla
7R 13
I
I
2.70
7.50
28.13
28.13
total load from slab being cast
__
.-
load applied to Supporting Slab (1)
wbl


(w con ) see note
Characteristic strength of slab (28 days) ( ,f
Required equivalent cube strength (f rea)
337.50
264.67
72.83
72.83
I ;;::A1
6.00
4.71
1.29
1.29
(w
15.40
kNlm2
37.00
NlmmZ
Nlmm'
41.24
100.00
78.42
21.58
21.58
nla
wb2
(w ser )
I,
nla
1 vaa
Criteria for the loading of the supporting slab

.
Name
Loading Factor
Cracking Factor
Symbol
( F,)
( F cr )
Effective Deflection Factor (Few)
0.92
130
Force in backprops
Version 2.12
Example TWO D.9 Edge Panel Floor 3
BrnziH3I
Date: 1ISepl02
Made By: P.F.P.

Lx (m)
-,
7.5
Thickness of slabs
Load from casting new slab ( kN/m2)
6.00
(E, )
Nlmm2
37

kN/m'
kNlm2
24
6.00
Unfactored weight of partitions (w &)
kNlm2
1.oo
Unfactored weight of finishes (wnn)

kNlm2
kNlm'
1.00
2.50
1 of 1
Page:

Number of backprops per floor,
Stiffness of backprops (kN1mm)
12
4
1
25.00

.---------------------
0.00

falsework for casting new slab (kNlm2)
Or
0.50
Panel
Falsework and Backpropping details
Type: Flat slab edge panel

I
slab (1)
36.0139767
Lower slab
40.12449494
Lowest slab
nla
nla
nla
nla
(default = 1)
6.15
0.25
1.35
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.30
0.30
2.70
2.70
6.15
7.25
1.35
3.75
6.15
3.75
3.75
2.70
2.70
5.50
5.50
5.50
2.70
7.50
I
I
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
I
wbl

wb2
Supporting Slab (1) OUTPUT

) see note
(w ser)
(w
Load (kN)
337.50
251.20

()o
2.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
Force in backprops
Upper level
wbl (kN)
2.50
5.00
2.50
5.00
25.66
17.49
25.66
17.49
LOWerleVell
wb2 (kN)
nla
nla
nla
nla
28.13
28.13
Characteristic strength of slab (28 days) ( f,, )
I
(i)
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
total load fromskb-beEg cas!
(w
- x
Co-ordinate System
1 I
I
load in each
falsework
support
edge
86.30
86.30
Load per m21 percent %
6.00
4.47
100.00
74.43
1.53
1.53
25.57
25.57
nla
nla
Value
Units
10.97
kNlm2
10.50
kNlm2
15.40
kNlm2
37.00
N/mm2

Name
Loading Factor
Cracking Factor
Symbol
( F,)
( F cr )
39.78
Nlmm2
Required equivalent cube strength (f c r e q )
Value
1.04
0.90
0.90
Version 2.12
131
Example THREE D.9 Corner Panel Floor 3
Emmm
Made By: P.F.P.
Date: 1lSepl02
1 of 1
Page:
250

6.00
Lx (m)
h (mm)

.---------------------

Characteristic strength of concrete (fcu)
Assumed concrete density (if not 24 kNlm')
37
24
kNlm2
6.00
kNlm'
1.oo
Unfactored weight of finishes (wnn)

kNlrn2
IUnfactored superimposed load on slab
kNlmZ
Equivalent
cube strength
of slab (f
Slab
Lower slab
(2)
Lowest slab
(3)
1.00
2.50
36.0139767
65
40.1 2449494
Or
0.50
Panel
Type: Flat slab corner panel
Ratio of
Distribution curvatures
coefficient
uncrackedl
(default = 0)
cracked
47
nla

falsework for casting new slab (kNlmz)
Allow cracking
MOdUluS Of
elasticity, E
(kNlmm2)
(N/mm2)
Supporting
slab (1)
0.00
N/mm2
kNlm'
12
4
1
25.00
n/a
n/a
~~
n/a
- x
(default = 1)
Co-ordinate System
load in each
falsework
support
1.35
3.75
6.15
0.30
0.30
0.30
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.35
6.15
7.25
1.35
3.75
6.15
3.75
2.70
2.70
2.70
5.50
5.50
5.50
2.70
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
I
I
total load from slab beingcast

load ap@ecJ to SupportLng Slab (1)

wbl

wb2

(w
H, )
see note
(w ser)

Characteristic strength of slab (28 days), ( ,f
Required equivalent cube strength (f
132
Value
(wull)
)
,eq
).
337.50
239.38
100.00
70.93
98.12
98.12
29.07
29.07
Units
10.76
kNlm2
10.50
kNlm'
15.40
kN/mZ
nla
n/a

Name
Symbol
Value
Loading Factor
Cracking Factor
1.02
( F, )
( F,
37.00
Nlmm2
Effective Deflectiy Factor (Fen )
38.52
Nlrnrn'
0.89
0.89
Example FOUR D.11 Internal Panel Floor 3 Preload

Date: IlSepl02
Made By: P.F.P.
,.(

12
4
1
25.00
.--------------------~
Is
8.50
falsework erected before backprops?
Thickness of slabs
250
Load from casting new slab ( kN/m2 )
6.00
(E, )
kN/m3
37
24
kNlm2
6.00
kNlm2
1.oo
Unfactored weight of finishes (wfln)
kN/m2
1.oo
Unfactored SUDerimDOSed load on slab

kN/m2
2.50
Nlmm2

falsework for casting new slab (kN/mZ)
Panel
Allow cracking
Modulus of
elasticity, E
(kN/mm')
Supporting
slab (1)
47
36.0139767
Lower slab
(2)
65
40.12449494
Lowest slab
(3)
nla
nla
nla
Ratio of
Distribution
curvatures
coefficient
uncrackedl
(default = 0)
cracked
I
(0,O)
nla
-I
x
Co-ordinate System
Force in backprops
wbl
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
6.15
0.25
1.35
6.15
7.25
1.35
3.75
6.15
I
I
3.75
3.75
Or
0.50
(default = 1;
~ Flat~ slab
~ internal
:
panel
I
Equivalent
cube strength
of slab (f,)
(Nlmm2)
'lab
1 of 1
Page:
0.30
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
5.50
5.50
5.50
I
I
I
I
2.70
7.50
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
3
4
5.00
6.00
4.10
2.50
5.00
I
I
(kN)
29.03
24.38
wb2
I
I
(kN)
nla
nla
28.13
28.13
337.50
230.67
I
I

wbl

load aDDlied to Lowest slab f3)
wb2

(w
(w con ) see note
106.83
106.83
100.00
68.35
1.90
1.90
n/a
n/a
31.65
31.65
I
I

Symbol
. Value
10.60
Loading Factor
10.50
Cracking Factor
( F,)
( F c, )
15.40
kN/m2
,. )
37.00
N/mmz
Required equivalent cube strength (f, req)
37.60
Nlmm'
Characteristic strength of slab (28 days) ( f
(wult)
Version 2.12
133
Example FIVE D.11 Internal Panel Floor 3 Preload
Emana
concrete struclures group
Date: llSepl02
Made By: P.F.P.
Thickness of slabs
250

Load from casting new slab ( kNlmz )
6.00
(E,)
N/mm2
kN/m3
kN/m2
Assumed concrete density (if not 24 kNlm')

'
37
24
6.00
Unfactored weight of partitions (w palt)
I
"
'
1.00
kNlm2
1.00

kN/m2
'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
1.35
3.75
6.15
0.25
1.35
6.15
7.25
1.35
3.75
3.75
3.75
0.30
0.30
0.30
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
5.50
5.50
2.70
7.50
1
[
Panel
Type: Flat slab
I
-I
28.13
28.13
- --
--
wb2

(wmn ) see note
__
Load (kN)
Load per mz
percent %
337.50
225.74
6.00
4.01
100.00
66.89
111.76
1.99
33.1 1
nla
Value
Units
10.51
kN/m2
(w ser )

Name
Loading Factor
(wull)
Cracking Factor
37.00
N/mm2
Svmbol
( F),
( F cr )
Effective Deflection Factor (Fa"

. 1
Note Assumes no construction operations load on any completed slabs at the time of casting considered
134
wbl
Characteristic strength of slab (28 days) ( f ~~,

)
I
x
Co-ordinate System

28.13

load applied t o Supporting Slab (1) -
0.50
- internal panel
I
IUnfactored design construction load
Y
(YorN)
2.50
Averaged
load in eact
falsework
support
(kN)
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
8.50

falsework for casting new slab (kNlm')
(default = 1)'
Co-ordinates of the falsework supports
12
4
1
25.00
.Estimated
----preload
---in-each
--backprop
----(kN)
-Is falsework erected before backprops?

1 of I
Page:
I..
I
Value
1.oo
0.87
0.88
Version 2 12
Example SIX D . l l Internal Panel Floor 4

Made By: P.F.P.
Date: 1/Sep/O2

Lx (m)
LY (m)
h (mm)
Thickness of slabs
Load from casting new slab ( kN/m2 )
1 of 1
Page:
250

6.00
12
4
2
25.00

0.00
.-------------------Is falsework erected before backprops?
Y
(YorN)

falsework for casting new slab (kN/m2)
Panel
0.50

I
Equivalent
cube strength
of slab (f cl
Slab
Lower slab
(2)
Low
;;;
slab
Ratio of
Distribution curvatures
coefficient
uncracked/
(default = 0)
cracked
45
35.49571 793
50
36.76448285
67
40.53187807 I
-I-.-.-
-I
load in each
falsework
support
3
4
9
10
11
12
6.15
7.25
1.35
3.75
6.15
3.75
0.30
0.30
0.30
2.70
2.70
5.50
5.50
5.50
7.50
Backprop
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
28.13
x
Co-ordinate System
(default = 1)
1.35
3.75
6.15
0.25
-.-.-.-
Allow cracking
Modulus of
elasticity, E
(kN/mmZ)
(N/mm2)
Supporting
slab (1)
2.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
2
3
4
2.50
5.00
2.50
5.00
21.88
17.12
21.88
17.12
5.93
5.18
5.93
5.18
totalload from slab being cast
loadapplied to Supporting Slab (1)

wbl
wb2

(w con ) see note
(w ser )

Required equivalent cube strength (fcreq)
(w
33750
25951
I
I
6.00
4.61
I
I
100 00
76 89
77.99
55.78
1.39
0.99
23.1 1
16.53
22.21
11.11
kNlm2
10.50
kNlm2
0.39
6.58

Name
Symbol
Value
Loading Factor
Cracking Factor
( F, )
( F cr )
15.40
kN/m
37.00
Nlmm
Effective Deflection Factor (FeH)
40.68
Nlmm
1.06
0.94
0.94
135
Example SEVEN D.11 Internal Panel Floor 4 Preload

Date: llSeplO2
Made By: P.F.P.
1o
Page:
Thickness of slabs

Load from casting new slab ( kNlm )
12
4
2
25.00
--------------- ---]a:

falsework for casting new slab (kNlmZ)
Panel

I
Equivalent
cube strength
of slab (f c)
Slab
Allow cracking
Ratio of
Distribution
curvatures
coefficient
uncrackedl
(default = 0)
cracked
Modulus of
elasticity, E
(kN/mmZ)
(Nlmm)
Supporting
slab (1)
Lower slab
(2)
Low
;;
slab
45
35.49571793
50
36.76448285
40.53187807 I
67
I
-I
(default = 1)
Co-ordinates of the falsework supports
Support No.
1
2
(m)
( 4
0.30
0.30
(kN)
28.13
28.13
1.35
3.75
I Co-ordinates of backprop locations I
cl%%:hl
falsework
support
6.15
3.75
5.50
7.50
__

_
I
I
_
1
2
3
4
I
I
I
Force in backprops
Upper level
(m)
I
2.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
wbl
2.50
5.00
2.50
5.00
I
I
I
I
I
Lower level
(kN)
wb2
(kN)
30.38
25.62
30.38
25.62
1
1
I
14.43
13.68
14.43
13.68
28.13
28.13
X
(m)
Backprop
No.
11
12
I
x
Co-ordinate System
Load (kN)
Load per m2
percent %
337.50
225 51
6 00
4 01
100 00
66.82
1.99
0.99
33.18
16.53

wbl
111.99
55.78

wb2
56.21
56.21
I
I
1.00
1.00
16.66
16.66
I
Value
Units
10.51
kNlmZ
10.50
kNlm2
15.40
kNlmZ
37.00
Nlmm
Required equivalent cube strength (f c r e q )
37.05
Nlrnrn

(w con ) see note
(w ser )

136
(wuit)

Name
Loading Factor
Cracking Factor
Symbol
( F,)
( F cr )
Value
1.oo
0.89
0.89
Example EIGHT D . l l Internal Panel Floor 4 Preload

Date: l/Sep/OZ

Thickness of slabs
Made By: P.F.P.
1 of 1
Page:
Falsework a n d Backpropping -

LY (m)
' h (mm)
Load from casting new slab ( kN/mz )
6.00
25.00
----
.--------------Is falsework erected before backprops?

Characteristic strength of concrete (& )
N/mmZ
37
Assumed concrete density ( inot 24 kN/m3)

Unfactored weight of partitions (w par()
kN/m3
kN/m2
24
6.00
kN/m2
1 00

kN/mZ
IUnfactored superimposed load on slab
kN/mz
100
2.50
Panel

I
Ratio of
uncrackedl
slab (1)
Lowerslab
(2)
Lowest slab
(3)
45
29.28396729
0.25
0.3
50
30.33069835
0.25
0.3
67
33.43879941
0.25
0.3
-I
x
Co-ordinate System
load in each
falsework
support
3.75
6.15
0.25
1.35
2
3
4
5
0.30
0.30
2.70
28.13
28.13
28.13
2.70
28 13

tzkad~from
2lcb being cast
Fad applied_!oSuppprting Slab (1)

wbl

wb2
Force in backprops
Backprop
No.
(m)
(m)
Upper level
w b l (kN)
Lower level
Wb2 (kN)
1
2
3
4
2.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
2.50
5.00
2.50
5.00
30.17
24.73
30.17
24.73
13.13
12.15
13.13
12.15
Load (kN)
Load per mz
percent %
337.50
227.70
6.00
4.05
100.00
67.47
109.80
59.24
50.56
50.56
1.95
1.05
0.90
0.90
32.53
17.55
14.98
14.98
I
I
( I ) during construction
(w con ) see note
(w ser )

,req )
(w
10.55
Symbol
10.50
Loading Factor
15.40
Cracking Factor
( F,)
( F cr )
37.00
Nlrnrn'
Effective Deflection Factor (Fd)
37.28
Nlmm'
Value
1.oo
0.89
0.91
Version 2.12
137
Example NINE D.9 Internal Panel Floor 5 UDL

I
Date: 1lSepl02
Made By: P.F.P.
1 of 1
Page:
Thickness of slabs
250

Load from casting new slab ( kNlm2 )
6.00
Lx (m)
I:
25.00

Characteristic strength of concrete (fcu)
Nlmm'
kNlm3

kNlmZ
I
"
',
kNh'

NOTE: Partitions are considered as "live l o a d
,I
"m'
ProDerties of concrete

falsework for casting new slab (kNlm2)
37
24
6.00
1.00
Panel
Or
0.50
1.00
2.50
Allow crackina
Equivalent
Ratio of
curvatures
38.62908825
37.00796335
Lowest slab
nla
nla
nla
nla
-I
(default = 1)
x
Co-ordinate System
load in each
falsework
support
Assumes a distributed load
n/a
4
5
6
7
8
9

load applied to Supporting
__
_ _ _ _ _Slab (1)
__
- __
-..
_
I
_

wbl

wb2

(w Mn ) see note
(w
3.75
3.75
5.63
5.63
5.63
1.80
3.75
5.63
1.88
3.75
5.63
Load (kN)
Load per mz
percent %
337.50
222.74
6.00
3.96
100.00
66.00
114.76
114.76
I
I
(w ser )
2.04
2.04
n/a
n/a
13.91
9.21
13.81
12.51
13.81
12.56
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
34.00
34.00
I
I

Name
Symbol
Value
10.46
kNlmZ
10.50
kN/mz
Loading Factor
15.40
kN/m2
Cracking Factor
( F, )
( F cr )
Characteristic strength of slab (28 days) ( f cu )
37.00
Nlmrn'
Effective Deflection Factor (Fe,, )
36.76
Nlmm'
req )
1.oo
0.76
0.76
Example TEN D.11 Internal Floor 5 UDL Preload

Made By: P.F.P.
Date: llSeplO2

Lx (m)
LY ( 4
h (mm)
Thickness of slabs
Iof 1
Page:
250
Load from casting new slab ( kNlm2 )
6.00

0
9
1
25.00
.-------------------Is
6.00
(E,

)
N/mm2
kNlm3

Unfactored weight of partitions (w palt)
kN/m2
37

kN/mz
kNlm2
'lab
Supporting
slab (1)
Lower slab
(2)
Lowest slab
(3)

falsework for casting new slab (kN/mZ)
24
6.00
kNlm2
falsework erected before backprops?
1.00
Or
0.50
Panel
1.oo
2.50
Allow cracking
Equivalent
cube strength
of slab (f,)
(N/mmz)
MOdUlUS Of
elasticity, E
(kN/mm2)
58
38.62908825
51
37.00796335
n/a
n/a
n/a
nla
Ratio of
Distribution
coefficient curvatures
uncrackedl
(default = 0)
cracked
load in each
falsework
support
4
5
6
7
8
9
Load (kN)

wbl

wb2
168.76
168.76
3.75
3.75
5.63
5.63
5.63
1.80
3.75
5.63
i,813
3.75
5.63
Load per mz
percent %
3.00
3.00
50.00
50.00
1
1
19.91
15.21
19.81
18.51
19.81
18.56
nla
nla
n/a
n/a
nla
nla
nla
n/a

(w
(w Mn ) see note
)

9.50
Loading Factor
10.50
)
req )
(wull)
15.40
kNlm2
Cracking Factor
( F, )
( F cr )
37.00
N/mm2
Effective Deflection Factor (Fen)
31.30
Nlrnrn'
0.69
Version 2.12
139
- Allowance for cracking in

eet
1
I
This annex discusses the theory used in the Excel spreadsheet on cracking allowances, as proposed
by the Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39) and incorporated in Prof. Beebys paper Criteria for the loading of
slabs during construction (Ref. 38).
6 1 The disUribution coefficient

The forthcoming Eurocode 2 (Ref. 39) gives formulae for members that are expected to crack under
load, and behave in a manner intermediate between the uncracked and fully cracked conditions.
These give ways of more realistically assessing slab stiffness by inserting a distribution coefficient
( zeta) based on the ratio of stress in the tension reinforcement calculated on the basis of a
cracked section compared with that condition to produce the first cracking.
c,
The distribution coefficient is stated as

Equation 28
where
os,=
os
distribution coefficient
stress in the tension reinforcement under the loading conditions to produce the
first cracking
stress in the tension reinforcement calculated on the basis of a cracked section
The program default value assumes uncracked conditions, i.e. the stress in the steel is less than or
equal to cjsrthe stress under the loading to.produce the first cracking, and the distribution coefficient
is zero (0).
As the stress in the reinforcement (os) increases relative to that causing the first cracking (os,
) the
ratio (osr
/a,) gets smaller with the distribution coefficient approaching a value of unity (1).
The value of distribution factor, if cracking is to be considered, is entered as Equation 28 above.
/os) can be replaced by (M,, / M ) where M is the cracking moment and
In Equation 28 the ratio (os,
M,, is the moment for the loaded condition causing the first crack.
6 2 Ratio of curwature
An assessment of the effective stiffness (achieved by adjusting the effective E value) can then be
made knowing or estimating the ratio of curvatures associated with the uncracked and fully cracked
conditions. The spreadsheet adjusts the effective E value automatically if values are entered for this
parameter, in combination with a distribution coefficient other than zero.
The default value of ratio of curvature is unity (1). True values lie between 0.25 and 0.33. Refer to
the Concrete Society report on Deflections in concrete beams and slabs (Ref 41).
The ratio of uncrackedkracked curvatures will have no effect if a default value of zero is entered
for the distribution coefficient.
63 Effective deflection factor (Few)

Provided the loaded slabs remain within the elastic limits, a reasonable assumption in backpropping
calculations, then the ratio of values causing cracking to those actually designed for accepted
cracking will remain the same.
140
Annex G - Allowance for cracking in spreadsheet
This leads to the following relationships:
os,- Cracking load moment

o s Actual cracked moment
w,,
--
Equation 29
where
w,,
total unfactored construction load on the slab causing cracking in kN/m2
w = total actual unfactored construction load on the slab in kN/m2

Rearranging Equation 28 with Equation 29 gives
%=
Equation 3 0
,/-=CL
os
In the criteria of loading flat slabs (Ref. 42), Prof Beeby redefines the distribution coefficient as
Cb
Equation 3 1
= 1-
(5)
Combining Equations 30 and 3 1 leads to
Equation 32
Incorporating the distribution coefficient into Equation 26, gives the value for the effective
deflection factor as
Equation 33
where
w,,,
fc
estimate of the equivalent cube strength of the concrete at the location in N/mm2
fcU
The calculation for effective deflection factor assuming cracking given in the output of the
spreadsheet uses Equation 33. If there is no cracking assumed, the value is automatically entered
for the non-cracked section.
141
D
abbreviations xii
access 11, 22, 28, 33
aluminium support systems 13, 15-017, 25
anchorages 19-20
backpropping 4, 77-88
assumptions 61-67
loads 67-71,82-85, 104-105
methods 6&61,67-67,77-80,8688
recommendations 5 1-52
worked examples 101-I08
beams, formwork, length 34
bending 113-1 14
bond 114-115
building design considerations 6-7
c
camber 9
Cap0 test 59-60
Cardington project 93-96
characteristic strength, concrete 9
clearances see tolerances
collapse, SLS 113-1 17
columns 41, 44-45,
forms and equipment 10,2l-22,33,38
recommendations 4 1
heads 10
kickers 6, 9-1 1
reinforcement 6
columdplank interface 7
concept selection 6-7, 13
concrete
density 6 , 9 , 5 1,63
strength assessment 39, 5 7 4 0 , 81-82, 103
type, effect on temporary works 12-1 3
concreting process 38
construction joints 38
construction loads 28-30, 62-63
cracking 54-55, 14&141
cranes and cranage 15, 16,25,38,42,49-50
CRC Jointcast 11
see also Densit
creep 56
cubes cured alongside 5 8 4 0
curing 13, 45,47
cycle times 16, 17, 22
142
definitions xiv
deflections 9, 54
effects of backpropping 64-67
serviceability limit state 111-113
slabs struck at early age 56-57
Densit 11, 17
density of concrete 6, 9, 51, 63
design and build contracts 22
design
buildings 6-9
kickers 10-11
staircases 11
design brief checklist 97-99
design service loads 72-76
detailing, reinforcement 6, 7, 12
distribution coefficients 140
downstand beams 6, 12, 16, 17,26
drawings 2 I , 24, 3 1
E
early striking 53, 5 5 , 56-57
economic aspects 6, 11, 13, 16,22, 25
edge distance of standards 32-33
edge protection 6, 19-20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31-32,47
effective deflection factor 140-141
elastic behaviour of slabs 62
enclosure considerations 4,6, 18-20
external protection 18-20
F
falsework co-ordinator 22
fans 19, 41, 46
fibre cement products 17
fibres, polypropylene 12
fixings cast into slabs 22
flowing concrete 6, 7, 79, 80
flying form systems 17, 21, 26-27, 35, 41
guardrails 20, 26, 32
w
harnesses 46
health and safety plans 7, 23
Index
high-strength concrete 10
holes, trimming 6, 12
implications of changes 3
50
individual props and beams 14,24-25
kickerless construction 9-1 I , 46

kickers
columns 6, 9-1 1
walls 46
precast concrete 7, 22
blocks for kickers 10
planks (non-participating) 18, 28
planks (participating) 17, 27-28
plank systems 17-1 8, 22, 27-28, 3 I , 41
stairflights 6, 11-12
preconstruction planning stage 2 I , 40
pre-contract stage 6 2 0
pre-load of backprops 66, 106-1 07
procurement of temporary works 2 1-22, 30-36
production rates 13
progress meetings 2 I, 5 1
prop adjustment devices 33-34
prop and beam systems 1 4 , 2 6 2 5
propping considered to be rigid 63-64
proprietary equipment 14-1 8, 24-28
pull-off testing 57-60
pull-out testing 5 7 4 0
punching shear 53
labour costs 13, 14

length of formwork beams 34
level adjustment 33-34
limit state design methods 24
loads and loading 7-9
above design service loads 72-76, 107-1 08, 109-1 17
assumptions 64-66
considerations 7-9, 54-55, 101-102
during construction 28-30
factors 115
in backprops 67-7 1
loading-out platforms 4 I , 4 3 4 4
LOK tests 39, 5 I , 57-60
'lozenging' 28
radio communication 41, 49

ratio of curvature I40
rebound hammers 58-60
reinforcement 5 1
couplers 10-1 I
detailing 6, 7, 12
recommendations 3,6,21-22,41,51-52
responsibilities 3-4, 22-23
retarded concrete I3
risk assessments 27
management of temporary works 3 - 4 , 2 I , 22-24,3637

material factors of safety I 16-1 17
material handling 42-43
method statements 1 I , 24, 25, 27, 39-40
safety 3 4 , 18-20,26,27
at design stage 3, 7
staircases I I
safety nets 19, 3 1
self-weight of materials 6, 9, 28-29
sequence of installing and removing backpropping 71-72
sequence of work 37-38
serviceability limit state 1 1 1-1 13
shear 114
shortening, falsework 47
skeletal systems 14-15, 25, 36
skill levels 23-24, 25
slinger/signallers 41, 49
sofit formwork, striking 85-86
specifications 24
speed of construction 16, 30
spreadsheet, backpropping 61, 66, 105, 118-141
staircases 6, 11-12
standard calculations 23-24
steel skeletal systems 14-15, 25, 36
storage of materials and equipment 12
strength gain 57-60
0
over-flying 16, 17
overloading of slabs 72-76, 107-1 08, 109-1 17
P
permanent formwork 17-18,27-28
permanent works designers 3-5,6-7
permits to load and strike 2 1, 36-37, 5 1
philosophy for loading and striking flat slabs 54-55
planning considerations 16, 39
planning supebisors 7
polypropylene fibres I2
pour sizes 13
precamber 9
143
Guide to flat slab forrnwork and falsework
striking 4,77-88
criteria 51, 53, 5 7 4 0 , 102
planning considerations 2 1, 39
procedures 77-79, 85-86
recommendations 5 1
surface finishes 7, 10
thickness, slabs 9
timber beams 25
toeboards 20
tolerances 22, 27,49
trimming of holes 6, 12
tripping hazards 22, 27
B
table systems 15-16, 21, 25-26, 35-36, 41
temperature effects 67
temperature-matched curing 58-60
temporary works
calculations 2 1
concept selection 13
works co-ordinators 3-5, 2 I , 22-23
design brief 2 1,2&28,30-3 1,97-99
columns 44-45
precast slabs 4 7 4 9
slabs 1 4 1 8 , 4 6 4 7
staircases 11
walls and lift shafts 4 5 4 6
ultimate limit state 113-1 17

upstand beams 6, 12
w
wall kickers 9-11
wet-cured cubes 5 8 4 0
worked examples 101-108, 129-139
working platforms 2 1, 24, 3 1-32
work sequence 37-38
written confirmation procedures 3 6 3 7
144
BACKPROPPING SPREADSHEET
(backpropcalc.xls1Version 2.12
The spreadsheet on this CD ROM provides information for assessing construction
procedures for loading in situ concrete slabs in multi-storey buildings and should
be used in conjunction with this Guide. The spreadsheet is in Microsoft Excel
97-2000 and 5.0/95 97 (*.XIS) and is accompanied by a manual in pdf format.
Guide t o Flat Slab

Eur Ing P. F. Pallett
This Guide explains the procedural and technical aspects of the
formwork, falsework and striking operations for constructing

fiat slab in situ concrete buiidlngs. it will be of vital interest to
all in the building industry involved in concrete construction.
Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and Falsework will help ail
members of the construction team to improve their
understanding of the construction process, right through from
concept by the client to construction. This will enable improved
designs and construction techniques to be adopted, leading to
faster, safer and more economlc construction.
New principles for early striking of flat slabs are introduced,

together with recommended methods of assessing concrete
strength. Four methods of assessing backpropping loads are
presented to help designers and constructors to plan efficient
construction schemes. One of these is included as a
spreadsheet on a CD ROM. Other topics covered include
temporary works management,approvals, guidance on
applying the CDM Regulations,design, loading slabs above
their design load, edge protection, working plafforms,
temporary cladding, enclosures and other construction
details. The formwork construction methods described are
'state-of-the-art' for single- and multi-storeyconstruction.
The Guide is based on the study of the seven-storeyin situ
concrete frame building built as part of the European Concrete

Building Project a t BRE Cardington. It is published by The
Concrete Society on behalf of CONSTRUCT, and is the result of
a collaborative programme between CONSTRUCT and the
Universities of Birmingham and Leeds, which was jointly funded
by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Partners in
Innovation scheme and by industry.
The multi-disciplinarysteering group for the Guide was chaired
by Eur Ing P.F. Paiiett, Temporary Works Consultant. and
included consultants, contractors, temporary works specialists,

researchers, and representatives of government and other
authorities.
R e f CS 140
ISBN 0 946691 90 8
The Concrete Society
Century House, Telford Avenue, Crowthorne, Berkshire RG45 6YS. UK
Tel: +44(0) 1344 466007
www.concrete.org.u k

Flat Slab Formwork &amp; Falsework

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Flat Slab Formwork &amp; Falsework

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Strike Early with PER1

SKYDECK - lightweight slab system

Tableform -with lifting C-Hook

SKYDECK - easy erection

MULTIPROP the most versatik

SKYDECK - finished slab and backpropping

easy to use modular design

Health & Safety

edge protection solutions

trolleys for easy horizontal

'C' Hooks for lifting

Offices also at Dartford, Glasgow and Leeds

BYRNE BROS. (FORMWORK) LTD

Forming Concrete Relationships

BR[E for the @NdiU'IlpPQUI

Titan aluminium support system

Build on formwork expertise

E-2 DECKS71 kN per leg Capacity

ffmm rmd kwikform

0 Albeam, Alform @ Alsec

ChechOiisU ffou eredimg amd

sUdhCmg off ffomwo&

Guide to Flat Slab

concrete structures group

For further information contact:

Guide to Flat Slab

Eur I n g P. F. Pallett BSc CEng FICE FCS

Ternporary Works ConsuItant

This Guide is the result of a collaborative Partners in Technology programme

Published by The Concrete Society on behalf of CONSTRUCT

Building clients, developers, permanent works

Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and Falsework

0CONSTRUCT Concrete Structures Group 2003

Summary and Foreword

Temporary Works Consultant

The Concrete Society

Preconstruction planning stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background to striking and backpropping . . . . . . . . .

Striking and backpropping

- The Cardington Project

- Temporary works design checklist .

Annex C - Comparison of load transferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Annex D Worked example of striking and backpropping to

Second floor - Backpropping considerations for falsework erection

Annex E Theory of loading a slab to above the design service

Annex F Backpropping spreadsheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

- Allowance for cracking in spreadsheet. .

The distribution coefficient

FiQures and tables

Floor four of the ECBP under construction. (page 1)

Equations and abbreviations

Loading factor criterion (page 54)

British Cement Association

Flat slabs have no

Figure 1: Floor four of the ECBP under construction.

Methods stated may be

ECBP: see Annex A

Construction safety and economy begins a t a buildings concept and design

Designers, particularly Permanent Works Designers, should be made aware

Temporary Works Co-ordinators should be appointed by the constructor, and

Safety and economy

PWD and TWC to

Chapter 3 - Pre-contract stage - client and/or PWD involvement

Chapter 4 - Preconstruction planning stage - client, PWD and TWC involvement

Flat Slab Formwork & Falsework

Flat Slab Formwork & Falsework