See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237190668

Factors influencing formwork productivity

Article in Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · February 2011

DOI: 10.1139/l93-015

CITATIONS READS

21 1,599

2 authors:

Gary R. Smith Awad S Hanna

North Dakota State University University of Wisconsin–Madison
25 PUBLICATIONS 384 CITATIONS 97 PUBLICATIONS 1,325 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary R. Smith on 27 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Factors influencing formwork productivity
GARYR. SMITH
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA 16802, U.S.A.
AND
AWADS. HANNA
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Metnorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Nfld., Canada
A 1B 3x5
Received September 3, 1991
Revised manuscript accepted June 1, 1992
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13

Estimates indicate that 30 to 70 percent of cast-in-place concrete cost is attributable to the assembly and stripping
of formwork. This wide percentage range is partially due to factors that are not well understood with regard to their
influence on productivity. The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors that influence formwork productivity
and identify a methodology to evaluate productivity data. Two groups of factors were found to have a great effect
on formwork productivity: non-measurable factors such as contract document and measurable factors such as engineering
design. This paper discusses the effect of both groups of factors on the productivity of vertical formwork. T o quantify
the effect of the measurable factors on formwork productivity, a case study of the productivity of a crew of carpenters
erecting wall formwork for a three-story underground parking structure is presented and analyzed. Data were collected
by physically measuring the daily output of vertical formwork erected and the total daily work hours.
Key words: formwork, productivity, construction methods.

Des estimations revdent qu'entre 30 et 70 pour cent des cofits du beton coule sur place sont attribuables a l'assemblage
des coffrages et au demoulage. Ce grand ecart est en partie attribuable a des facteurs qui influent sur la productivite
et qui sont ma1 compris. Le but de cet article est d'identifier ces facteurs et d'etablir une mithodologie afin d'evaluer
les donnees de productivite. On a constate que deux groupes de facteurs avaient une grande influence, soit des facteurs
For personal use only.

non mesurables de nature contractuelle et des facteurs mesurables comme la conception technique. Cet article discute
de l'effet de ces deux groupes de facteurs sur la productivite dans le domaine de la mise en place de coffrages verticaux.
Afin de quantifier cet effet, une etude de cas de la productivite d'une Cquipe de charpentiers travaillant a l'erection
des coffrages d'un garage de stationnement souterrain de trois Ctages est presentee et analysee. La collecte de donnies
s'est faite en mesurant la quantite quotidienne de coffrages verticaux erigis et le nombre total d'heures de travail par jour.
Mots clis : coffrage, productivite, methodes de construction.
[Traduit par la redaction]

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 20, 144-153 (1993)

Introduction The final factor is the formwork system selection. This

Formwork productivity may be affected by design, site
conditions, and formwork system factors.
Design factors relate to all aspects of the design that will
increase or decrease the time required to fabricate, erect,
and dismantle the forms. A typical example of a design fac-
tor that impacts productivity is the formed surface finish
specification often formed by architectural requirements.
Other factors may be peculiar wall intersection angles or
changes in wall thickness. Design influences are fixed factors
and cannot be reconciled in the field. The contractor must
budget sufficient time for these conditions at the bidding
stage.
Site factors relate to those planning and organizational
aspects of the formwork operations that increase or decrease
the efficiency at a construction site. Examples of site factors
include the area available for material storage, access to
formwork area, and the planning and sequential arrange-
ment of formwork operations. Management controls the
allocation of space and therefore the contractors should
account for the site impact in the estimate.
NOTE: Written discussion of this paper is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until June 30, 1993 (address inside
front cover).
Printed in Canada / Imprlmc au Canada
is the most important factor with regard to labor produc-
tivity. The influences of formwork systems can be many.
Examples would be the number of ties required, the
modularity of the system, wale design, hardware, and the
number of loose parts. Their significance is highlighted when
the field personnel use a system other than the one chosen
when the bid was prepared or when more than one system
is used at the site.
Responsibilities of parties involved in formwork selection
The proper selection of the formwork systems to be used
in a cast-in-place concrete building is of concern to all
involved parties. Some of the major responsibilities of these
parties which need to be considered to achieve the proper
and optimum selection of the formwork systems are dis-
cussed below (Hanna 1989).
Owner's role
The owner's chief objectives are to minimize overall proj-
ect cost and construction time and assure specified quality
and safety of the finished product. Recognizing the fact that
formwork is a high-cost item which controls the pace of con-
struction, a knowledgeable owner should be involved or
informed early in the project about the advantages and
disadvantages of the selected system. Special mock-ups
 SMlTH AND HANNA
should be shown to the owner when special materials such
as architectural concrete are required.
Designer's role
Economical design for concrete is not necessarily achieved
by minimizing the dimensions of the structural elements.
Some other factors have larger influences on building costs.
For example, labor for formwork is an item representing
38% of cast-in-place concrete costs; thus a few changes in
column size or wall height to achieve uniformity and repeti-
tion can result in a substantial cost reduction in overall form-
work cost. When designing a building, the designer should
consider each of the following methods of reducing the cost
of formwork (Hanna 1989):
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13
1. Repetition. Repeating the same layout from floor to
floor assures that the workers learn quickly, thus increasing
the productivity (learning curve) and decreasing the labor
cost. Also, the same forms can be effectively reused from
floor to floor.
2. Standardization. Basing the design on readily available
standard form sizes is less expensive than specifying custom-
built forms for the project. For example, in designing a joist
or waffle slab, the designer should consider the standard
size pans available and base the design on these sizes.
3. Consistency and simplicity. The designer can save sub-
stantial construction costs by keeping the design simple and
For personal use only.
the elements consistent. Uniformity is achieved by maintain-
ing a constant dimension for the different structural
elements. Specific examples of consistency include (a)
maintaining constant breadth and depth for all beams, (b)
maintaining constant column dimensions and spacing
between columns, and (c) maintaining constant spacing
between beams and joists.
Contractor's role
Most contractors carefully study the influence of form-
work on project cost and progress. In selecting formwork,
a contractor's primary list of concerns (Hanna 1989) is the
following:
1. To design formwork to achieve high quality with a
minimum of possible cost and time. Safety is another major
concern for the contractor; inadequate shoring and reshoring
can result in failure or excessive deflection which requires
chipping and grinding or demolition.
2. To use forming systems instead of job-built forms; this
reduces labor costs (which represent 38% of the cost of cast-
in-place concrete. Formwork systems can reduce the labor
cost by 50%.
3. To plan the formwork as an integrated part of the
overall planning procedure so that the process of erecting
and dismantling the forms can be accelerated.
Factors affecting formwork productivity
Two groups of factors were found to have an effect on
formwork productivity: non-measurable factors such as con-
tract document and measurable factors such as engineering
design. This paper discusses the effect of some of these
measurable factors on the productivity of vertical formwork.
These measurable factors include factors related to engineer-
ing design such as interior versus exterior walls and straight
versus interrupted walls and factors related to construc-
tibility such as modular versus gang forms.
145
Contract document
Contract documents are not a measurable factor with
respect to concrete formwork productivity. However, the
influence of the contract on performance can be a major
factor on the project. The flexibility of the contract docu-
ment in allowing the constructor to use personal experience
in designing and constructing the forms affects the degree
to which labor can be effectively used on site in formwork
production. When possible, the exact location of construc-
tion joints should be determined by the design engineer and
the contractor to maximize form reuse and, consequently,
increase productivity. If the contract document does not
specify a particular method of construction, the constructor
is able to use familiar methods of ~roduction.The construc-
tor should design for adequate, but not excessive, strengths
and rigidity, fabricate the forms into modular sizes suitable
for the project, select form material considering reuses, and
evaluate other factors that will enhance the efficiency at the
site. In addition, contract documents that specify unreason-
able values for tolerances and cumbersome inspection pro-
cedures should be avoided.
System selection
System selection should be a combined effort between
design engineer and contractor during the planning phase.
Research into the selection criteria for formwork covers the
topics of building shape and support systems, speed of con-
struction needed, and other factors. These factors have been
catalogued elsewhere for application in knowledge-based
expert systems. Table 1 is a summary for vertical formwork
extracted from a broader research effort (Hanna and
Sanvido 1990). While this table has a great deal of infor-
mation related to the selection of formwork systems for a
project, it represents one facet of the system selection
equation. f able 2 is a partial list of criteria that should be
considered by a contractor when selecting or comparing
various concrete form suppliers.
Selecting the proper formwork system requires adequate
information about available forming systems. Any infor-
mation collected that describes the formwork systems should
include the criteria used by contractors to select the system.
These criteria (Hanna 1989) are the following:
1. The formwork system should be available and its use
economically feasible for the contractor.
2. All major parties - owner, designer, and contractor
- should be familiar with the selected forming systems,
since certain systems, such as slip forms, require special
economic evaluation, design configurations, and safety
precautions.
3. The selected formwork system must be consistent with
the architectural and structural requirements of the building.
For example, if architectural concrete is required for the
external columns, then slip form systems do not provide the
appropriate forming solution.
4. The selected system must be compatible with the
mechanical and electrical requirements of the building. For
example, self-rising forms are not an economical solution
when there are extensive penetrations through the slab (e.g.,
electrical and mechanical).
Systems requiring special assembly tools can create unex-
pected problems. When critical assembly tools for pro-
prietary formwork systems are misplaced or otherwise
unavailable, productivity rapidly decreases. Good
 TABLE1. Factors affecting selection of vertical formwork systems (Hanna 1989)

Formwork systems
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13

Conventional
Influence factor column/wall form Ganged forms Jump form Slip form Self-raising form
(a) Building design
Lateral support
Lateral support system Most suited for frames Shear walls Shear walls Shear walls Shear walls
and retaining walls Bearing walls Frames and framed Tube systems
Retaining walls shear wall Tube-in-tube

Building height Avg. 400 ft (122 m) At least 300 ft (91 m)

Min = 60 ft (18 m) No max
Max = 600 ft (180 m)

Building shape
Column/wall size System can handle Same as for System can handle Walls should be of System can handle
and location variation of column/ conventional column/ moderate variation of the same location reasonably modular
For personal use only.

wall size and location wall form system columns/walls size Walls size variation design
and location can be accommodated

System can handle Variation in opening's Openings/inserts Should be minimum System can handle
openings/inserts of size/location can be should be regularly Too many openings/ moderate variation in
different size and accommodated at occurring from floor inserts make this openings size and
location additional cost to floor system impractical location

(b) Job specification

Speed of construction
Concrete finish "AS cast" concrete Produces smooth exposed concrete finish System produces Smooth concrete
finish Tie pattern and number should be designed rough concrete finish finish
Form liners can be used to produce architectural NO ties Form liners can be
concrete used

Construction sequence Slabs and walls are Slabs and walls are
placed concurrently placed concurrently
Walls can be placed
ahead of the floor slab
Cycle time 1 floor every 3-4 days
System is used when Typically walls are Walls are ahead of
no floor slab is placed entirely or at the floor
available least several stories Other method is used
ahead of the floor for the first 2-3 stories
1 floor every 2-3 days 1 floor every day 1 floor every 2-3 days
Rate of placing
= 8-20 in./h

(c) Supporting organization

Cost
Stripping Hand strip Crane is used to strip Forms are equipped Forms are stripped at Forms are equipped
High stripping cost the system with mechanism for the end of the project with mechanism for
High stripping cost stripping Minimum stripping cost stripping
Minimum stripping cost Minimum stripping cost
 TABLE1 (concluded)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13

Formwork systems

Conventional
Influence factor column/wall form Ganged forms Jump form Slip form Self-raising form

Reuse Less than 10 Between 40 and 50 Between 15 and 30 Between 50 and 100 At least 30 reuses
Reuses could be (i.e., between 200 and should be available
horizontally or 400 ft high) vertically
vertically

Hoisting equipment
Location of adjacent Generally not a factor A major factor, system Same as for ganged Minimum free space Not a major factor,
building and must have a free space forms should be available for system can be used in
obstruction to be moved from crane movement downtown restricted
For personal use only.

floor to floor areas

Crane time Not a factor, system Crane dependent System substantially Crane is used only for Crane independent
can be hand set system, sufficient crane reduce crane time materials delivery and system
time is a must Average crane time pick concrete placing
= 20 min

Operating system Hand-set system, Crane-set system Crane is used only to Motion is provided by System is lifted by
crane increases system Crane serves two lift the forms electric, or hydraulic hydraulic, electric, or
efficiency and reduces functions: lifting and Crane is not used for jacks climbing on steel pneumatic lifters
cost supporting the forms forms dismantling rods

Safety management
Safety No special safety Special care for Safe guarded platform For hydraulic systems, Same as for slip form
features is required handling the large No one needs to be on special safety precautions
ganged units by crane the form during crane must be taken to prevent
handling fire several hundred feet
above the ground

Yard facility
Supporting yard System is more System must have an System is rented Continuous materials System is preassembled
facility, supplier efficient, if a local adequate make-up area or purchased delivery; uninterrupted Make-up area is not
or make-up area yard facility is available or close by supplier concrete placement must a factor
be assured
 CAN. 1. CIV. ENG. VOL. 20, 1993

TABLE2. Criteria for supplier systems (Smith and Hanna 1991)

Cost per square foot per use Flexibility of the system

Number of connections Connection hardware
Number (and type) of ties required Interchangeable system hardware
Weight for handling Panel attachments
Ease of stripping Ease of attaching accessories
Ease of ganging panels Availability of accessories
Cost of replacement parts Safety accessories
Technical design support available

TABLE3 . Estimates of factors impacting formwork labor productivity (Thomas et a/. 1991)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13

No. of projects
Value factor Source included Impact Remarks

General factors Thomas et a/. Numerous Varies from 5% Information, staff, crew,
Management PTI Report (1990) to over 100% supervision, tools,
direct or indirect congestion, overtime,
changes

Placement method Estimating manuals Unknown

Modular Means (1986) Baseline
Gang Richardson (1990) 10-20% less Sources agree
Job-built Adrian (1975, 1989) 200 ( + ) 233% more Adrian

Design details Data inconclusive

Member height Qabbani (1987) 1 5-10% Depends on type and number
For personal use only.

Corners Qabbani; Richardson 2.5-4 times Multiplied by unit rate

Bulkheads Qabbani; Richardson 3-5 times Multiplied by unit rate
Boxouts Richardson (1990) 12% more
Pilasters Richardson; Means 4-5 times Multiplied by unit rate
Corbels Richardson (1990) 6 times Multiplied by unit rate
Overhangs Richardson (1990) 3 times Multiplied by unit rate

Material type Weight/assembly

Steel Adrian (1989) 200 ( + ) Baseline
Plywood 7% Less than steel
Aluminum 27 To Less than steel

Shape
Straight Means (1986) Baseline
Curved Richardson (1990) 1.5-2% Greater than straight

Support/shoring EFCO rate sheets 3 8-10% Of total time

scaffolding (1975) Varies Depends on type
Richardson; Means

Connections Needs more study

Form Hardware EFCO rate sheets 3 30-40% Of install/strip times
Ties (no. and type) Means (1986) Unknown Approx. 10%

Locations Unclear
Interior/exterior Bennett (1990); Qabbani 2 30-75% Confused factors
2nd level up Means; Peurifoy (1979) Add 10% Of installation

Learning curve Qabbani (1987) 1 76-84% rate From regression

Disruptions Bennett (1990) 1 0.27-0.53 Indices listed in PTI report

housekeeping and inventory management skills for the hard-
ware associated with some modular systems are important
to maintaining peak productivity rates. It is easy to imagine
that the system which uses the fewest pieces to complete a
wall section would have the edge in productivity. When
various literature and manufacturers' resources are con-
sulted, a tabulation similar t o Table 3 can be generated to
show the current estimates and impact of various factors
influencing concrete formwork productivity. Many of the
factors have been based on single project studies or by the
same researcher. Without comparative studies, no definitive
conclusion should be drawn from the information.
 SMITH A N D H A N N A
TABLE
4. Design factors influencing formwork productivity (Smith and Hanna 1991)
Dimensions of walls
Length of walls
Joint pattern
Irregular spacings
Irregular floor heights
Column or wall orientation
Irregular footing elevation
Column capitals
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13
For personal use only.
FIG. 1. Wall configuration plan.
Design factors
Formwork productivity can be constrained by the struc-
tural design via architectural design. Table 4 identifies design
factors that influence the time required to erect the form-
work. A typical example of design detail that impacts the
erection and cost of concrete formwork is the surface finish
specification. Rustication strips, ornate patterns, and surface
treatments all influence the system erection and stripping
time. The specified surface finish also impacts formwork
facing material and tie spacing.
The adequacy of the design is very important. A project
should be designed with the minimum number of modifica-
tions to dimensions and shapes to permit efficient use of
formwork. Site superintendents are able to plan form pro-
duction in a way that offers repetitive use of the compo-
nent parts. The sizes of the components are pre-standardized
according t o the shapes to be formed. An inappropriate
design causes numerous change orders involving dimensions
and shapes. Therefore, previously selected components have
to be remeasured and reassembled which ultimately reduces
productivity.
A design that accounts for the repetition of dimensions
lends itself to the achievement of efficiency in formwork
production. In large building works where bays or groups
of bays are of equal dimensions, less time is spent in inter-
preting plans and measuring and cutting materials. The gain
in productivity should be more noticeable when the bays are
also repetitive from floor to floor.
Height of wall or column
Number of vertical intersections
Surface finish
Inconsistent column sizes
Shape irregularities
Pilasters
Brick edge
Sloped or stepped surface
Formwork materials normally consist of either lumber,
steel, or aluminum. Steel and lumber have standard
manufactured dimensions. Where concrete shapes are
designed in modules of the standard dimensions, the time
for cutting and assembling forms is reduced to the minimum.
For example, in waffle-floor construction, forms are easily
erected and dismantled when the waffle pattern is designed
to the standards and modules of commercial forms such as
metal pans and corrugated sheets.
Another important design factor is the shape and dimen-
sion of the concrete structure. Table 1 suggests that varia-
tions in building shape are most easily accommodated with
the conventional hand-set and gang-set forms. However,
there are other influences, like changes in the direction due
to wall intersections, that impact productivity when conven-
tional hand-set and gang form systems are used even though
the system may have been selected appropriately for the
structure. Forms for drains and channels, domes, amphi-
theaters, and other curvilinear structures generally require
much greater care in measuring dimensions, joining pieces
together, forming recesses, overall fabrication to the right
size, erection, and dismantling. Productivity in such struc-
tures can be low as compared to simple straight wall
structures.
Management factors
Productivity in formwork is not only influenced by design
factors and the specification in the contract document but
by site planning, construction processes, and supervision.
 150 CAN. J . CIV. ENG. VOL. 20, 1993

TABLE 5. Project summary data
Project cost
Underground structure
Aboveground structure
Floor plan area
Site area
Formwork contact area
Number of work days required
Time frame
Average crew size
Labor force
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13
Bracing: Once wall panels were set, the panels were
braced with wales and strongbacks. Bracing need to be
$10 million removed and reset for individual parlels and the constructed
3 levels, reinforced concrete walls remain attached to the gang form system. Measure-
7 levels, reinforced masonry ment of bracing was estimated on the basis of the square
2028 m2
feet of the form which had wales and strongbacks attached.
2545 m 2
4837 ft' Alignment: Alignment included installation of the tie
148 rods, plumbing vertically, and levelling the form system.
January-August 1987 Time spent on additional adjustments to prepare the form-
14 work for concrete placement was also included. Measure-
Nonunion ment of alignment was based on the square feet of the wall
section prepared for concreting.
Stripping: Stripping is the removal of the formwork sys-

The ability of the site supervisory personnel to interpret the
drawings as accurately as possible and to effectively com-
municate what shape is to be formed, how it should be
formed, and what tolerances are needed will reduce rework
and increase speed and efficiency in form construction.
An engineer at the site can influence productivity through
adequate planning. Adequate planning involves examining
the drawings in detail and extracting the component parts
that have the same dimensions to allow for repetitive use.
Adequate planning also involves fabricating the forms into
modular and largest sizes possible according to the available
handling equipment that will permit reuses without
re-fabrication.
For personal use only.
tem from the curing concrete. Cleaning and oiling the forms
for the next use were considered incidental work. Measure-
ment of stripping was based on the square feet of form
removed from the wall.
Rules of credit
All of the tasks described above are not usually performed
in a single day on the same wall section. Rules of credit were
developed (Thomas and Kramer 1987) as a method to
account for the effort contributed by each task to a com-
pleted section of formwork. The rules provide a simple
procedure for counting the contribution of partially com-
pleted work to the overall work package (Thomas and
Kramer 1987).

Productivity includes the work hours required for a com-

Case study
Project description
The case study project records tracked the construction
of footings, columns, slabs, and walls for a three-story
underground parking structure (Smith and Thomas 1991).
Table 5 lists the important attributes of the project. Figure 1
is a sketch of the lowest level of floor plan showing the wall
outlines. The walls were subdivided into categories for the
purpose of data collection. Long straight walls with few
intersections were found at the northeast (NE) and southwest
(SW) sides of the building. The side walls are also long and
straight but have numerous blockouts, integral columns, and
corbels. Side walls were identified at the northwest (NW)
and southeast (SE) walls. All the interior walls were
incubated in a single data classification. The case study
discussion and analysis will focus on the wall forms.
Construction methods
The contractor used metal frame modular formwork
panels (gang form) to construct the wall forms. The indi-
vidual wall panels were 0.61 m (2 ft) wide and 2.44 m (8 ft)
high. Gang forms were assembled on site and lifted into
place with a tower crane. Work tasks were established as
follows: wall panel erection, bracing, alignment, and strip-
ping. Concrete placement and reinforcing steel placement
were not included as part of the forming work data
collection.
Wall erection: The erection sequence for the panel was
performed in two steps. The first side of the wall is nor-
mally the most difficult to erect. The layout time was
included in the time for setting the first side. Boxout and
wall sleeves were installed before reinforcing steel was
erected. The second side of the wall form was erected after
the reinforcing steel was placed. Form ties were commonly
installed in the first set to aid in setting and aligning the
second side.
plete unit of work meaured as a square foot of contact area.
Concrete formwork productivity is measured in terms of the
work hours per square metre of form (wh/m2) or work
hours per square foot (wh/ft2). The work hours were
collected by reviewing the foreman's daily time sheets. As
noted before, the reported values only included the time
associated with formwork and not with placing reinforce-
ment or concrete.
The same concept of rules of credit was applied with gang
forms and modular forms. The initial rules of credit included
subtask for bracing. After the first 30 days, the most of the
formwork used consisted of gang forms, and the bracing
subtasks were not separately recorded. When modular forms
were recorded, the time required for bracing was included
with the alignment time. The final rules of credit for gang
wall formwork are shown in Table 6.
Data collection
Data collection was a daily task on the case project site.
The number of panels erected for the first and second sides
of walls was counted each day and converted to square feet.
Alignment quantities were found to be very difficult to mea-
sure. When forms were erected and aligned and the concrete
poured in a single day, the alignment quantity was the same
as the contact area poured. However, when concrete was
not placed the same day, the alignment area was defined
to be the area where the tie rods had been securely fastened
to the second panel. Accurate sketches were needed to avoid
double counting tie rods on following days. The area
stripped was determined by counting the number of panels
removed and converting the panel count to square feet. Daily
quantities in each category were appropriately weighted and
summed as the equivalent total quantity installed. Collecting
the data required a single site visit for approximately
45-60 min at the end of each day.
 SMITH AND HANNA

TABLE6 . Rules of credit for gang formwork

Subtask Description Unit Weight

Erect first side Place and secure panels ft hr m' 0.90

Erect second side Place and attach panels ft' or m' 0.70
Alignment Install tie rod, plumb, and level form ft' or m' 0.10
Stripping Remove, clean, and oil ft' or m' 0.10

-
Interior Wall, Level 2

-
SE Walls, Level 2
---.----
lnterior Wall, Level 3

SE Walls. Level 3
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13

SWLalls, Level 2 NE Walls, Level 3 SW Walls, Level 3

I 0 Weather
A Material - related
Sequencing
1 0 Accident
0 Ironworkers did not work
Gangforms

mw2
-
rn Modular forms
Mixed forms
For personal use only.

w
,q
Workdays
FIG. 2. Daily productivity plot.

In addition to recording the daily quantities of formwork,
other notations were made in the records about major prob-
lems that occurred on the site. Weather was noted as an
influential factor when extremely cold temperatures were
recorded. On 7 days it snowed either the night before or
during the day. One workday had heavy rain that suspended
work for the entire day.
Productivity is measured in terms of work hours per unit
area (wh/m2). As a result, higher productivity is repre-
sented by smaller numbers. Figure 2 illustrates a sample plot
of the equivalent daily productivity rates for 80-120
workdays. Review of Fig. 2 reveals high productivity
between workdays 80 and 90 and low productivity between
workdays 100 and 120. The low productivity was caused by
interference, safety, and materials problems. Material
storage was a problem because of the inadequate storage
area on the project. All materials were stored inside the
building footprint. Material storage areas were often moved
as the building progressed. The frequency of movement
resulted in some materials being misplaced, lost, or
damaged. Sequencing was noted as a disruption in several
occasions. The movement of material was not being accom-
plished on time, and therefore disrupted the work of the
formwork crew. Shore removal and incomplete footing
preparation were also noted as sequencing problems.
Analysis
Various categories of disruptions had a noticeable impact
to daily productivity. The overall mean productivity for days
without disruptions was estimated as 4.95 wh/m2 and daily
productivity on disrupted days averaged 14.42 wh/m2.
When statistically tested, this relation has an F-ratio of 47.17
and a level of significance, P, of 0.000. Disruptions were
further classified into weather, material management,
sequencing, and accident disruptions for analysis. Table 7
summarizes the mean productivity for each disruption cat-
egory. However, the finer categorization of data reduces the
researchers' ability to confidently analyze the data, and no
significance can be clearly identified from the analysis.
Since no classification scheme has been developed that
could differentiate design difficulty factors, the walls were
separated into three ad hoc groups. Straight easy walls were
those that had no intersecting walls such as the northeast
 152 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 20, 1993

TABLE
7. Mean productivity: disruptions by category TABLE
8. Wall formwork productivity

Productiyity 95% confidence Average unit rate

Data type Count (wh/mU) interval Wall type (wh/m2) Sample size, n

Nondisrupted 115 4.93 0.341-0.575 Exterior wall

Weather 8 9.32 0.433-1.299
Material 5 18.3 1.15-2.240 NE and SW walls
Sequencing 15 16.6 1.23-1.860 (straight, easiest)
Accidents 3 10.15 0.236-1.650 Gang form
- - - - Modular
NOTE:wh/m2 = work hours per square metre of contact area.
NW and SE walls
(straight, hardest)
and southwest walls which were long and straight and had Gang form
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13

few intersections or changes in direction. Straight hard walls Modular

were the remaining sidewalls. These were classified as Interior core walls
"hard" due to the presence of corbels, integrals columns, Gang forms
and numerous blockouts. All the interior walls were grouped Modular
together and represented one unit rate, since they were all NOTE:wh/m2 = work hours per square metre.
short, straight walls with some boxouts or other inserts.
Table 8 shows the effect of engineering design and con-
structibility on formwork productivity. Engineering design
effect is shown by the difference in productivity rate between the contractor and should be considered during the initial
straight and intersecting walls. Straight walls had a mean project planning.
productivity of 4.65 wh/m2 (n = 74), while the interior Improvements in data collection and a much larger data
core walls had an average unit rate of 8.96 wh/m2 base are necessary before definite conclusions can be made.
( n = 71). The significance level for these values was deter- Toward this end, a formwork data collection procedures
mined to be 0.024. On the other hand, constructibility effect manual is under development to enable researchers to collect
For personal use only.

is shown by the difference between the productivity of
modular versus ganged forms. The mean gang form pro-
ductivity was 5.5 wh/m2 (n = 86) and the mean modular
form productivity was 6.88 wh/m2 (n = 47); no statistical
significance could be measured between these two values.
data in a consistent manner for inclusion in a larger data
set and for further analysis. The focus of continued research
will be to update or identify the impact factors affecting
formwork productivity. Better definition will enable con-
tractors to better predict resource requirements and costs.

Discussion Adrian, J. J. 1975. Column, gang, and hand-set forming produc-

Several factors discussed in this paper have been shown
to cause severe impact in formwork productivity, namely
constructibilit~,material management, safety, and engineer-
ing design. A quantitative procedure to measure these factors
has been presented. Constructibility has proven be an
important factor in formwork productivity. Ganged forms
are more efficient than modular forms. The productivity of
exterior wall form with no intersection was higher than that
of interior wall form with intersections. A lower produc-
tivity rate was observed due to unsafe work conditions,
inadequate materials management, and bad weather
conditions.
Conclusion
The procedure presented above for measuring and
evaluating ~roductivityis a flexible tool for evaluating a
variety of productivity influences. The daily site visits col-
lected sufficient data in a short time period for a prelimi-
nary evaluation of the overall factors influencing the project.
The rules of credit functioned to provide a common basis
for evaluating the output. The conclusions drawn from the
analysis are that disruptions clearly reduce productivity and
the complexity of the forms is an important factor. The comb
parison of modular and gang forms did not yield a signifi-
cance difference, although additional data may support an
opposite conclusion. Additional consideration of the data
in Table 7 indicates that the two largest disruptions, mate-
rial and sequencing, are factors that can be controlled by
tivity study. Report for Symons ~ a n u f a c t u r i ncompany.
~ con-
struction System CO., Peoria, '''.
Adrian, J.J. 1989. Cost study: a comparison of concrete block vs.
cast-in-place. In residential foundation walls. Symons
Des Plains,
Bennett, P.D. 1990. A case study of the validity of the daily crew-
based productivity measurements. M.Sc. thesis, department of
Civil Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, Pa.
EFCO. 1976. Rate of progress worksheets. Economy Forms Corp.,
Des Moines, Iowa.
EFCO. 1990-1991. Form marks. Economy Forms carp., ~ e s
Moines, Iowa.
Hanna, A.S. 1989. An interactive knowledge based formwork selec-
tion system for buildings. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.
Hanna, A.S., and Sanvido, V.E. 1990. Interactive vertical form-
work selection system. Concrete International: Design and
Construction, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI.
Means. 1986. Concrete and masonry cost data. R.S. Means Inc.,
Kingston, Mass.
Peurifoy, R.L. 1979. Construction planning, equipment and
methods. 3rd ed. hIcGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y.
P e ~ r i f o yR.L.,
, and Oberlender, G.D. 1989. Estimating construc-
tion costs. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y.
Qabbani, Z.S. 1987. Forrnwork economy and productivity analysis.
Master of Science in Engineering Report, University of Colorado-
Boulder, Boulder, Cola.
~ i ~ ~ h ~ ~ services.
~ d 1990.
~~ ~~~~~~~l~i construction
~ ~
estimating standard, designs, practices, and procedures.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y.
 S M I T H AND HANNA
Smith, G.R., and Hanna, A.S. 1991. Factors affecting formwork
productivity. The Annual Conference of the Canadian Society
for Civil Engineering, Vancouver, B.C.
Smith, G.R., and Thomas, H.R. 1991. Formwork productivity
measurement and analysis. Proceedings, International Con-
ference on Construction Project Modeling and Productivity,
Dubrovnik, Yogoslavia, pp. 235-240.
Thomas, H.R., and Kramer, D.F. 1987. The manual of construc-
tion productivity measurement and performance evaluation.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Hubei university on 06/04/13
For personal use only.
View publication stats
153
Report to the Construction Industry Institute (CII), Austin, Tex.,
Source Document 35.
Thomas, H.R., Smith, G.R., and Horner, R.M.W. 1991. Proce-
dures manual for collecting productivity and related data of
labor-intensive activities on commercial construction projects:
concrete formwork. The Pennsylvania State University, Univer-
sity Park, Pa.