LIMIT STATES FORMWORK DESIGN CHANGES IN AS 3610.

0:2003

Stephen Ferguson
Syntect Consulting Engineers
PO Box 133
Applecross, Western Australia. 6153

ABSTRACT

Australian Standard AS 3610-1990 was the first national Standard to introduce limit
states formwork design method; however, until all material Standards converted to
limit states design, permissible stress design rules remained part of the Standard.
At the time, the new limit states design rules were controversial. Even now, when
limit states Standards are available for all formwork materials, few designers have
opted to use limit states design methods. To some extent, this inertia has been
vindicated by the results of recent research that casts doubt on the reliability of the
limit states design rule s in AS 3610.

Thus it is not without some controversy that Standards Australia publishes AS

3610.0:2003 Formwork for concrete, which omits permissible stress methods and
introduces new limit states design rules. This paper reviews the new design rules,
highlighting and providing the background to the changes.

Keywords: Formwork, falsework, temporary works.

39
INTRODUCTION

Formwork is a structure, usually temporary, erected to support and mould cast-in-

situ concrete until it becomes self -supporting. It cons ists of a form and where
appropriate falsework, bracing and form ties. Falsework is the structure that
supports the forms and transfers the loads to the foundation.

In Australia, the current practice for designing formwork was first published in
Australia n Standard AS 3610–1990 Formwork for concrete. The design rules in AS
3610 also apply to the falsework that supports horizontal precast concrete elements
and sheet metal decking that act as permanent forms. AS 3610 also sets out the
rules for designing the backpropping and reshores used to share the load of newly
cast floors among previously cast floors in multistorey buildings.

Significantly, AS 3610–1990 was the first national Standard to introduce limit

states formwork design methods; however, until all material Standards converted to
limit states design permissible stress design rules remained part of the Standard.
Later in 1995, AS 3610 was revised but remained ostensibly unaltered.

At the time (1990), the new limit states design rules were controversial. Even now,
when limit states Standards are available for all formwork materials, few designers
have opted to use limit states design methods. Thus, it is not be without some
controversy that permissible stress methods have been omitted from the soon to be
published formwork Standard, AS 3610.0:2003 Formwork for Concrete Part 0:
General requirements (SA 2003).

To some extent, the inertia in converting to limit states formwork design has been
vindicated by the results of recent research that casts doubt on the reliability of the
limit states design rules in AS 3610–1995. However, AS 3610.0:2003 addresses
these shortcomings by amending the existing limit states design rules and
introducing new design rules. Rules that are intended to ensure that the probability
of formwork failure during construction is not any greater than failure of the
completed structure during its working life.

This paper focuses on the structural requirements of AS 3610.0:2003. It provides

an insight into the background, general principles and details of the new design
rules.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Unlike other structural Standards, AS 3610 is not referenced in the Building Code
of Australia. Instead, AS 3610 is referenced in State Occupational Health and
Safety (OH&S) Regulations. In general, OH&S Regulations require the elimination
or control of risks that arise in the workplace. Importantly, this means mean that
workers involved in the construction of a building should not be exposed to any
greater risk than the persons who will later work in or occupy the completed
structure.

- 1-

40
Unfortunately, during construction the frequency of structural failure and the
general risk of death is much higher than later during the service life of the
completed permanent structure. Indeed, construction workers are much more likely
to be killed at work than other workers (ARC 2001, HSE 2002).

In part, this situation might be addressed, and OH&S Regulations satisfied, if

formwork design rules were as reliable as the design rules governing normal
structures. Such an objective is consistent with the purpose of a formwork Standard
and thus became one of the primary objectives in writing AS 3610.0:2003.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NEW DESIGN RULES

To ensure the probability of formwork failing is not any greater than that of normal
structures failing required taking account of aspects peculiar to formwork that were
detrimental to structural reliability. Aspects such as: the nature of and working
conditions on site; rapid construction techniques; lack of connectivity; multiple use;
additional imperfections; and differences in the quality of design, design
documentation, design verification and site supervision.

These issues are addressed in some of the following changes in AS 3610.0:2003.

• The introduction of formwork importance levels.
• A greater emphasis on design verification.
• A new serviceability limit state for multiple use equipment.
• Modifying existing and introducing new combinations of actions.
• Robustness requirements were introduced.
• Where data was available, new design rules were calibrated to past Australian
and current international practice, as well as target reliability indices.
• The introduction of new requirements that designers explicitly take account of
the action effects of load redistribution.
• New clauses requiring the taking account of the detrimental effects of
eccentricity of actions, angular changes and eccentricity at joints, as well as
the additional member out-of-straightness permitted in the Standard.
• Guidance on reshoring stripping times and shore loads.
To ensure the intent and application of the design rules is clear, in conjunction with
AS 3610.0:2003 Standards Australia will publish a Formwork Design Handbook.
The Handbook will provide commentary and guidance on the Standard, as well as
design examples. Subsequently, additional Standards AS 3610 Parts 1 to 4 will be
published. These documents will set out specific requirements for testing
adjustable props, modular shoring, formwork frames and form ties.

Many of the issues addressed in AS 3610.0:2003 are not peculiar to formwork but
common to other temporary structures; therefore, the methods adopted should also
be of interest to those involved in the design of scaffolding, tilt-up panel bracing,
and temporary grandstands.

Formwork Importance Levels

To help ensure that formwork in different situations achieves the appropriate degree
of reliability, AS 3610.0:2003 introduces the concept of formwork importance

- 2-
41
levels. This follows the philosophy adopted in AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural
design actions Part 0: General principles (SA 2002).
Table 2 is similar to the guidance provided in AS 3610.0:20003 and is intended to help
select the appropriate importance level for formwork in different situations. Where there
is a choice, or doubt, between importance levels, the highest importance level applies.
TABLE 2 Importance level for formwork in different situations
Importance Consequence of failure Situations
Level
I Formwork, whose failure Formwork to the sides of shallow footings and slabs.
poses a risk to few people
Formwork for the side of small walls and columns, up
and has small or negligible to 2 m high.
economic, social or
environmental Horizontal formwork that supports concrete whose
consequences soffit is less than 3 m above the lowest surrounding
ground level and whose plan area is less than 16 m2 ,
providing the concrete to be placed has a volume of
not more than 2.5 m3.
Formwork in areas where access is prevented, such
that few people would be put at risk in the event of its
failure.
When construction sites have been vacated*.
II Formwork not in other All formwork not in other Importance Levels.
Importance Levels
III Formwork, whose failure Formwork on the perimeter of high-rise buildings in
poses a risk to people in populated areas.
crowds or has great
Formwork lifted over busy streets.
economic, social or
environmental Bridge formwork spanning over major arterial roads.
consequences. Formwork in environmentally sensitive areas.
Suspended or cantilever formwork, e.g. formwork
supported off cantilever needles, climbform, slipform,
jumpform, etc
Formwork that would otherwise fall into the Medium
category, and whose:
NOTE:mode of failure is sudden and without
warning; or
NOTE:design, construction or materials are new,
novel or unusual.

Importance levels I, II and III are comparable with importance levels 1, 2 and 3 in
AS/NZS 1170.0, respectively. The chosen formwork importance level can be used
to select the appropriate annual probability of exceedence for environmental
actions. A soon to be published Amendment to AS/NZS 1170.0 will set out annual
probabilities of exceedence for the shorter design working life typical of formwork
structures.

- 3-
42
Design Verification

In practice, most formw ork is “designed” by persons who through experience have
gained a basic understanding of the design and construction of formwork. Rarely
have they any formal qualification or is the design documented. In contrast, AS
3610 – 1995 requires that all formwork to have documentation. Prior to concrete
placement, OH&S Regulations require that formwork is inspected and certified that
it complies with AS 3610. It is unclear how this is achieved given the dearth of
formwork documentation.

On the other hand, qualified and experienced engineers who could competently
design and document formwork are hard to find. Even the major formwork
suppliers employ very few qualified and experienced engineers. Add to this the
concerns raised by recent research (Pallet, Burrow et al. 2001) where the authors
interviewed the chief engineers from major formwork suppliers, formwork
managers and senior design engineers from major contractors. The purpose of the
interview was to determine how formwork designers analyse the stability of their
falsework. Pallet et al concluded that, at all levels of the industry, there is a lack of
understanding of the fundamentals and basic principles involved in achieving stable
falsework and the main reason why collapses of falsewor k are not more frequent is
because they are under-utilised in terms of capacity.

To put this into perspective, in terms of permanent construction this would be

equivalent to builders “designing” and building structures without specifications or
drawings. To ensure safety, once completed, some buildings would be inspected
and certified by persons with a lack of understanding of the fundamentals and basic
principles of structural stability.

Implicitly, AS 3610.0:2003 acknowledges that insisting that qualifie d persons

design all formwork is impractical. However, it attempts to improve the reliability
of formwork by specifying the obligation to document and competence needed to
verify the formwork design prior to erection. In this regard, formwork importance
levels provide a useful framework for specifying the appropriate level of rigour.

To permit the design to be verified, constructed and inspected prior to use, AS

3610.0:2003 makes formwork documentation mandatory for formwork in
Importance Levels II or III and optional for formwork in Importance Level I. For
each importance level, the obligation for design verification and the competency of
the persons involved is set out in a similar manner to Table 2.

TABLE 1 Formwork Design Verification – Obligation and Competency

Importance Formwork design verification
Level
Obligation Competency
*
I Optional Basic
II Mandatory Qualified
III Mandatory Independent

- 4-
43
Serviceability Limit States for Multiple Use Formwork

In general, for multiple-use formwork to remain serviceable it is important that

yielding does note occur at serviceability limit states. This is not a new concept but
it was omitted in AS 3610 – 1995. In particular, two areas of concern arise, i.e.
threaded steel form ties and steel ply bearing. In each case, AS 4100 – 1998 Steel
Structures (SA 1998) permits plastic behaviour at ultimate limit states, which in
itself is not a problem, except that the ratio of ultimate/serviceability actions is
often lower in formwork compared to normal structures.

Usually, form ties are fabricated from high strength steel and yielding at
serviceability limit states is not an issue. On the other hand, hole elongation is a
more serious problem. Commonly, formwork shores are fabricated from steel
circular hollow sections. Height adjustment is achieved by telescoping close fitting
sections, which are connected by a shear pin. The ubiquitous “Acrow” prop and
tilt-up panel braces use this arrangement. If these members were designed in
accordance with AS 4100, at ultimate limit states hole elongations up to 60% could
be expected (Bridge, Sukkar et al. 2002). Hole elongation in formwork shores is
undesirable because it contributes to unanticipated load redistribution. To avoid
this, AS 3610.0:2003 limits ply-bearing stresses at serviceability limit states.

New Combinations of Actions

Almost half of all formwork failures occur during concrete placement (Hadipriono
and Wang 1986) . For horizontal formwork, AS 3610 – 1995 followed the
permissible stress tradition of treating the weight of concrete (Gc) as a dead load.
Accordingly, it attracted a partial load factor of 1.25, as shown in Equations 1 and
2.

S * = 1.25(G+Gc )+1.5(Quv +M) (1)

S * = 1.25(G+Gc )+1.0Qc (2)

In Equations 1 and 2:

S * represents a design action effect;

G represents the weight of the formwork;
Gc represents the weight of the concrete (including an allowance for
reinforcement);
Quv is an imposed action of 1.0 kN/m2 for the weight of workmen and their
equipment;
M is an imposed action for the weight of stacked materials; and
Qc is an allowance for the localised mounding of concrete of 3.0 kN/m2 over a
square area of 1.6 m x 1.6 m at any location and zero over the remainder.

In AS 3610.0:2003, Equations 3 and 4 replace Equations 1 and 2.

Ed = 1.2(G+Gc )+1.5(Qv +M) (3)

- 5-
44
 Ed = 1.35(G+G c) (4)

In Equations 3 and 4, the new terms are:

Ed represents a design action effect (new notation)

Qv is an imposed action of 2.0 kN/m2 for the weight of workmen and their
equipment;

The new combinations reflect the same partial load factors and combinations of
actions introduced in AS/NZS 1170.0:2002. The addition of Equation 4 is
important because it increases the reliability of formwork supporting thicker
concrete where concrete weight dominates. The omission of Equation 2 simplifies
design and is supported by research that suggests an imposed action of 2.0 kN/m2 is
adequate to compensate for the effects of concrete placement and mounding.

Robustness

Investigations into formwork falsework failures consistently report that inadequate

bracing and a lack of connectivity are primary causes of collapse. Accordingly,
authorative references recommend that formwork be designed to resist a minimum
horizontal load equivalent to 2.0 to 2.5% the vertical design load ACI 347R (ACI
2001) and BS 5975 (BS 1996). Thus it is not surprising that AS 3610 – 1995 has
been criticised for its failure to provide for similar minimum levels of lateral
stability.

Somewhat by default, this has been addressed by the minimum robustness

requirements introduced in AS 1170.0:2002. Specifically, structural members and
connections are required resist lateral actions of 2.5% and 5.0% of G + ψcQ,
respectively. For formwork, given its inherent susceptibility to progressive
collapse, these provisions have been reproduced in AS 3610.0:2003.

Out-of-Plumb Erection

AS 3610.0:2003, as did its predecessor, permits formwork assemblies to be erected

with column inclinations up to 1 in 200 out-of-plumb. However, AS 3610 – 1995
omitted to take account of detrimental effects such an imperfection has on stability.
This oversight is addressed by new design rules that take account of the effects of
out-of-plumb erection by the application of a notional horizontal action equal to
1.0% of the vertical design actions.

Load Redistribution

Of particular concern to Committee BD43 was the knowledge that researchers who
have measured the loads in formwork shores consistently report that, during
concrete placement (when almost half of all formwork failures occur), the actual
load in formwork shores differs from predictions and that international practice
tends to underestimation. Concerns were heightened by preliminary investigations
(Ferguson 2001) that found current Australian limit states methods appear less
conservative than international practice.

- 6-
45
The cause of the disparity between the actual and predicted load in formwork shores
is unclear. The most likely cause is the failure of current practice to take account of
the differential stiffness of shores and their foundation, as well as neglecting the
presence of small gaps between the underside of bearers and the top of the shores.
Although as ye t unproven, it could be expected that the action effects in the bearers
will also differ from predictions. This phenomena may also explain discrepancies
measured in the load in form ties in vertical formwork.

Based on actual measurements of the load in formwork shores, subsequent

investigations established that, except for shores supporting thin concrete slabs,
current AS 3610 – 1995 design loads (Equations 1 and 2) appear less reliable and do
not achieve widely accepted target safety indices of 2.5 to 3.5 (Ferguson and Bridge
2001). These shortcomings are depicted in Figure 1, which compares the reliability
of AS 3610 – 1995 design loads with past Australian practice AS 1509 (SAA 1974)
as well as American (ACI 2001) and British (BS 1996) practice.

4.5
AS 1509
4.0 ACI 347
BS 5975
3.5
AS 3610 (Eqn 1)
β

3.0 AS 3610 (Eqn 2)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40

Concrete thickness, t (m)

Figure 1: A comparison of the reliability of current Australian limit states practice

with past Australian and current international permissible stress practice.

As a result, Committee BD43 issued Amendment No 1 to AS 3610 – 1995 (SA

2003). This Amendment introduced a global for primary members, which were
defined as ‘framing members whose failure could result in collapse’. Likewise, AS
3610.0:2003 introduces a factor of 1.25 to take account of the effects of
unanticipated load redistribution in members whose failure could result in collapse
of the formwork. The reduction in value from 1.3 to 1.25 reflects the increased
reliability of Equations 3 and 4.

Imperfections

Prior to 1990, the capacity of all formwork shores was established by testing using a
factor of safety of 2.5 for formwork frames and 3.0 for props. Formwork designers

- 7-
46
assumed that the factor of safety was sufficient to take account of any minor
imperfections. Thus, perhaps it is understandable that the most controversial and
most often criticised aspect of AS 3610–1995 is its requirement to explicitly take
account of eccentricity of actions and additional out-of-straightness. However, such
criticism fails to consider that: AS 3610 permits the capacity of shores to be
determined by either calculation or testing; neglecting even small eccentricities
leads to a significant overestimate of shore capacity; AS 3610 permits the use of
formwor k shores with an out-of-straightness of up to L/300 compared with L/1000
in AS 1509; and that under the testing provisions in AS 3610, the factor of safety
for formwork shores if often less than 2.0.

In reality, due to the nature and conditions of working on construction sites, as well
as erection procedures, accidental or unintentional end eccentricities are likely to
occur. In addition, during their working life, formwork shores sustain damage:
accidentally; from overload; and due to normal wear and tear during dismantling,
handling, transportation and re-erection. As a result of this damage, the members
have an additional out-of-straightness over and above that resulting from the initial
fabrication. The presence of these imperfections introduces bending moments that
significantly reduce the axial capacity of formwork shores.

Investigations into the influence of such imperfections suggest that relaxing the
permitted out-of-straightness from L/1000 to L/300 reduces axial capacity of
formwork shores by approximately 10% (Ferguson and Bridge 2001). In addition,
the authors suggest that end eccentricities of a magnitude commonly encountered on
sites may reduce the shore capacity by as much as half. However, these detrimental
effects reduce with increasing slenderness.

Obviously, the presence of eccentricities and additional out-of-straightness must be

taken into account. Accordingly, this is reflected in the requirements of AS
3610.0:2003. To address concerns of the complexity of this task, the Formwork
Handbook will include a simple design procedure that enables each of these
imperfections to be taken account of explicitly.

Reshoring

Reshoring involves the complete strip or relaxation of large areas of the soffit
formwork followed by the immediate installation or resetting of adjustable shores.
It is a technique favoured by formwork contractors as it reduces the load in the
shores when compared with procedures that involve the use of undisturbed supports
or backpropping. Reshoring also reduces the maximum load a slab must carry
during construction by causing slabs at an early age to accept loads of a greater
magnitude. The Commentary to AS 3610 – 1995 warns that this is a hazardous
operation and AS 3610–1995 did not provide any guidance on reshoring other than
it requires close attention to the early development of concrete strength.
Interestingly, post-tensioning can have a similar effect to reshoring.

Recent research that measured the load in formwork shores and reshores during the
construction of a flat slab structure found that a much larger proportion of the load
than predicted was supported by the uppermost slab and a lower proportion of was
transmitted to lower slabs by the reshores (Beeby 2000). The disparity was thought
to be due to errors induced by two basic assumptions in the Grundy and Kabaila

- 8-
47
method (Grundy and Kabaila 1963). Specifically, by erroneously assuming that
shores are rigid and that the backprops apply a uniform load to the slabs.

Predicting the load distribution in multistorey structures is beyond the scope of a

formwork Standard. However, if these findings are true, then the uppermost slab
supporting the formwork will be significantly overloaded. As any overloading
reduces the reliability of a structure, AS 3610.0:2003 provides informative and
conservative guidance on various possible load distributions that may occur in
multistorey slabs and shores.

CONCLUSIONS

The publication of AS 3610.0:2003 Formwork for concrete Part 0: Ge neral

requirements will herald new formwork design rules. These rules are designed to
ensure that construction workers are not exposed to a greater risk than other
workers. This is achieved by taking account of design aspects peculiar to formwork
and which are detrimental to structural reliability.

The concept of formwork importance levels has been introduced. Importance levels
provide a useful framework for specifying obligations for design documentation and
verification, as well as the competency of the persons performing these tasks. In
addition, formwork importance levels facilitate selection of annual probabilities of
exceedence for ultimate limit states environmental events.

New ultimate limit states combinations of actions are introduced. These have been
calibrated with past Australian practice, current international practice and widely
accepted target reliability indices. In addition, new serviceability limit states are
introduced to ensure formwork that is reused many times continues to perform as
intended.

The reliability of the falsework that supports formwork has been enhanced by the
introduction of notional loads and minimum lateral robustness requirements that
will reduce the risk of progressive collapse and lateral instability. In additio n, AS
3610.0:2003 requires designers take account of load redistribution in primary
members.

For the first time, AS 3610.0:2003 will provide guidance on reshoring. This is in
response to the increasing popularity of this method of shoring and reports in the
literature that a much larger proportion of the load than predicted was supported by
the uppermost slab and a lower proportion of was transmitted to lower slabs by the
reshores. If the latter is true, then the uppermost slab supporting the formwork will
be significantly overloaded.

In conjunction with the new formwork Standard, Standards Australia will publish a
Formwork Design Handbook that will provide commentary and guidance on the
Standard, as well as design examples.

- 9-
48
REFERENCES

ACI (2001). ACI 347R-2001 Guide to Formwork for Concrete. Detroit, American
Concrete Institute.
ARC (2001). Reducing Serious Injury Risk in the Construction Industry.
Melbourne, Monash University Accident Research Centre: 13 pp.
Beeby, A. W. (2000). ECBP Task 4 Report - Early Striking and Backpropping
(Report BR 394). London, BRE.
Bridge, R. Q., T. Sukkar, et al. (2002). “The behaviour and design of structural steel
pins.” .
BS (1996). BS 5975:1996 Code of practice for Falsework. London, British
Standards Institution.
Ferguson, S. A. (2001). “Formwork shore design loads: An evaluation of current
practice.” Concrete 35(No. 4, May): 28-30.
Ferguson, S. A. and R. Q. Bridge (2001). Design Aspects of the Multiple Reuse of
Compression Members in Steel Structures. Aus tralasian Structural Engineering
Conference 2001, Surfer's Paradise, Australia, The Institution of Engineers,
Australia.
Ferguson, S. A. and R. Q. Bridge (2001). Formwork shore design loads: Proposed
New Rules. Concrete 2001, Perth, Concrete Institute of Australia.
Grundy, P. and A. Kabaila (1963). “Construction Loads on Slabs with Shored
Formwork in Multistorey Buildings.” ACI Journal Proceedings 60(No. 12, Dec):
1729-1738.
Hadipriono, F. C. and H.-K. Wang (1986). “Analysis of causes of formwork failures
in concrete structures.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 112:
pp. 112-121.
HSE (2002). Revitalising Health and Safety in Construction. London, Health &
Safety Executive : 53 pp.
Pallet, P. F., M. P. N. Burrow, et al. (2001). Investigations into aspects of
falsework. Birmingham, University of Birmingham: 91 pp.
SA (1998). AS 4100 - 1998 Steel Structures. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2002). Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural
Design Actions Part 0: General principles. Sydney, Standards Australia.
SA (2003). Amendment No. 1 to AS 3610 - 1995 Formwork for concrete. Sydney,
Standards Australia.
SA (2003). AS 3610.0:2003 Formwork for concrete Part 0: General requirements.
Sydney, Standards Australia.
SAA (1974). AS 1509-1974 SAA Formwork Code. Sydney, Standards Association
of Australia.

- 10-
49