University of Southern Queensland

Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences

Analysis of Wall Formwork in the

Australian Multi-storey Construction Industry

A dissertation submitted by

Bradley Carson

in fulfilment of the requirements of

ENG4111 and 4112 Research Project

towards the degree of

Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) (Civil)

Submitted October, 2016
 Abstract

This research paper has two primary objectives. Firstly, to research and evaluate the
relevant Australian standards and regulations for vertical wall formwork. Secondly to
evaluate and analyse the wall formwork used in multi-storey formwork construction. The
primary objectives are established to expand the general understanding of vertical wall
formwork use within the Australian high-rise construction industry, as well as the associated
regulations.

A research case study of 77 Australian high-rise construction sites was deemed the most
suitable initial method for gathering data for this study. A combination of research and
consultation with representatives from building and formwork contractors involved in the
respective construction projects was employed to gather said data. Limit State Analysis and
Finite Element Analysis was then used to evaluate the structural capacity of some the types
of wall formwork identified as being used in the high-rise construction industry.

The project case study was very useful in obtaining information pertaining to formwork use
as well as identifying a specific range of concrete pressures that wall formwork is subjected
to on a high-rise construction site. Because wall formwork systems are predominately pre-
engineered and prefabricated for re-use over and over again, this data is particularly useful
for formwork designers. There is currently a gap in appropriate literature for formwork
designers in the Australian formwork industry. It is hoped that the outputs of this study can
serve as a guide to help cover this gap in regards to wall formwork
 ii

University of Southern Queensland

Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences

ENG4111/ENG4112 Research Project

Limitations of Use

The Council of the University of Southern Queensland, its Faculty of Health,

Engineering & Sciences, and the staff of the University of Southern Queensland, do
not accept any responsibility for the truth, accuracy or completeness of material
contained within or associated with this dissertation.

Persons using all or any part of this material do so at their own risk, and not at the risk
of the Council of the University of Southern Queensland, its Faculty of Health,
Engineering & Sciences or the staff of the University of Southern Queensland.

This dissertation reports an educational exercise and has no purpose or validity

beyond this exercise. The sole purpose of the course pair entitled “Research Project”
is to contribute to the overall education within the student’s chosen degree program.
This document, the associated hardware, software, drawings, and other material set
out in the associated appendices should not be used for any other purpose: if they are
so used, it is entirely at the risk of the user.
 iii

University of Southern Queensland

Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences

ENG4111/ENG4112 Research Project

Certification of Dissertation

I certify that the ideas, designs and experimental work, results, analyses and
conclusions set out in this dissertation are entirely my own effort, except where
otherwise indicated and acknowledged.

I further certify that the work is original and has not been previously submitted for
assessment in any other course or institution, except where specifically stated.

Bradley Carson

0050078297
 iv

Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 2
Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 High Rise Formwork Construction .............................................................................. 3
2.2 Vertical Formwork Design .......................................................................................... 8
2.3 Concrete Pressure on Wall Formwork...................................................................... 23
2.4 Previous Researhes on Concrete Pressure on Wall Formwork ................................ 27
2.5 Australian Codes and Standards ............................................................................... 31
2.6 AS3610 Formwork for Concrete ............................................................................... 34
2.7 Allowable Capacity of Formwork.............................................................................. 39
2.8 Wall Formwork Use and Reuse ................................................................................ 49
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 51
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 51
3.2 Project Case Study .................................................................................................... 54
3.3 Wall Formwork Evaluation ....................................................................................... 57
3.3.1 Vertical Wall Forms for Analysis ........................................................................... 58
3.3.2 Limit State Analysis ............................................................................................... 62
3.3.3 3D Finite Element Analysis.................................................................................... 68
3.3.4 Comparative Analysis ........................................................................................... 70
Results ............................................................................................................................... 71
4.1 EvaluatIon of the Relevant Australian Standards and Regulations for Vertical Wall
Formwork .............................................................................................................................. 72
4.2 Case Study Summary ................................................................................................ 74
4.3 Limit State Analysis Results ...................................................................................... 80
4.4 Finite Element Analysis Results ................................................................................ 89
4.5 Comparative Analysis Summary ............................................................................... 93
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 96
5.1 Scope for Further Study............................................................................................ 98
Reference List ........................................................................................................................... 99
 v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Conventional Wall Forming System (ACI, 2005) ....................................................... 4

Figure 2-2 Typical Slip Form (Peurifoy & Oberlender, 2011)...................................................... 5
Figure 2-3 Crane Lifted Forming Platform System ..................................................................... 6
Figure 2-4 Section Through & Image of a Typical Jump Form System ....................................... 7
Figure 2-5 Typical Vertical Wall Form with Components Identified (Peurifoy & Oberlender,
2011)........................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-6 Elevation and Section on Typical Vertical Wall Form (Peurifoy & Oberlender,
2011)......................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-7 Typical Form Tie (Nemati, 2007) ............................................................................. 11
Figure 2-8 Typical Form Tie with Components Identified (McAdam, 1991) ............................ 11
Figure 2-9 Timber LVL Wall Forms with Studs Supporting Form Face (Carter Holt Harvey
Wood Products Australia, 2012) .............................................................................................. 13
Figure 2-10 Timber LVL Vertical Forms with Wales Supporting Form Face (Carter Holt Harvey
Wood Products Australia, 2012) .............................................................................................. 14
Figure 2-11 Timber LVL Vertical Forms onsite 300 George St Brisbane ................................... 15
Figure 2-12 Steel Frame RHS wall forms within jump form at 300 George St Brisbane .......... 16
Figure 2-13 Peri Modular Panel Wall Formwork (Peri, 2016) .................................................. 18
Figure 2-14 Aluminium modular panel form onsite at Abian Brisbane.................................... 18
Figure 2-15 Manufactured Modular Panel Forms onsite at 320 Hay St Perth ......................... 19
Figure 2-16 Stay in Place Forms – Precast Concrete Panels serving as Column Forms (ACI,
2005)......................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2-17 Typical Construction joint (McAdam, 1991).......................................................... 21
Figure 2-18 Typical Construction Joint with Components Identified (McAdam, 1991) ........... 21
Figure 2-19 Progressive Reduction in Lateral Concrete Pressure (McAdam, 1991)................. 24
Figure 2-20 Concrete Pressure Envelope (Barnes & Johnstone, 2004) .................................... 25
Figure 2-21 Corrugations Due to Over Deflection of Formwork (McAdam, 1991) .................. 37
Figure 2-22 Notation for Analysis of Plywood (AS1170.1) ....................................................... 40
Figure 3-1 Research Scheme .................................................................................................... 52
Figure 3-2 Immersion Concrete Vibration (McAdam, 1991) .................................................... 56
Figure 3-3 Steel Frame RHS Wall Forms within Jump Form at 300 George St Brisbane .......... 58
Figure 3-4 Timber LVL Wall Forms onsite 300 George St Brisbane .......................................... 59
 vi

Figure 3-5 Peri Modular Panel Forms within Jump Form at Crown Towers Project Perth WA60
Figure 3-6 Ischebeck Aluminium Panel Forms (Ischebeck Titan, 2016) ................................... 61
Figure 3-7 Analytical Model...................................................................................................... 63
Figure 3-8 Wall Formwork Arrangement for Analysis .............................................................. 64
Figure 3-9 Steel RHS Conventional Wall Form modelled in AutoCAD Inventor ....................... 69
Figure 4-1 Distribution of Buildings Types in Case Study ......................................................... 74
Figure 4-2 Mean Pour Height for Building Type ....................................................................... 75
Figure 4-3 Average Maximum Concrete Pressure for Building Type ....................................... 75
Figure 4-4 Maximum Hydrostatic Concrete Pressure at each High-rise Project ...................... 77
Figure 4-5 Wall Formwork Systems used across High-rise Construction Sites Surveyed......... 78
Figure 4-6 Line Load Diagram on 17mm Plywood Sheathing................................................... 80
Figure 4-7 Line Load Diagram on RHS Horizontal Waling......................................................... 83
Figure 4-8 Line Load Diagram on RHS Vertical Studs ............................................................... 86
Figure 4-9 280 kNm Hydrostatic Pressure Envelope used in FEA............................................. 89
Figure 4-10 RHS Wall Form Principal Stress Contour from FEA ............................................... 90
Figure 4-11 RHS Wall Form Principal Stress Contour Rear Elevation ....................................... 91
Figure 4-12 RHS Wall Form Displacements Caused by 280kNm Hydrostatic Pressure
Envelope ................................................................................................................................... 92
 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 ACI Chemistry Coefficients, CC (Hurd, 2005) ............................................................ 29

Table 2-2 ACI Unit Weight Coefficients, CW (Hurd, 2005) ....................................................... 29
Table 2-3 Formwork Design & Certification Requirements (Workplace Health and Safety
Queensland, 2016) ................................................................................................................... 32
Table 2-4 Formwork Inspection Requirements (Workplace Health and Safety Queensland,
2016)......................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 2-5 Values for Concrete Coefficient C2 (AS3610 1995) .................................................. 35
Table 2-6 Vertical formwork deflection limits (AS3610.1 2010) .............................................. 38
Table 2-7 Capacity Factor for Structural Timber (AS1170.1).................................................... 41
Table 2-8 Modification Factor k1 for Duration of Load (AS1170.1) .......................................... 41
Table 2-9 Moisture Content Factor k19 (AS1170.1) .................................................................. 41
Table 2-10 Characteristic Values for Structural Plywood (AS1170.1) ...................................... 42
Table 2-11 Assembly Factor g19 for Structural Plywood (AS1170.1) ....................................... 42
Table 2-12 Partial Seasoning Factor k4 for Timber (AS1170.1)................................................. 44
Table 2-13 Capacity Factor for Structural Steel (AS4100 1998) ............................................... 48
Table 4-2 Statistical Analysis of Concrete Pressure Data ......................................................... 76
Table 4-3 Statistical Analysis of Formwork Re-use data........................................................... 79
Table 4-4 Maximum Permissible Concrete Pressure for Wall Formwork Systems .................. 93
Table 4-1 Case Study Data ..................................................................................................... 103
 1

Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND
Concrete formwork is a temporary structure used on construction projects. Formwork
provides temporary support to freshly cast concrete until the concrete cures enough so that
the imposed loads can be carried by the concrete structure itself. Formwork is basically a
mould for concrete. Formwork can either be incorporated as a permanent part of the design
or be removed after the concrete has reached a desired strength. Formwork can represent
up to 60 percent of the overall cost of the concrete structure (Hurd, 2005). Savings can be
achieved through the continual reuse of the formwork throughout the construction of a
project.

There are many types of formwork available in the market for use depending on the
application and location of use. The two most common types of vertical wall formwork used
in the Australian high rise construction industry are traditional timber LVL (Laminated
Veneer Lumber) wall forms and steel RHS (Rectangular Hollow Section) wall forms. Timber
formwork typically consists of plywood sheathing, with timber members placed as studs and
wales on the back of the formwork connected with bolts and screws to form a frame. Steel
RHS formwork consist of plywood or metal sheathing on a welded steel RHS frame. Both
types of wall forms are prefabricated offsite with the steel RHS alternative the most labour
intensive and costly.

The wall form work used in high-rise construction is cycled and used over and over again
during the construction of a project. The wall forms can often remain onsite in the weather
for up to 12 months over the construction phase of a high-rise tower. Because of this the
more expensive steel RHS wall forms are favoured on larger scale projects because of their
longer life cycle over the traditional timber LVL alternative.
 2

1.2 OBJECTIVES
In this study, there are two primary objectives and five secondary objectives. The primary
objectives are established to expand the general understanding of vertical formwork use
within the Australian high-rise construction industry, as well as the associated regulations.
The primary objectives established are:

1. Research and evaluate the relevant Australian standards and regulations for vertical
wall formwork
2. Evaluate the wall formwork used in the Australian high-rise construction industry.

The secondary objectives established in support of the primary objectives are:

1. Establish the typical use cycle of vertical wall forms

2. Identify the types of wall formwork used in the Australian high-rise construction
industry
3. Develop a greater understanding of the lateral concrete pressures that occur in wall
formwork within the Australian high-rise construction industry.
4. Evaluate the structural capacity of the different types of wall formwork used in the
Australian high-rise construction industry.
5. Compare the different types of wall formwork used in multistorey formwork
construction in Australia.

Due to the delay in the release of an update of Australian Standard AS3610 covering
formwork design and the issues stopping the release of the proposed Formwork Designers
Handbook by the Concrete Institute of Australia there is currently a gap in appropriate
literature for formwork designers in the Australian formwork industry. It is hoped that the
outputs of this study can serve as a guide to help cover this gap in regards to vertical wall
formwork.
 3

Literature Review

2.1 HIGH RISE FORMWORK CONSTRUCTION

Reinforced concrete construction is by far the most popular method of constructing high-rise
buildings in Australia today. Over eighty percent of tall buildings over twenty stories tall are
constructed in this way. Modern concrete technology has provided concrete mixes with
properties which can be pumped with ease to the uppermost floors of tall buildings without
clogging hoses and yet still give the properties required for strong, serviceable and durable
building structures (SRIA, 2016). Modern concreting methods including the use of
prefabricated reinforcement cages and precast concrete elements have enabled high rise
structures to be built with increasing speed. The 47-storey Telecom Corporate building in
Melbourne was constructed in record time with an average floor to floor cycle in its office
areas of only 3 days (SRIA, 2016).

“Reinforced concrete framing systems have been proven to be the most economical form of
construction for medium- to high-rise buildings, in Australia” (SRIA, 2016). This can be
attributed to the following:

• The fluid nature of reinforced concrete makes changes in structural dimension,

shape and direction straightforward. Service penetrations through floor slabs,
beams, walls and columns can be easily accommodated.

• It allows follow-up work from other trades such as building fit out to begin the
minute formwork is removed.

• Reinforced concrete is fire-resistant, so there are no delays waiting for the structure
to be fire-proofed.

• The Steel Reinforcement Institute of Australia’s research has shown that reinforced
concrete buildings will usually have a significantly reduced floor-to-floor height in
comparison to structural steel buildings averaging 420mm less per floor.
 4

Vertical forming systems are those used to form the vertical supporting elements of the
structure (i.e. columns, walls). There are a number of different vertical forming systems used
in the Australian high rise construction industry. These include: conventional, crane lifted
platforms, slip forms, and jump forms (Peurifoy & Oberlender, 2011).

Conventional forming systems rely on the site tower crane to lift prefabricated vertical wall
forms into their pouring position on top of the concrete slab. The slab intern acts as a
platform so that the wall form can be accessed by workers to align, secure the forms in place
and fit reinforcing steel prior to the concrete pour. The most common procedure is to fasten
a base plate to the slab with fasteners or concrete nails (ACI, 2005).

Figure 2-1 Conventional Wall Forming System (ACI, 2005)

 5

Slip forms place concrete by extrusion. The concrete is placed in the forms, which at the
same time is being jacked vertically, extruding the concrete, in the shape of the form. The
movement of the forms is slow enough for concrete to gain the strength to keep its shape
and support its weight. Vertical slip forms are usually moved by jacks riding on smooth steel
rods in the concrete. The continuous process is carried on, filling and moving the forms
upward, often 24 hours a day until the structure is complete. The working deck, concrete
supply hoppers, and finishers platforms are carried by the moving formwork (ACI, 2005).

Figure 2-2 Typical Slip Form (Peurifoy & Oberlender, 2011)

 6

Jump forms are used where no floor is available on which to support the wall formwork, or
most commonly in high-rise construction where the wall and columns proceed ahead of the
floor slab. Jump forms use the same prefabricated vertical wall forms as a conventional
system. The form is “cycled” that is, filled with concrete, stripped, and then jumped to the
next level after the concrete is set (ACI, 2005). The jump forms provide built in working
platforms to allow workers to access the forms, place reinforcing steel, pour the concrete
and concrete finishing. Jump forms are electrically or hydraulically self-climbing. Used
correctly they minimise the number of pieces to be handled by the site tower crane and
simplify the task of resetting the wall forms which in turn saves considerable time.
Crane lifted platforms are essentially the same as jump forms in that they proceed ahead of
the floor slab and provide working platforms which simplify the task of resetting the forms.
However, as the name suggests instead of being self-climbing like jump forms they are lifted
in between cycles by the site tower crane.

Figure 2-3 Crane Lifted Forming Platform System

 7

Figure 2-4 Section Through & Image of a Typical Jump Form System
 8

2.2 VERTICAL FORMWORK DESIGN

Size, shape, and alignment of concrete walls and columns depend on accurate construction
of the vertical forms. Vertical formwork needs to be strong enough to handle construction
loads safely and stiff enough to maintain its shape under full load. Forms need to be
constructed to withstand handling and reuse without losing their dimensional integrity
(Nemati, 2007). Formwork must be rigid enough under construction loads to maintain the
designed shape and alignment of the concrete element. If the forms deflect excessively,
deformations in the concrete surface may require expensive chipping and grinding. If the
forms move out of place, the misalignment can destroy the integrity of the structure or
affect installation of the structural frame or the building’s facade (ACI, 2005). The quality of
the surface finish of the concrete is directly affected by the forms and form material. Poor
formwork design or workmanship will lead to form concrete leakage and rough finishes. If
the forms do not produce the specified finish, considerable corrective work such as grinding,
patching, rubbing, or coating may be required (ACI, 2005).

Forms and forming systems usually fall into one of four categories (ACI, 2005):

• Conventional job-built forms for one-time use. Form components are assembled
piece by piece on the jobsite.
• Prefabricated conventional forms that can be reused.
• Manufactured modular panel forms, provided by a formwork supplier as a total
system.
• Special form systems for specific situations or structures.

Prefabricated, reusable form panels have become standard items of construction. Ready-
made or contractor-built prefabricated forms are commonly used for wall forming where
multiple floors are being erected. For wall forms, the frame work and sheathing are
preassembled in units small enough to be handled by crane or machinery conveniently (ACI,
2005). Conventional vertical wall forms are made up of the following components:
sheathing, studs, wales and tie rods. Sheathing retains the concrete and is supported by
studs. Studs are supported by wales. The wales are held in place by tension members such as
tie rods (Nemati, 2007).
 9

Figure 2-5 Typical Vertical Wall Form with Components Identified (Peurifoy & Oberlender,
2011)
 10

Figure 2-6 Elevation and Section on Typical Vertical Wall Form (Peurifoy & Oberlender, 2011)

Sheathing is the form face on each side of the wall against which the fresh concrete is
placed. It is typically made up of plywood or steel plate within the Australian formwork
industry. The sheathing provides resistance to the pressure of the freshly placed concrete
(Peurifoy & Oberlender, 2011).

Studs are the members to which the sheathing is attached. They can either be installed
vertically or horizontally. Studs provide support for the sheathing (Peurifoy & Oberlender,
2011). In the Australian form work industry, they are usually made up of 95mm x 47mm
timber LVL’s or 100mm x 50mm steel RHS.

Wales, are usually made up of double 95mm x 47mm timber LVL’s or 100mm x 50mm steel
RHS with a 50mm gap in-between. They are installed on opposite sides of wall forms,
perpendicular to the studs, to hold the studs in position, to ensure good alignment for the
forms, and to receive the form ties. The wales provide support for the studs (Peurifoy &
Oberlender, 2011).

In order to secure concrete forms against the lateral pressure of unhardened concrete, a
tensile unit called a concrete form tie is used (Nemati, 2007). Form ties, with a clamping
 11

device on each end, are installed through the forms to resist the bursting pressure exerted
by the concrete. Some are equipped with devices which enable them to serve as form
spreaders or spacers such as a PVC sleeve which also keep concrete out of the ties thread to
make tie removal easier. Many types and sizes are available, with allowable working
strengths varying from 750kg to 25000kg. Form ties provide support for the wales (Peurifoy
& Oberlender, 2011).

Figure 2-7 Typical Form Tie (Nemati, 2007)

Figure 2-8 Typical Form Tie with Components Identified (McAdam, 1991)
 12

The two most common types of conventional vertical wall formwork used in the Australian
high rise construction industry are traditional timber LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) wall
forms and steel RHS (Rectangular Hollow Section) wall forms. Timber formwork typically
consists of plywood sheathing, with timber members placed as studs and wales on the back
of the formwork connected with bolts and screws to form a frame. Steel RHS formwork
consist of plywood or metal sheathing on a welded steel RHS frame. Both types of wall forms
are prefabricated offsite with the steel RHS alternative the most labour intensive and costly.
The frame work of conventional steel RHS wall forms used in the Australian high-rise
construction industry are often designed and configured exactly the same way as the
alternative timber LVL wall forms which are based on design guides provided by the timber
companies such as Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia (see Figure 2-10). As well as
adopting the same frame work design and member spacing the steel forms also adopt steel
member sizes similar to their timber counterpart. Truform specify the use of 95mm x 47mm
LVL in their design guides for their two different vertical wall form assemblies (see Figures 2-
9 & 2-10) and the formwork industry adopt a 100mm x 50mm in the steel equivalent wall
form (see Figure 2-12).

Because of their greater expense steel wall forms are mostly used in large construction
projects or in situations where large number of re-uses of the same form is possible.
Advantages of steel forms over timber forms include (Civil Resources, 2010):

• They are stronger, more durable & have a longer life

• Reuses can be assumed to vary from 100 to 120 compared to timber which varies
from 10 to 12
• Because of bolt able connections steel forms can be installed & dismantled with
greater ease & speed resulting in a saving in labour cost.
• When steel sheathing is used steel forms produce a higher quality exposed concrete
surface. Thus saving in the cost of finishing the concrete surface.
 13

Figure 2-9 Timber LVL Wall Forms with Studs Supporting Form Face (Carter Holt Harvey
Wood Products Australia, 2012)
 14

Figure 2-10 Timber LVL Vertical Forms with Wales Supporting Form Face (Carter Holt Harvey
Wood Products Australia, 2012)
 15

Figure 2-11 Timber LVL Vertical Forms onsite 300 George St Brisbane
 16

Figure 2-12 Steel Frame RHS wall forms within jump form at 300 George St Brisbane
 17

There are now a number of specialty, manufactured forms available that reduce the time
and labour of conventional forming systems. These systems and panels are durable enough
for many reuses. Manufactured modular panel forms are built by assembling a number of
smaller prefabricated panels into one large form (ACI, 2005). They offer three distinct
advantages (ACI, 2005):

• Components can be assembled for almost any size or shape.

• There is less need for skilled labour since almost all cutting, trimming, and fitting are
eliminated
• The same forms can be used and reused as part of a large section and another time
as individual units.

Many accessory panels are available, including small filler and corner units of varying size.
Hardware and ties supplied with form panels vary with different manufacturers. Specialised
patented hardware is a major component of all the panel systems. Three basic types of
panel systems are (ACI, 2005):

• Unframed plywood panels, backed by steel braces with special locking and tying
hardware.
• All-metal panels of plates supported by matching frames. These panels are produced
in both steel and Aluminium. Aluminium panels have the advantage of being
extremely light making them easier to handle with machinery.
• Plywood panels set in a metal frame with metal bracing on the back.
 18

Figure 2-13 Peri Modular Panel Wall Formwork (Peri, 2016)

Figure 2-14 Aluminium modular panel form onsite at Abian Towers Brisbane
 19

Figure 2-15 Manufactured Modular Panel Forms onsite at 320 Hay St Perth
 20

Special forms often referred to as stay-in-place forms become a part of the completed
structure. They are often used for inaccessible locations where it is impractical and
expensive to remove forms (ACI, 2005), or in places where a one off form is required and it’s
too expensive or time consuming to manufacture a conventional form. In some cases, the
stay-in-place form is designed to carry some of the loads for which the structure is designed
(ACI, 2005). These forms are often steel, plastic, laminated fibre or thin precast, pre-stressed
concrete units that are placed on supporting formwork or atop concrete slabs and bonded to
become part of the concrete element. Insulating Concrete Forms (ICF) are stay-in place
forms that are assembled as interlocking blocks or sheets. The ICF units then provide an
insulation to the finished walls (ACI, 2005).

Figure 2-16 Stay in Place Forms – Precast Concrete Panels serving as Column Forms (ACI,
2005)
 21

During the forming of a high-rise building construction joints are needed to divide the total
structure into a number of portions, each of which can be practically formed and poured in
one operation (McAdam, 1991). Usually each floor of a high-rise building dictates the
position of a construction joint with each floor representing a pour. Therefore, pour and
shutter heights vary from one job to another, typically pour heights range from 2.8m up to
4.2m on a high-rise construction project. At the construction joint the wall forms lap onto
the previously poured wall and are clamped with a form tie to create a seal as shown in the
figure below. At the base of a vertical wall form at the junction to a kicker or the previous
wall pour concrete pressures are highest.

Figure 2-17 Typical Construction joint (McAdam, 1991)

Figure 2-18 Typical Construction Joint with Components Identified (McAdam, 1991)
 22

Wall formwork systems are predominately prefabricated for re-use over and over again. The
design guides provided by timber companies such as Truform adopt a one design suits all
approach. As can be seen in the figures 2-10 and 2-11 the spacing of the horizontal wales are
the same for all pour heights with simply more wales added to the top of the wall form to
extend the form for a higher pour. This is also evident with modular panel forming systems,
with more standardised panels added to a form to suit the required poor height. No extra
strength is added to the base of these standardised forming systems where concrete
pressure is at its highest. Because formwork companies adopt this one design suits all jobs
approach for their wall formwork it is important that this design can suit the highest lateral
formwork pressures encountered within the industry. Whyte and Brandis (2010) suggests
that assumptions made concerning fit-for-purpose formwork systems are often inadequately
communicated between relevant parties, with a willingness to make gains from re-use
somewhat skewing the balance between quality, cost saving and time saving. Whyte and
Brandis (2010) also suggest that project cost-saving measures such as reuses of inadequate
wall formwork that leads to formwork failure is self-defeating as the cost saving is inevitably
cancelled out.
 23

2.3 CONCRETE PRESSURE ON WALL FORMWORK

Knowledge of concrete pressure is critical for the economical and safe design of formwork
for concrete construction (Barnes & Johnstone, 2004). Up to 60 percent of the cost of a
completed concrete structure is the cost of the formwork. In order to minimise this cost and
maintain safety, an accurate method of estimating concrete lateral pressures is needed for
the design of vertical concrete formwork such as for walls and columns (Barnes & Johnstone,
2004).

Concrete is a mixture of sand and aggregate that is bonded together by a paste of cement
and water. Admixtures are commonly used in concrete mixes. Additives include liquids,
solids, powders, or chemicals that are added to a concrete mix to change properties of the
basic concrete mixture. They can accelerate or retard setting times, decrease water
permeability, or increase strength, air content, and workability. Admixtures include
pozzolans such as silica flume, blast-furnace slag, and fly ash (Peurifoy & Oberlender, 2011).

The pressure exerted by concrete on formwork is determined primarily by several or all of

the following factors (Peurifoy & Oberlender, 2011):

• Rate of placing concrete in forms

• Temperature of concrete
• Weight or density of concrete
• Cement type or blend used in the concrete
• Method of consolidating the concrete
• Method of placement of the concrete
• Depth of placement
• Height of form

Wet concrete is like water it exerts a lateral pressure which increases with depth. During
placement concrete imposes lateral pressure on the form face of the vertical wall formwork.
Initially the pressure is purely hydrostatic with the pressure increasing with the depth of
fluid concrete (McAdam, 1991). The freshly placed concrete behaves temporarily like a fluid,
producing a hydrostatic pressure that acts laterally on the vertical forms. This lateral
pressure is comparable to full liquid head when concrete is placed full height within the
period required for the concrete to initially set (Nemati, 2007).
 24

With slower rate of placing, concrete at the bottom of the form begins to harden and lateral
pressure is reduced to less than full fluid pressure by the time concreting is completed in the
upper parts of the form. The effective lateral pressure has been found to be influenced by
the weight, rate of placement, temperature of concrete mix, use of retardant admixtures,
and vibration (Nemati, 2007).

As this relaxation in pressure is related to the time for the initial set of the particular
concrete to occur it follows that the faster the concrete is poured the less the pressure will
relax. With a very fast pour which is now quite common, the pressure may remain
hydrostatic throughout the pour (McAdam, 1991). Figure 2-19 below shows this progressive
reduction in pressure as the concrete at the bottom of the form sets.

Figure 2-19 Progressive Reduction in Lateral Concrete Pressure (McAdam, 1991)

 25

Figure 2-20 Concrete Pressure Envelope (Barnes & Johnstone, 2004)

Lateral pressures of fresh concrete impose loads against wall or column forms. As a result of
various studies, several recommended and proposed procedures for empirically estimating
pressures have been developed. Each method assumes that concrete pressure increases
linearly with depth to a maximum value and remains constant thereafter (Barnes &
Johnstone, 2004). These empirical formulas are presented and discussed further in section
2.4. Pressure exerted on formwork can be less than a liquid head as shown in Figure 2-20.
The lower pressure is due to factors including stiffening of the concrete as placement is
proceeding and internal friction of the granular constituents (Barnes & Johnstone, 2004).
The ability to change from a semi-liquid or plastic to a solid state appears to be the result of
two actions within the fresh concrete. The first action is the result of the setting of the
cement paste, which can take a few minutes to a few hours according to concrete properties
and conditions. The second action is the development of internal friction between the
particles of aggregate in the concrete, which restrain them from moving freely past each
 26

other. The magnitude of that friction increases with the loss of water from the concrete
(Peurifoy & Oberlender, 2011). The pressure distribution proposed by most design methods
follows the hydrostatic line to a calculated estimate of the maximum pressure then remains
at this same pressure to the base of the form. The limitations on the use of these equations
has increased as concrete mixtures became more complex through the addition of a variety
of mineral and chemical admixtures. When concrete mix designs or concrete placement
rates do not meet the requirements of these pressure limiting equations, the pressure for
full liquid head should be used in the design of vertical wall formwork (Barnes & Johnstone,
2004).
 27

2.4 PREVIOUS RESEARHES ON CONCRETE PRESSURE ON WALL FORMWORK

(Rodin, 1952) collected and reviewed the published experimental data on the lateral
pressures of concrete against vertical formwork. (Rodin, 1952) presented a rational
explanation of the types of pressure distribution found in practice, and explained why this
pressure is not hydrostatic, except in special circumstances. He also discussed the factors
affecting the lateral pressure such as the rate of concrete placement, the method of placing
the concrete, the consistency and proportions of the mix, the temperature of the concrete,
the rate of setting of the concrete, and the size and shape of the formwork. Rodin concluded
that where external vibrators are used, the full depth of concrete would be fluidized and the
formwork should be designed for full hydrostatic pressure. For internal vibration, he
proposed some formulas and curves to determine the lateral concrete pressures. These
formulas were based on a concrete mix having proportions of 1:2:4 by weight with a slump
of 150 mm at a temperature of 21°C.

(Rodin, 1952) formulas are:

Hmax = 1.63R1/3

Pmax = 23.5 Hmax

Where concrete density is assumed to be 2400 kg/m3; Hmax = head at which maximum
pressure occurs (m); Pmax = maximum lateral pressure (kN/m2); and R = rate of placing
(m/hr).

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) publishes a document called ACI 347 – Guide to
Formwork for Concrete (Civil Engineering, 2016). The ACI collected and analysed the existing
literature and test reports, and then developed design recommendations and formulas for
determining the magnitude and distribution of lateral pressure on concrete formwork. It was
proposed that for design purposes, the lateral pressure envelope should be hydrostatic up to
some limiting value and then constant at the limiting value. The objective of the ACI
Committee 347 was to keep the determination of pressure straightforward with a minimum
of variables and assumptions. The Committee concluded that placement rate, concrete mix
temperature and the effect of vibration are the most important variables to be considered
for wall form pressures (Hurd, 2005). It also introduced weight and chemistry coefficients,
CW and CC, which make it possible to apply the formulas to a variety of mixes and concrete
weights (Hurd, 2005).
 28

“ACI 347 – Guide to Formwork for Concrete” provides formulas for calculating pressure on
wall forms due to the placement of fresh concrete. For concrete mixes with a slump of 7
inches or less, and for a depth of internal vibration of 4 feet or less the following two
equations are provided (Civil Engineering, 2016):

• For forms with a rate of placement of less than 7ft/h and a placement height not
exceeding 14ft the following formula can be used:

P = CW CC [150 + 9000R/T]

• For forms with a placement rate less than 7ft/h where placement height exceeds 14
ft, and for all walls with a placement rate of 7 to 15ft/h the following formula can be
used:

P = CW CC [150 + 43400/T + 2800R/T]

For any conditions that exceed those specified above, the design pressure is calculated
by using the equation for full hydrostatic head:

P = γH.

where:

P = Pressure

γ = Unit weight of the concrete mix

H = Height of concrete placement

CC = Chemistry coefficient, values can be found in Figure ###

CW = Unit weight coefficient, values can be found in Figure ###

R = Rate of placement of concrete measured in feet/hour

T = Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit

 29

Table 2-1 ACI Chemistry Coefficients, CC (Hurd, 2005)

Table 2-2 ACI Unit Weight Coefficients, CW (Hurd, 2005)

 30

The Construction Industry Research Information Association (CIRIA), produced CIRIA Report
108 as a research study to predict concrete lateral pressure. CIRIA Report 108 extended and
improved the method originally provided by CIRIA Report 1 first published in 1965 to cover
concrete using admixtures and blended cements (Clear & Harrison, 1985). Based on onsite
studies conducted on concrete lateral pressure on formwork, CIRIA recommended an
equation for the maximum concrete pressure on formwork. This equation considered some
influencing variables such as vertical form height, rate of rise, concrete temperature at
placing, and the use of admixture and blends or blended cements. The shape of concrete
pressure envelope is the same as that one described by AC1 347. The CIRIA recommended
formulas for maximum concrete pressure on formwork are the following (Clear & Harrison,
1985):

𝜌𝜌
(a) 𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = �𝐶𝐶 √𝑅𝑅 + 𝐶𝐶2 𝐾𝐾�𝐻𝐻 − 𝐶𝐶1 √𝑅𝑅�
100 1

𝜌𝜌ℎ
(b) 𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
100

where

C1 = coefficient (1.0 or 1.5) dependent on the size and shape of formwork;

C2 = coefficient (0.3, 0.45, or 0.6) dependent on the constituent materials of concrete;

y = weight density of concrete;

H = vertical form height (m);

h = vertical pour height (m);

K = temperature coefficient;

R = rate of concrete rise (m/hr);

T = temperature of concrete at placing.

 31

2.5 AUSTRALIAN CODES AND STANDARDS

Australia formwork practice is governed by a state-based regulatory scheme. It has a
legislative approach to governing formwork practice that varies from state-to-state (Whyte
& Brandis, 2010). Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales all have
independent codes of practice for formwork. However, all the state based legislation
stipulate that the design of all formwork systems, both traditional and modular must satisfy
Australian Standards:

• AS3610 – Formwork for concrete (1995)

• AS3600 – Concrete structures (2009)

A comparison between AS3610 and the New South Wales and Queensland codes of practice
indicates differences regulating form workers. Whilst Australian Standard AS3610 is
performance based and describes outcomes, the state codes seek to give practical guidance
on suitable process (Whyte & Brandis, 2010).

Whilst legislative development in formwork practice over the years has been carried out,
Whyte and Brandis (2010) argue that corresponding safety levels might be argued not to
have kept pace. The Australian Formwork Standard, AS3610, was last revised in 1995. In
1997 the Standards Development Committee for Formwork started reviewing AS3610 in an
attempt to keep up with developments and innovation in the industry. In February 2010 the
Development Committee partially republished the standard with the introduction of
AS3610.1-2010 covering ‘Documentation and Surface Finish. Despite draft revisions of
AS3610 focusing on enhancing design guidance of formwork, further amendments to the
standard have yet to be released. While part two of the standard remains undeveloped
Whyte and Brandis (2010) suggests continued development of AS3610 will bring the
standard up to date with current construction practice and ensure suitable guidance and
accountability.

As part of the review into AS3610 a Formwork Design Handbook was drafted by some
members of the Standards Development Committee (Whyte & Brandis, 2010). The
Handbook is intended to overcome the short comings of AS3610, and to introduce and
explain procedures, requirements and methods for the design and construction of formwork
that minimise frequency of formwork failure (Concrete Institute of Australia, 2016).
However, changes in the conditions of contract for Handbook development have stalled
production and the handbook has yet to be released.
 32

Due to the delay in the release of an update of Australian Standard AS3610 covering
formwork design and the issues stopping the release of the proposed Formwork Designers
Handbook there is currently a gap in appropriate literature for formwork designers in the
Australian formwork industry.

The Queensland Formwork Code of Practice (2016) specifies qualification requirements for
vertical formwork design and certification, these can be seen in table 2-3. The code
stipulates that an engineer, such as a suitably qualified civil engineer experienced in
structural design, is responsible for overseeing the safe design and certification of the
complete formwork structure. While this code requires that overseeing the safe design and
certification of formwork systems may only be performed by an engineer, it is recognised
that some design work may be performed by appropriate personnel such as a ‘competent
person’ experienced in formwork design and documentation. Once formwork is in place
onsite verification that the formwork structure complies with the design of the formwork
system must be documented and provided. Table 2-4 provides a list of circumstances and
the required level of qualification required of the person carrying out the formwork
structure inspection.

Table 2-3 Formwork Design & Certification Requirements (Workplace Health and Safety
Queensland, 2016)
 33

Table 2-4 Formwork Inspection Requirements (Workplace Health and Safety Queensland,
2016)
 34

2.6 AS3610 FORMWORK FOR CONCRETE

The Standards Association of Australia publish Formwork for Concrete AS3610. This standard
with its commentary present design and construction requirements for falsework and
formwork of all structure types. It sets out obligations for the design, fabrication, erection
and stripping of formwork, as well as the specification, evaluation and repair of the quality of
the formed concrete surface and the influence of this activity on the design and construction
of an in situ concrete structure (Standards Australia, 1995).

AS3610 stipulates 3 stages of design loads during the construction cycle that need to be
considered when designing formwork:

• Stage 1 – prior to the placement of concrete.

• Stage 2 – during the placement of concrete.
• Stage 3 – after the placement of concrete, until the concrete is able to support the
applied loads.

However, stages 1 and 3 are not quantified in the standard for vertical formwork as they
usually only comprise the loading effects of hoisting, alignment, stripping and storage
(McAdam, 1991). Stage 2 during concrete placement is the critical stage in wall form design
as the concrete placement imposes significant lateral pressure on the form face. Although
some work has been done on the theoretical determination of lateral concrete pressure
from fluid concrete, more accurate results have been obtained from data collected on sites
at actual pours. AS3610 uses the work from an onsite study, CIRIA Report 108 to provide two
formulae for the determination of a design value for maximum lateral concrete pressure on
vertical wall forms (McAdam, 1991).

AS3610 stipulates the maximum lateral pressure exerted by the plastic concrete during stage
2 shall be the smaller of the following two formulae:

𝜌𝜌
(a) 𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
100
�𝐶𝐶1 √𝑅𝑅 + 𝐶𝐶2 𝐾𝐾�𝐻𝐻 − 𝐶𝐶1 √𝑅𝑅�

𝜌𝜌ℎ
(b) 𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
100
 35

where

Pmax = maximum lateral concrete pressure, in kilopascals

ρ = wet density of concrete, in kilograms per cubic metre

C1 is a coefficient dependent on the size and shape of formwork

C1 = 1.5 where both plan width and breadth of the section are less than 2 m

C1 = 1.0 for all other cases

R = rate at which the concrete rises vertically up the form, in metres per hour

C2 = coefficient given for the constituent materials of the concrete (see figure####)

K = temperature coefficient

H = vertical form or concrete discharge height, whichever is the greater, in metres

h = vertical pour height, in metres

T = concrete temperature at placement, in degrees Celsius

Table 2-5 Values for Concrete Coefficient C2 (AS3610 1995)

 36

The formulae stipulated by AS3610 are only accurate where the parameters of the pour can
be stringently controlled. This is because slight changes in concrete temperature and pour
rate can have a significant effect on the maximum lateral pressure exerted on the wall form.
Formwork designers know how little control they have over the method, rate of placement
and temperature of the concrete onsite so in most cases the practice of designing for full
hydrostatic pressure is adopted (McAdam, 1991). However, there are still occurrences where
full fluid pressure on the wall form can be exceeded, these include:

• When the concrete pump nozzle is immersed in the fluid concrete

• Grout injected concrete
• Pumping the concrete into the formwork from the base
• Deep vibration of the concrete
• External vibration of the concrete

To account for these factors it is recommended that the calculated full hydrostatic head be
increased by 50% (McAdam, 1991).

AS3610 stipulates that formwork components or assemblies shall be analysed and designed
with one of the following procedures:

• Limit state procedures, in accordance with the appropriate material structural

design code.
• Permissible stress procedures, in accordance with the appropriate material
structural design code.

Clause 3.3.4 of AS3610.1 2010 stipulates the allowable deflection of formwork. There are
five classes of concrete surface finish prescribed in AS3610.1, with each class of finish
designated a maximum limit respectively. The permitted deflection is related to the specific
span with a maximum of 2mm or 3mm for classes 1 and 2 concrete finish respectively. Table
2-6 species the tolerances for form face deflection for the 5 classes of concrete surface
finish. The total formwork system deformation comprises three factors which may be
cumulative: form face deflection, deflection of the formwork framing, and errors in
formwork fabrication or construction (McAdam, 1991).
 37

Figure 2-21 Corrugations Due to Over Deflection of Formwork (McAdam, 1991)

 38

Table 2-6 Vertical formwork deflection limits (AS3610.1 2010)

 39

2.7 ALLOWABLE CAPACITY OF FORMWORK

The allowable capacity of formwork for the purpose of this study was carried out using the
limit state procedures in accordance with the appropriate material structural design code
(Standards Australia, 1995). (Gorenko, et al., 2012) defines the ‘limit state of a structure’ as a
term that describes the state of a loaded structure on the verge of becoming unfit for use.
This may occur as a result of failure of one or more members, overturning instability,
excessive deformations, or the structure in any way ceasing to fulfil the purpose for which it
was intended. The first step in verifying the limit state capacity of a structure is to determine
the most adverse combination of actions that may occur in the lifetime of the structure.
With actions determined, the next stage in the design procedure is to determine the internal
action effects in the structure. With regard to the strength limit state used in Australian
material design codes, the following inequality must be satisfied: Design action effect ≤
Design capacity or resistance (Gorenko, et al., 2012).

After calculating the lateral concrete pressure using the appropriate formula, as stipulated
by AS3610 Formwork for Concrete the next step is to check the suitability of a formwork
system under the calculated design load. For any given vertical formwork system, the
allowable bending stress, shear and deflection are checked to ensure that the design load on
the formwork, as calculated using the pressure formulae, is below the allowable capacity of
the wall formwork assembly and its individual components.

Wall formwork needs to be strong enough to handle the calculated loads safely and stiff
enough to maintain its shape under full load. Vertical wall forms are made up of the
following components: sheathing, studs, wales and tie rods. Sheathing retains the concrete
and is supported by studs. Studs are supported by wales. The wales are held in place by
tension members such as tie rods. Other than tie rods, the other components of the
formwork structurally behave like beams. Beam formulas are used to analyse the formwork
components (Nemati, 2007).

The allowable capacity of formwork, i.e., the allowable maximum bending stress, shear
stress, and deflection, is calculated using the relevant Australian material structural design
code for each individual component in the formwork frame. Timber components are
governed by AS1720.1 Timber Structures (2010). Steel components are governed by As4100
Steel Structures (1998).
 40

AS1720.1 Timber Structures Clause 5.4.2 states that the design capacity of plywood in
bending (Md,p) for strength limit state, shall satisfy the following:

Md,p ≥ Mp*

where

Md,p = φ k1 k19 g19 f ′b Zp

Mp* = design action effect for flatwise bending of plywood (see Figure 2-22)

φ = capacity factor of plywood (see Table 2-7)

k1 = modification factor for duration of load (see Table 2-8)

k19 = modification factor for moisture condition (see Table 2-9)

g19 = modification factor for plywood assembly (see Table 2-11)

f ′b = characteristic value in bending (see Table 2-10)

Zp = section modulus of plywood = Ip/yp

Ip = second moment of area of parallel plies whose grain direction is parallel to the span

yp = distance from the neutral axis to the extreme fibre of the outermost parallel ply

Figure 2-22 Notation for Analysis of Plywood (AS1170.1)

 41

Table 2-7 Capacity Factor for Structural Timber (AS1170.1)

Table 2-8 Modification Factor k1 for Duration of Load (AS1170.1)

Table 2-9 Moisture Content Factor k19 (AS1170.1)

 42

Table 2-10 Characteristic Values for Structural Plywood (AS1170.1)

Table 2-11 Assembly Factor g19 for Structural Plywood (AS1170.1)

 43

AS1720.1 Timber Structures Clause 5.4.3 states the design capacity of plywood in beam
shear (Vd,p) for strength limit state shall satisfy the following:

Vd,p ≥ Vp*

where

Vd,p = φ k1 k19 g19 f ′s As

Vp*= design action effect for shear normal to the face of the plywood panel (see Figure 2-22)

f ′s = characteristic value in panel shear (see Table 2-10)

As = 2/3 (b t); (where b = breadth of plywood, t = full thickness of plywood)

AS1720.1 Timber Structures Clause 5.4.4 states the design capacity of plywood in bearing
(Nd,p) for strength limit state shall satisfy the following:

Nd,p ≥ Np*

where

Nd,p = φ k1 k19 g19 f ′p Ap

Np* = design action effect for bearing normal to the face of the plywood panel (see Figure 2-
22)

f ′p = characteristic value in compression normal to the plane of the panel (see Table 2-10)

Ap = bearing area under the design loads

When structural LVL’s are designed with the grain of the veneers orientated in the
longitudinal direction AS1720.1 Timber Structures Clause 8.2 stipulates that structural design
with structural LVL shall be the same as sawn timber. To analyse the capacity of LVL timber
studs and wales used in timber wall forms AS1720.1 Timber Structures Clause 3.2 is to be
followed.
 44

AS1720.1 Timber Structures Clause 3.2.1 denotes the design capacity in bending (Md) of un-
notched timber LVL beams, for the strength limit state, shall satisfy the following:

Md ≥ M*

where

Md = φ k1 k4 k6 k9 k12 f’b Z

M* = design action effect in bending

φ = capacity factor (see Table 2-7)

f ’b= characteristic value in bending for the section size

Z = section modulus of beam about the axis of bending (for rectangular beams Zx= bd2/6 and
Zy= db2/6, where b equals the breadth and d equals the depth of the beam).

k1 = modification factor for duration of load (see Table 2-8)

k4= partial seasoning factor (see Table 2-12)

k6= temperature (adopt k6=0.9, conservative)

k9 = modification factor for strength sharing (adopt k9=1, conservative)

k12 = stability factor

Table 2-12 Partial Seasoning Factor k4 for Timber (AS1170.1)

 45

AS1720.1 Clause 3.2.3.2 indicates the stability factor k12 for modification of the characteristic
value in bending shall be given by the following:

• For ρb S1 ≤ 10; k12 = 1.0

• For 10 ≤ ρb S1 ≤ 20; k12 = 1.5 − 0.05 ρb S1
200
• For ρb S1 ≥ 20; 𝑘𝑘12 = (ρb
S1 )2

Where slenderness coefficient S1 is calculated:

• a beam that is loaded along its compression edge and has discrete lateral restraints
at points Lay apart, along the compression edge of the beam

𝑑𝑑 𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 2
𝑆𝑆1 = 1.25 � �
𝑏𝑏 𝑑𝑑

• a beam that is loaded along its compression edge and has a continuous lateral
restraint system along the compression edge of the beam:
𝑑𝑑 𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑏𝑏 2
𝑆𝑆1 = 2.25 ; 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ≤ 64 � �
𝑏𝑏 𝑑𝑑 ρb d

AS1720.1 Timber Structures Clause 3.2.5 denotes the design capacity in shear (Vd) of un-
notched timber LVL beams, for the strength limit state, shall satisfy the following:

Vd ≥ V*

where

Vd = φ k1 k4 k6 f ’s As

V* = design action effect in shear

f ’s = characteristic value in shear

As = shear plane area (for a rectangular beam, As= 2/3(bd), where b equals the breadth and d
equals the depth of the beam).

AS4100 Steel Structures (1998) denotes the two bending moment capacities to be
considered in design as the nominal section moment capacity, and the nominal member
moment capacity. The nominal section moment capacity Ms, refers to the flexural strength
 46

of a cross section. Whilst the member moment capacity refers to the flexural-torsional
capacity of the beam as a whole (Gorenko, et al., 2012).
AS4100 Clause 5.1 specifies that at all sections of the beam bending about the major
principle x axis must satisfy:

Mx*≤ φMsx, and

Mx* ≤ φMbx

where

Mx*= the design bending moment about the x-axis

φ = the capacity factor (see Table 2-13)

Msx = fy Zex (the nominal section moment capacity)

Mbx = αs αm Msx ≤ Msx (the nominal member moment capacity)

fy = yield stress of steel

Zex = the effective section moduli

• For CHS, SHS and RHS sections

AS4100 Clause 5.3.1 stipulates that the member moment capacity Mbx of a beam segment
with full lateral restraint shall be taken as the nominal section moment capacity Msx of the
critical section. Full lateral restraint may be achieved for a beam by: (a) continuous lateral
restraint (Clause 5.3.2.2of AS 4100), or (b) full, partial or lateral restraint provided at
sufficient locations along the beam (Clauses 5.3.2.3 and 5.3.2.4 of AS 4100). The distance
between the locations in (b) is termed the segment length.
 47

Australian standards give guidance not figures for determining deflection limits to satisfy
serviceability limit state. The desirable deflection limit in the members of a vertical wall form
depends on the job specific concrete finish required.

For calculating deflection in simply supported timber members subject to a uniformly

distributed load (Boughton & Crews, 2013) gives the following equation:

5 𝑤𝑤 𝐿𝐿4
𝛿𝛿 = � �𝐽𝐽2 �
384 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸

For calculating deflection in simply supported steel members subject to a uniformly

distributed load (Hibbeler, 2012) gives the following equation:

5𝑤𝑤𝐿𝐿4
∆𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
384𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸

For calculating deflection in simply supported steel members subject to a point loads
(Gorenko, et al., 2012) gives the following equation:

𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿3 3𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 3
∆𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = �� � − � � �
6𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 4𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿
 48

Table 2-13 Capacity Factor for Structural Steel (AS4100 1998)

 49

2.8 WALL FORMWORK USE AND REUSE

Concrete wall formwork is re-used in projects to facilitate and economise the concrete
construction process, as re-use can reduce the costs associated with formwork, as well as
provide for a more sustainable solution. It is worth noting that there is limited availability of
literature that provides guidance on how to quantitatively assess factors that have direct
impact on the re-use of formwork. Most literature, related to formwork use describe
engineering judgment as the main factor used for determining whether a piece of formwork
can be used again or not (Hurd, 2005).

A study conducted in Singapore describes various factors that contribute to the re-use of
traditional timber formwork (Ling & Leo, 2000), and identifies five main factors that affect
the re-use of traditional timber formwork. These five main factors are:

1. Materials used to fabricate the formwork;

2. Workmen who work with the formwork;
3. Design of the completed structure;
4. Design, fabrication, and stripping of the formwork; and
5. Site management issues.

After examining the effects of fifteen sub-factors that fall under the main factors, the study
concludes that only three sub-factors have any impact on the reusability of formwork. These
are:

(i) the working attitudes of workers,

(ii) the efficiency of the crew, and
(iii) the formwork stripping or formwork striking process.

Of these, all three sub-factors belong to the workmen who work with formwork; hence, it
can be concluded that the most important factor that affects formwork re-use is the
workmen who handle formwork on-site (Ling & Leo, 2000).

To identify and assess factors that impact the reuse of formwork, it is necessary to define
the activities that represent one use cycle of formwork. The typical use of traditional timber
formwork on a construction project has been assumed to consist of assembling and erecting
forms, setting rebar, pouring and curing concrete, and stripping the forms from the cured
 50

member (Hurd, 2005). The activities that a construction worker has to execute in the process
of forming concrete have been defined as (Hallowell & Gambatese, 2009):

1. Transport materials and equipment without motorised assistance;

2. Transport materials using construction vehicle or other motorised
assistance;
3. Lift or lower materials, form components or equipment;
4. Hold materials or components in place (static lift);
5. Accept/load/connect materials or forms from crane;
6. Cut materials using skill or table saw;
7. Nail/screw/drill form components or other materials;
8. Hammer using sledgehammer or other equipment;
9. Plumb and/or level forms using body weight, pry bar or other equipment;
10. Ascend or descend ladder;
11. Work below grade or in confined space;
12. Work above grade (>5 feet) or near uncontrolled opening;
13. Inspect forms and construction planning; and
14. Excavation.

This list identifies all activities that can be performed during the formwork process, they may
or may not be carried out every formwork cycle if at all and are not in any particular
sequence.
 51

Methodology

3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this study, there are two primary objectives and five secondary objectives. The primary
objectives are established to expand the general understanding of vertical formwork use
within the Australian high-rise construction industry, as well as the associated regulations.
The primary objectives established are:

1. Research and evaluate the relevant Australian standards and regulations for vertical
wall formwork
2. Evaluate the wall formwork used in the Australian high-rise construction industry.

The secondary objectives established in support of the primary objectives are:

1. Establish the typical use cycle of vertical wall forms

2. Identify the types of wall formwork used in the Australian high-rise construction
industry
3. Develop a greater understanding of the lateral concrete pressures that occur in wall
formwork within the Australian high-rise construction industry.
4. Evaluate the structural capacity of the different types of wall formwork used in the
Australian high-rise construction industry.
5. Compare the different types of wall formwork used in multistorey formwork
construction in Australia.

Due to the nature of the objectives established, it is necessary to carry out research using
multiple methods. The relationship between the different objectives and associated
research methods is represented in Figure 3-1.
 52

Figure 3-1 Research Scheme

 53

In order to meet primary objective 1 an evaluation of the relevant Australian standards and
regulations for vertical formwork, a literature review was deemed the most appropriate
method. Australian standards and regulations were gathered and reviewed as well as other
research reports that evaluate current legislation of the high-rise formwork industry.

A literature review was also deemed the most appropriate method to form an
understanding for secondary objective 1, an establishment of the typical use cycle of vertical
wall forms.

To find answers for secondary objectives 2 and 3, Identifying the types of wall forms used in
the Australian high-rise construction industry as well as developing a greater understanding
of the types of concrete pressures that occur within them, a research case study of
Australian high-rise construction sites was deemed the most suitable method. A
combination of research and consultation with representatives from building and formwork
contractors involved in the respective construction projects was employed to gather the
data within this case study.

Limit State Analysis and Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was employed in order to satisfy
secondary objective 4, an evaluation of the structural adequacy of the different types of wall
formwork used in multistorey formwork construction. The types of wall formwork for
analysis were previously identified in the project case study.

A combination of literature research review and a comparative analysis was used to

compare the different types of wall formwork used within the Australian high-rise
construction industry in order to satisfy secondary objective 5.

An Evaluation of the wall formwork used in the Australian high-rise construction industry
(primary objective 1) was able to be completed using the information gathered meeting
secondary objectives 1 to 5.
 54

3.2 PROJECT CASE STUDY

In order to identify the types of wall forms used in the Australian high-rise construction as
well as develop a greater understanding of the magnitude of concrete pressures that occur
within them, a research case study of Australian high-rise construction projects was deemed
the most suitable method. The purpose of the project case study was to obtain information
and record data pertaining to formwork use as well as to identify concrete pressures on wall
formwork in real world projects. For the purpose of this study a high-rise construction site
was deemed to be a building project with 10 storeys above ground level or more.

A combination of research and consultation with representatives from building and

formwork contractors involved in the respective construction projects was employed to
gather the data within this case study. The case study required 8 pieces of information to be
gathered from each building project for analysis.

The first 5 pieces of information were for classification purposes:

1. Project name
2. Project location
3. Building type
4. Number of floors/storeys
5. Formwork contractor

The type of vertical wall formwork used on each particular project was the 6th piece of
information gathered for each project. As some of these projects are large and there may
have been several different types of wall formwork used at different stages of the project,
the wall formwork used to form the lift core of each particular project was the information
extracted. The justification for this being that the lift core walls are usually the largest
vertical walls formed on a high-rise building project and they are most commonly present on
every floor of a high-rise building from the basement to the roof top.

The concrete pour height for the lift core wall formwork of each building is the 7th piece of
information gathered from each project. During the forming of a high-rise building
construction joints are needed to divide the total structure into a number of portions, each
of which can be practically formed and poured in one operation (McAdam, 1991). Usually
each floor of a high-rise building dictates the position of a construction joint with each floor
representing a pour. Vertical wall forms are then produced to suit this job specific pour
 55

height. The pour height is an important piece of information as it is needed to calculate

concrete pressure within wall formwork.

In order to form a greater understanding of the lateral concrete pressures that occur in wall
formwork within the Australian high-rise construction industry. The case study was used to
determine the maximum hydrostatic pressure that wall formwork was or will be subjected at
each the 77 building sites as the 8th piece of information gathered. An understanding of the
concrete pressures within the Australian high rise construction is important as most
formwork companies adopt a one design suits all jobs approach with vertical formwork. Wall
formwork systems are predominately prefabricated for re-use over and over again on
different construction projects. For higher pour heights wall formwork is generally just
extended at the top with no extra strength added to the base of standardised forming
systems where concrete pressure is at its highest. The concrete pressure data collected in
this study will be useful for future wall formwork designs to ensure that the design is
suitable for the range of pressures the form will be subjected to when re-used across
different projects in the multistorey formwork industry.

The formulae for full hydrostatic head presented in AS3610 (1995) was used to calculate
lateral concrete pressure in the wall forms across all 77 constructions projects.

𝜌𝜌ℎ
𝑃𝑃𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 =
100

where

Pmax = maximum lateral concrete pressure, in kilopascals

ρ = wet density of concrete, in kilograms per cubic metre

h = vertical pour height, in metres

The justification for using full hydrostatic head rather than the pressure reducing formulae
presented by ACI and CRIA to calculate lateral concrete pressure is that the pressure
reducing formulae are only accurate when the parameters of the pour can be stringently
controlled. This is because slight changes in concrete temperature and pour rate can have a
 56

significant effect on the maximum lateral pressure exerted on the wall form (McAdam,
1991). When concrete mix designs or concrete placement rates do not meet the
requirements of these pressure limiting equations, the pressure for full liquid head should
be used in the design of vertical wall formwork (Barnes & Johnstone, 2004). Formwork
designers have limited control over the method, rate of placement and temperature of the
concrete onsite so the formulae for full hydrostatic pressure was adopted.

After and during concrete placement into wall and column forms it is vibrated to consolidate
the concrete. Consolidation is achieved by removing the air from the fresh concrete in place.
The purpose of vibration is to fluidise the concrete, destroying its shear strength capability
and any friction between the concrete and the form, entrapped air will float to the surface
of the concrete and escape (ACI, 2005). Because deep vibration of vertical wall forms to
consolidate the concrete is common practice within the Australian construction industry full
fluid pressure on the wall forms can be exceeded. To account for deep vibration
McAdam(1995) recommends that the calculated full hydrostatic head be increased by 50%.
A concrete pressure allowing for deep vibration will be the 9th piece of information gathered
from the 77 construction projects.

Figure 3-2 Immersion Concrete Vibration (McAdam, 1991)

 57

3.3 WALL FORMWORK EVALUATION

In order to meet secondary objective 4 an evaluation of the structural capacity of the
different types of wall formwork used in the Australian high-rise construction industry a
combination of comparison and structural analysis techniques were used.

Formwork systems used within the Australian high-rise construction are largely pre-
engineered and prefabricated, towards economies of scale. Prefabricated, reusable form
panels have become standard items of construction. Ready-made or contractor-built
prefabricated forms are ideal for wall forming where multiple floors are being erected, as
this allows a large number of re-uses of the same form. However, Whyte and Brandis (2010)
suggest that assumptions made concerning fit-for-purpose wall formwork systems are often
inadequately communicated between relevant parties, with a willingness to make gains from
‘re-use’ somewhat skewing the balance between quality, cost and time. This
miscommunication can often lead to formwork failure.

Because formwork companies generally like to adopt a one design suits all jobs approach for
their wall formwork systems it is important that these fit for purpose systems suit the range
of lateral formwork pressures encountered across the industry. The first reason for this is to
avoid formwork failure in case of miscommunication between relevant parties and secondly
so that the one system can be safely and cost effectively re-used by the formwork contractor
across all of their projects.

To understand the structural safety associated with formwork use in high-rise construction
the concrete pressure data obtained from the project case study was used to evaluate the
structural capacity of the types of formwork found to be used in the Australian high rise
construction industry. The aim of this evaluation was to assess whether the current wall
form designs being used are adequate for the range of concrete pressures that are occurring
on high-rise construction sites. The results also indicate which wall formwork systems are at
risk of causing a formwork failure if a miscommunication occurs and they adopted for
blanket use across the industry.
 58

3.3.1 Vertical Wall Forms for Analysis

The following wall form assemblies were analysed as part of this research paper as they
were found in the project case study to be used in the Australian high-rise construction
industry:

• Conventional Steel RHS Frame / 17mm Form Plywood Sheathing (Figure 3-3)
- Form configured based the on Truform timber design guide (see Figure 2-10)

Figure 3-3 Steel Frame RHS Wall Forms within Jump Form at 300 George St Brisbane
 59

• Conventional Timber LVL Frame / 17mm Form Plywood Sheathing (Figure 3-4)
- Forms configured based the on Truform timber design guide (see Figure 2-10)

Figure 3-4 Timber LVL Wall Forms onsite 300 George St Brisbane
 60

• Peri Modular Panel Formwork (Figure 3-5)

- Manufacturer designed and supplied panel forms. Panels are bolted together
using patented components to create a larger section.

Figure 3-5 Peri Modular Panel Forms within Jump Form at Crown Towers Project Perth WA
 61

• Ischebeck Titan Aluminium Wall Formwork System (Figure 3-6)

- Manufacturer designed and supplied aluminium forms.

Figure 3-6 Ischebeck Aluminium Panel Forms (Ischebeck Titan, 2016)

 62

3.3.2 Limit State Analysis

The frame work of steel RHS conventional wall forms used in the Australian high-rise
construction industry were found during the research for the project case study to be based
on timber design guides with steel RHS members substituted in instead of timber because
they are stronger, more durable and have a longer life. The adaptation has been developed
out of necessity due to the amount of re-uses the forms are subjected to in multistorey
construction. As well as adopting the same frame work design and member spacing the steel
forms also adopt steel member sizes similar to their timber counterpart, 95mm x 47mm
timber LVL’s are replaced by 100mm x 50mm steel RHS. As the structural members being
used in these wall forms differ from the original timber LVL design the structural capacity of
this formwork system should be different. Because this style of formwork system has
become a common building tool in Australian high-rise construction it was deemed
appropriate that a thorough structural analysis be carried out to assess the actual capacities
of these steel frame wall forms. The outcomes of this analysis could serve as a guide for
formwork designers wishing to use this style of wall formwork in the future because at
present there is no published literature or design information pertaining to this formwork
system. The analysis may also lead to a fine tuning of the steel wall form design and
ultimately lead to a cost saving in their production.

A Limit State Analysis was carried out on the individual components in the formwork
assembly using the relevant material structural design code. Individual components were
checked for maximum allowable bending moment, shear stress and deflection. From this
limit state analysis, a theoretical maximum concrete pressure capacity was attributed to the
RHS conventional vertical wall form system.
 63

3.3.2.1 Analytical Model

Figure 3-7 shows the basic model, which idealises the fresh constructed concrete wall.
Because of symmetry of the wall and to simplify the analysis, half section of the wall is
considered in the analytical model. Wall forms are firstly installed and then the concrete is
placed into wall forms, which is vibrated to consolidate the concrete. The cast concrete is
assumed to be placed at the same time and considered to be homogenous over the entire
length. Fresh concrete imposes loads on the wall form structure in the form of an initial
pressure envelope which is represented in the model by a distributed load.

Figure 3-7 Analytical Model

 64

3.3.2.2 Wall Formwork Arrangement

Figure 3-8 shows the steel RHS conventional wall formwork system being analysed. The
arrangement is based on the wall forms used by the form work contractor Heinrich
Constructions at the 44 storey high-rise construction project 1 William St in Brisbane to form
the buildings lift core during 2015.

Figure 3-8 Wall Formwork Arrangement for Analysis

 65

3.3.2.3 Analysis Formulas

Other than tie rods all the other components of the formwork structure behave like beams.
The beam formulas for bending, shear and deflection were used to analyse these
components of the wall formwork system.

• Maximum bending moment due to a Uniform Distributed Load (w) for beams
supported over 3 or more spans (Structx, 2016):

Mmax = 0.1 wL2

• Maximum shear force due to a Uniform Distributed Load (w) for beams supported
over 3 or more spans (Structx, 2016):

Vmax = 0.6 wL2

• Maximum deflection due to a Uniform Distributed load (w) for beams supported
over 3 or more spans (Structx, 2016):

0.0069wL4
∆max =
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸

The formulas were re-arranged to make the Distributed Load (w) the subject, from this the
safe distributed working load was calculated for each structural component of the wall form.

Mmax
• Bending Moment: w= 0.1 L2

V
• Shear Force: w = 0.6max
L2

∆max (EI)
• Deflection: w=
0.0069 L4

The component in the structure with the lowest safe working load became the limiting
factor for the structure. The value for this distributed load was then designated the
theoretical maximum permissible concrete pressure for the wall formwork system.
 66

3.3.2.4 Model Design Data and Assumptions

The following design simplifications and assumptions have been made:

• All loads are assumed to be uniformly distributed

• Beam formulas are used to analyse the formwork components
• Beams that are supported over three or more spans are considered to be continuous

Formwork deflection criteria as stipulated by AS3610.1 Formwork for Concrete 2010:

- The allowable deflection for the formwork structure elements shall be the lesser of
span/360 or 2mm for a Class 1 concrete finish.
- The allowable deflection for the formwork structure elements shall be the lesser of
span/270 or 3mm for a Class 2 concrete finish.

Material properties of the structural elements:

Properties of Plywood Sheathing as per the (Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia,
2012) manufacturer guide:

- Identification Code, 17-24-7

- Nominal Thickness, t = 17mm
- Stress Grade, F17
- grain direction of plies is parallel to the span
- Section Modulus of Plywood, Zp = 33.5 mm3/mm
- Second Moment of Area, I = 285 mm4/mm

All structural steel shall be 450 grade complying with AS4100 Steel Structures 1998.
Properties of steel RHS as per One Steel Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel Hollow
Sections:

- Yield Stress, fy = 450 MPa

- Tensile Strength, fu = 500 MPa
- Young's Modulus of Elasticity, E = 200 x 103 MPa
- Shear Modulus of Elasticity, G = 80 x 103 MPa
- Density, ρ = 7850 kg/m3
- Poisson's Ratio, ν = 0.25

Properties of steel RHS Horizontal Waling:

 67

- Size of RHS: 100 x 50 x 2.5 mm

- Section is Compact about its x axis
- Second Moment of Area, Ix = 2.54 x 106 mm4
- Elastic Modulus, Zx = 33.9 x 103 mm3
- Gross Area of Section, Ag = 959 mm2
- Section Moment Capacity, φMsx = 9.18 kNm
- Section Shear Capacity, φVv = 110 kN
- Maximum segment length for full lateral restraint, FLR = 1.74 m

Properties of steel RHS Vertical Studs:

- Size of RHS: 100 x 50 x 4 mm

- Section is Compact about its x axis
- Second Moment of Area, Ix = 3.74 x 106 mm4
- Elastic Modulus, Zx = 49.8 x 103 mm3
- Gross Area of Section, Ag = 1480 mm2
- Section Moment Capacity, φMsx = 13.5 kNm
- Section Shear Capacity, φVv = 170 kN
- Maximum segment length for full lateral restraint, FLR = 1.68 m
 68

3.3.3 3D Finite Element Analysis

The theoretical capacity calculated in the limit state analysis for the RHS conventional wall
form arrangement was verified using 3D Finite Element Analysis. The wall form assembly
was modelled in 3D using the drafting software package AutoCAD Inventor. The 3D model
was then analysed using the Finite Element Analysis tools within the AutoCAD Inventor
programme.

A 3D model is a representation of a real life system or process by some mathematical or

numerical expression, which can be used as a substitute for the real thing, and allows to
predict what would happen in a real system by changing the input data parameters of the
model. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a computerised method for predicting how an item
reacts to real-world forces, vibration, heat, fluid flow, and other physical effects. It is called
analysis, but in the development process, it is used to predict what is going to happen when
the item is used (Autodesk Inc, 2016). FEA works by breaking down a real object into a large
number of finite elements, such as little cubes. Mathematical equations help predict the
behaviour of each element. The software then adds up all the individual behaviours to
predict the behaviour of the actual object (Autodesk Inc, 2016).

The wall form assembly was modelled in 3D using the drafting package AutoCAD Inventor as
shown in Figure 3-9. Autodesk Inventor is a 3D mechanical solid modelling design software.
The wall form system was modelled to scale using the software’s in built materials library.
The individual components were able to be assigned their material specific properties
including: Yield Stress, Tensile Strength, Modulus of Elasticity and Density.

The 3D model was then analysed using the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) tools within the
AutoCAD Inventor programme. The FEA tools were used to give instantaneous and time-
dependent changes in the displacements, in the support reactions and in the statically
indeterminate internal forces, along with the corresponding changes in stress and strain in
individual sections. In this particular circumstance the FEA was particularly useful in giving
accurate deflection results for the individual structural members of the wall form system.
 69

Figure 3-9 Steel RHS Conventional Wall Form modelled in AutoCAD Inventor
 70

3.3.4 Comparative Analysis

Because formwork companies within the Australian high-rise construction industry adopt a
one design suits all jobs approach for their wall formwork systems it is important that these
fit for purpose systems suit the lateral formwork pressures encountered across the industry.
As pour heights and concrete pressures within formwork differ between projects the pre-
engineered and prefabricated wall formwork needs to have the capacity to cover this
varying range.

To understand the structural safety associated with formwork use in high-rise construction
the concrete pressure data obtained from the project case study was used to evaluate the
structural capacity of the 4 formwork varieties identified. The aim of this analysis was to
evaluate whether current wall form designs being used are adequate for the varying range
of concrete pressures that are occurring on Australian construction sites.

The theoretical capacity calculated in the limit state analysis for the RHS conventional wall
form arrangement was used to assess its suitability. The 3 manufacturer designed formwork
systems supplied by Truform, Peri and Ishebeck come with product specific design
information including maximum concrete pressure. The specification information provided
by the manufacturers was compared with the concrete pressure data from the project case
study to assess whether these panels are adequate for blanket use across high-rise
construction in Australia.

The justification for this evaluation is that assumptions made concerning fit-for-purpose wall
formwork systems are often inadequately communicated between relevant parties, with a
willingness to make gains from re-use somewhat skewing the balance between quality, cost
and time (Whyte & Brandis, 2010). A number of formwork systems are designed as modular
systems that are intended to be erected in specific configurations as prescribed by the
designer and manufacturer. While modular systems require engineer design certification,
this certification can be done once and used as evidence of design compliance. The design
certification can be provided as part of the brochure prepared by the manufacturer of the
system (Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, 2016), thus when formwork is re-used on
future projects there is a danger that formwork will be inadequate for the concrete
pressures encountered and formwork failure may occur.
 71

Results
This chapter discusses the outcomes of the various methods/approaches put forward by the
research to address the main objectives of this study. The literature review was used to
present and then evaluate the national and state based regulations that govern formwork
practice in Australia. The data obtained in the project case study from the 77 high-rise
construction sites was analysed and discussed to map the use of vertical formwork and to
present information pertaining to the concrete pressures that they are subjected to during
construction. The limit state and finite element analysis results are put forward and
discussed to help determine a maximum permissible design load for steel RHS conventional
wall formwork. Design information for the relevant formwork systems being used in the
Australian high-rise construction industry were obtained from the manufacturers or
determined. This information was then cross checked next to concrete pressure data
obtained in the project case study to evaluate and discuss the respective wall formwork
systems suitability for use in Australian multistorey construction.
 72

4.1 EVALUATION OF THE RELEVANT AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS AND

REGULATIONS FOR VERTICAL WALL FORMWORK

Australia formwork practice is governed by a State-based regulatory scheme. It has a

legislative approach to governing formwork practice that varies from state-to-state (A.
Whyte, 2010). Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales all have
independent codes of practice for formwork. However, all the state based legislation
stipulate that the design of all formwork systems, both traditional and modular must satisfy
Australian Standards:

• AS3610 – Formwork for concrete (1995)

• AS3600 – Concrete structures (2009)

The Standards Association of Australia publish Formwork for Concrete AS3610 (1995). This
standard with its commentary present design and construction requirements for falsework
and formwork of all structure types. It sets out obligations for the design, fabrication,
erection and stripping of formwork, as well as the specification, evaluation and repair of the
quality of the formed concrete surface and the influence of this activity on the design and
construction of an in situ concrete structure (Standards Australia, 1995). A comparison
between AS3610 and the New South Wales and Queensland codes of practice indicates
differences regulating form workers. Australian Standard AS3610 (1995) is performance
based and describes outcomes, the state codes seek to give practical guidance on suitable
formwork process and practice.

In regards to wall and column formwork AS3610 (1995) presents formulas for calculating the
maximum lateral pressure exerted by the fresh concrete on formwork during placement.
The formulae stipulated by AS3610 are only accurate where the parameters of the pour can
be stringently controlled. This is because slight changes in concrete temperature and pour
rate can have a significant effect on the maximum lateral pressure exerted on the wall form.
Formwork designers know how little control they have over the method, rate of placement
and temperature of the concrete onsite so in most cases the formulae presented by AS3610
(1995) are disregarded and the more conservative practice of designing for full hydrostatic
pressure is adopted.
 73

AS3610 stipulates that formwork components or assemblies shall be analysed and designed
with either limit state procedures or permissible stress procedures in accordance with the
appropriate material structural design code. AS3610 was last revised in 1995, as a result
guidance governing Australian formwork design practice is over two decades old. In 1997 the
Standards Development Committee for Formwork started reviewing AS3610 in an attempt
to keep up with developments and innovation in the industry. In February 2010 the
Development Committee partially republished the standard with the introduction of
AS3610.1-2010 covering ‘Documentation and Surface Finish’ (Whyte & Brandis, 2010).
Despite draft revisions of AS3610 focusing on enhancing design guidance of formwork,
further amendments to the standard have yet to be released. While part two of the standard
remains undeveloped Whyte and Brandis (2010) suggests continued development of AS3610
will bring the standard up to date with current construction practice and ensure suitable
guidance and accountability.

As part of the review into AS3610 (1995) a Formwork Design Handbook was drafted by some
members of the Standards Development Committee (Whyte & Brandis, 2010). The
Handbook is intended to overcome the short comings of AS3610, and to introduce and
explain procedures, requirements and methods for the design and construction of formwork
that minimise frequency of formwork failure (Concrete Institute of Australia, 2016).
However, changes in the conditions of contract for Handbook development have stalled
production and the handbook has yet to be released.

Although legislative development in formwork practice over the years has been carried out,
it can be argued that it has not kept pace with innovation and practice within the industry.
This is most notably evident in AS3610 the Australian standard governing formwork being
over two decades old. Due to the delay in the release of an update of Australian Standard
AS3610 Formwork for Concrete (1995) covering formwork design and the issues stopping
the release of the proposed Formwork Designers Handbook there is currently a gap in
appropriate literature for formwork designers in the Australian formwork industry.
 74

4.2 CASE STUDY SUMMARY

Data obtained in the project case study was collected from 77 high-rise construction sites.
For the purpose of this study a high-rise construction site was deemed to be a building
project with 10 storeys above ground level or more. The 77 projects were carried out by nine
different formwork contractors and the projects were located in Queensland, New South
Wales and Western Australia. Table 4.1 displays the data extracted during the case study.
The projects are listed in chronological order of construction commencement date, with the
earliest sites commencing construction in 2005 and the later sites surveyed commencing in
2016. Consultation with representatives from building and formwork contractors involved in
the respective construction projects was employed to gather the data within this case study.
The respondents belonged to the posts of company director, project manager and project
engineer. As part of the study, the projects name, location, building type, number of storeys
and the formwork contractor supplying and working the formwork were collected as
identifiers.

The 77 sites were a mixture of apartment, hotel and office buildings. A distribution of the
building types can be seen in Figure 4-1. Apartment buildings made up more than half of the
construction sites in the study. The distribution of building types in the study is an accurate
representation of high-rise buildings being constructed in the industry. Appendix B
summarises the case study data collected from each of the 77 construction sites.

Figure 4-1 Distribution of Buildings Types in Case Study

 75

Figure 4-2 Mean Pour Height for Building Type

Figure 4-2 shows the mean pour height used in the construction of each building type. It can
be seen in general that office buildings with on average 3.77m have a much higher concrete
pour height then apartment and hotel buildings with an average of 3m and 2.99m
respectively. This is indicative of formwork companies simplifying work onsite by matching
the concrete pour height to the floor to floor height of a building. Figure 4-3 represents the
effect this higher pour height has on the concrete pressures applied to wall formwork.

Figure 4-3 Average Maximum Concrete Pressure for Building Type

 76

The formulae for full hydrostatic head presented in AS3610 (1995) was used to calculate
lateral concrete pressure in the wall forms across all 77 constructions projects. A concrete
pressure allowing for deep immersion vibration to consolidate the concrete was also
calculated for each site at 1.5 times full hydrostatic pressure. Figure 4-3 shows the average
maximum concrete pressures for each building type. Because of the higher pour heights
used in the construction of high-rise office buildings, wall formwork on average is subjected
to a 20 kNm2 concrete pressure higher than that at an apartment or hotel high-rise
construction site. Office buildings average a maximum hydrostatic concrete pressure of
90.54 kNm2, whilst on apartment and hotel construction sites formwork is subjected to an
average maximum lateral pressure of 72 kNm2.

Table 4-1 Statistical Analysis of Concrete Pressure Data

Concrete Pressure Data
Mean 77.77 kNm2
Standard Error 1.07
Median 73.20 kNm2
Mode 69.60 kNm2
Standard Deviation 9.38
Sample Variance 88.03 kNm2
Kurtosis -0.75
Skewness 0.79
Range 37.20
Minimum 67.20 kNm2
Maximum 104.40 kNm2
Count 77

The mean maximum concrete pressure across the 77 construction sites was 77.77 kNm2,
however this average pressure was increased significantly by the extremely high concrete
pressures that occur on office building projects. Perhaps a better indicator for this data set is
the median concrete pressure which was calculated as 73.20 kNm2. The mode or most
occurring concrete pressure across the sites surveyed was 69.60 kNm2. The concrete
pressure data collected highlighted the vast range of pressure that wall formwork is
subjected to in multi-storey formwork construction. The maximum hydrostatic pressure was
found to be 104.40 kNm2 and the minimum was 67.20 kNm2 giving a wide range of 37.20
kNm2.
 77

Figure 4-4 provides a graphical representation of the spread and distribution of the
maximum concrete pressures experienced across the 77 construction sites.

Maximum Hydrostatic Concrete Pressure

73
67
61
55
49
43
37
31
25
19
13
7
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Lateral Concrete Pressure (kNm^2)

Figure 4-4 Maximum Hydrostatic Concrete Pressure at each High-rise Project

The type of vertical wall formwork used on each of the 77 projects by the 9 different
formwork contractors was collected as part of the project case study analysis. As most of
these projects are large and there may have been several different types of formwork used
at different stages of construction, the wall formwork used to form the buildings lift core
was identified. The justification for this being that the lift core walls are usually the largest
vertical walls formed on a high-rise building project and they are most commonly present on
every floor of a high-rise building from the basement to the roof top.

There were 4 different wall formwork systems identified by the project case study to be
used to form the lift cores of the 77 sites surveyed. These systems included:

• Conventional RHS Wall Forms (62 sites, 81%)

• Conventional LVL Wall Forms (4 sites, 5%)
• Peri Modular Panel Forms (8 sites, 10%)
• Ishebeck Modular Aluminium Forms (3 sites, 4%)
 78

Wall Formwork Systems by Use

Peri Modular Panel Forms

Ishebeck Modular Panel Forms

Conventional RHS Wall Forms

Conventional LVL Wall Forms

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of sites

Figure 4-5 Wall Formwork Systems used across High-rise Construction Sites Surveyed

As can be seen in Figure 4-5 Wall Formwork Systems used across High-rise Construction Sites
Surveyed most formwork contractors preferred the use of Conventional style wall formwork
with a steel Rectangular Hollow Section (RHS) frame and a ply sheathing form face in there
high-rise building projects. Conventional wall formwork with a Laminated Veneer Lumber
(LVL) frame and ply form face were used on 4 projects, it is worth noting that these projects
were buildings with only 10 to 12 floors. Peri Modular Panel Forms and Ishebeck Modular
Panel Forms were used sparingly across the sites surveyed with their use limited to 2
particular formwork contractors. These manufactured systems consist of steel or aluminium
frames with plywood faces. Formwork panels of desired dimensions are formed by putting
together several smaller panels, and connecting them together using metal clamps or
brackets.

The project case study data also allows for the extraction of the number of re-uses a wall
form-system is subjected to at each multistorey construction site. A statistical analysis of this
re-use data can be seen in Table 4.3. The mean re-uses across the 77 construction sites was
27.19 cycles. Because of outliers in the data set such as the 82 storey George St residential
tower a better depiction of formwork re-use per site maybe the median cycle which was
calculated as 25. The mode or most occurring re-use across the sites surveyed was 15 cycles.
The variance in the number of floors between the highest building site surveyed and the
smallest was depicted in the range of wall formwork re-uses of 72 cycles.
 79

Table 4-2 Statistical Analysis of Formwork Re-use data

Formwork Re-uses per Project
Mean 27.19
Standard Error 1.49
Median 25.00
Mode 15.00
Standard Deviation 13.04
Sample Variance 170.03
Kurtosis 2.78
Skewness 1.21
Range 72.00
Minimum 10.00
Maximum 82.00
Count 77.00
 80

4.3 LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS RESULTS

A Limit State Analysis was carried out on the individual components in the RHS conventional
vertical wall form system assembly using the relevant material structural design code.
Individual components were checked for maximum allowable bending moment, shear stress
and deflection. From this limit state analysis, a theoretical maximum concrete pressure
capacity was attributed to the RHS conventional vertical wall form system.

Calculations for Plywood sheathing

Figure 4-6 Line Load Diagram on 17mm Plywood Sheathing

Span L = 240mm – 50mm

Span L = 190mm (Clear span) (at the critical bottom of the wall form)

Bending Moment

Bending capacity of Plywood:

φ = 0.85 (AS1720.1, Table 2.1)

k1 = 0.97 (AS1720.1, Table 2.1) (up to 5-hour duration)

k19 = 1 (AS1720.1, Table 5.2)

g19 = 1 (AS1720.1, Table 5.3)

f ′b = 45 MPa (AS1720.1, Table 5.3)

Zp (for an 1800mm x 1200mm sheet) = 33.5 mm3 x 1200 = 40.2 x 103 mm3
 81

Md,p = φ k1 k19 g19 f ′b Zp (AS1720.1, CL 5.4.2)

Md,p = (0.85) * (0.97) * (1) * (1) * (45) * (40.2 x 103 mm3) = 1.49 x 106 Nmm

Bending Capacity of 17mm Form Ply = 1.49 kNm2

UDL up to Max Bending Moment:

Mmax
w=
0.1 L2
1.49
w=
0.1 (0.19)2

w = 412.74 kNm

Shear Force

Shear capacity of Plywood:

Vd,p = φ k1 k19 g19 f ′s As (AS1720.1, CL 5.4.3)

f ′s = 6 MPa (AS1720.1, Table 5.1)

As = 2/3 (b t) = (2/3) * (1200*17) = 13600mm2

Vd,p = (0.85) * (0.97) * (1) * (1) * (6) * (13600) = 67.28 kN

Shear Capacity of 17mm Form Ply = 67.28 kN

UDL up to Max Shear Force:

Vmax
w=
0.6 L2
67.28
w=
0.6 (0.19)2

w = 3106.19 kNm2
 82

Deflection for Class 1 finish

Maximum deflection = L/360 (AS3610.1, Table 3.3.2)

L/360 = 190mm/360 = 0.53mm

I (for an 1800mm x 1200mm sheet) = 285 x 1200 = 34.2 x 104 mm4

UDL up to Max Deflection:

∆max (EI)
w=
0.0069 L4
(0.53𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)∗(14000𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)∗(34.2×104 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 )
w= 0.0069∗(190mm)4

w = 282.21 kNm2

Deflection for Class 2 finish

Maximum deflection = L/270 (AS3610.1, Table 3.3.2)

L/270 = 190mm/270 = 0.7mm

I(for an 1800mm x 1200mm sheet) = 285 x 1200 = 34.2 x 104 mm4

UDL up to Max Deflection:

∆max (EI)
w=
0.0069 L4
(0.7𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)∗(14000𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)∗(34.2×104 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 )
w= 0.0069∗(190mm)4

w = 372.73 kNm2
 83

Calculations for Horizontal Waling (100 x 50 x 2.5 RHS)

Figure 4-7 Line Load Diagram on RHS Horizontal Waling

Span L = 850mm – 150mm

Span L = 700mm (Clear span)

Each wale supports a 240mm strip

Bending Moment

Bending capacity of RHS Horizontal Waling:

φMsx = 9.18 kNm

Maximum segment length for full lateral restraint, FLR = 1.74 m

Therefore, beam has full lateral restraint, member capacity = section capacity (φMsx)

Bending Capacity of RHS Horizontal Waling = 9.18 kNm

UDL up to Max Bending Moment:

Mmax
w=
0.1 L2
9.18
w= = 187.35 kNm2
0.1 (0.7)2

Equivalent UDL = 187.35 kNm2 / 0.24m = 780.61 kNm2

A wale spanning 700mm, spaced at 240mm centres could support a concrete pressure of
780.61 kNm2 in Bending for strength limit state
 84

Shear Force

Shear capacity of RHS Horizontal Waling:

φVv = 110kN

UDL up to Max Shear Force:

Vmax
w=
0.6 L2
110
w=
0.6 (0.7)2

w = 374.15 kNm2

As each wale supports a 240mm strip

Equivalent UDL = 374.15 kNm / 0.24m = 1558.96 kNm2

A wale spanning 700mm, spaced at 240mm centres could support a concrete pressure of
1558.96 kNm2 in Shear for strength limit state

Deflection for Class 1 finish

Maximum deflection = L/360 (AS3610.1, Table 3.3.2)

L/360 = 700mm/360 = 1.94mm

UDL up to Max Deflection:

∆max (EI)
w=
0.0069 L4
(1.94𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)(200000𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)(2.54×106 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 )
w= 0.0069 (700)4

w = 594.87 kNm2

As each wale supports a 240mm strip

Equivalent UDL = 594.87kNm / 0.24m = 2478.64 kNm2

A wale spanning 700mm, spaced at 240mm centres could support a concrete pressure of
2478.64 kNm2 in deflection to produce a Class 1 concrete finish
 85

Deflection for Class 2 finish

Maximum deflection = L/270 (AS3610.1, Table 3.3.2)

L/270 = 700mm/270 = 2.6mm

UDL up to Max Deflection:

∆max (EI)
w=
0.0069 L4
(2.6𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)(200000𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)(2.54×106 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 )
w= 0.0069 (700)4

w = 767.25 kNm2

As each wale supports a 240mm strip

Equivalent UDL = 767.25kNm / 0.24m = 3321.88 kNm2

A wale spanning 700mm, spaced at 240mm centres could support a concrete pressure of
2478.64 kNm2 in deflection to produce a Class 2 concrete finish
 86

Calculations for Vertical Studs (100 x 50 x 4 RHS)

Figure 4-8 Line Load Diagram on RHS Vertical Studs

Span L = 600mm (at the critical bottom of the wall form)

Each stud supports an 850mm strip

Bending Moment

Bending capacity of RHS Vertical Studs:

φMsx = 2 x 13.5 kNm = 27 kNm (2 RHS members per stud)

Maximum segment length for full lateral restraint, FLR = 1.68 m

Therefore, beam has full lateral restraint, member capacity = section capacity (φMsx)

Bending Capacity of RHS Horizontal Waling = 27 kNm

UDL up to Max Bending Moment:

Mmax
w=
0.1 L2
27
w= = 750 kNm2
0.1 (0.6)2

Equivalent UDL = 750 kNm / 0.85m = 882.35 kNm2

 87

A stud spanning 600mm, spaced at 850mm centres could support a concrete pressure of
882.35 kNm2 in Bending for strength limit state

Shear Force

Shear capacity of RHS Horizontal Waling:

φVv = 2 x 170 kN = 340 kN (2 RHS members per stud)

UDL up to Max Shear Force:

Vmax
w=
0.6 L2
340
w=
0.6 (0.6)2

w = 1574.07 kNm2

Equivalent UDL = 1574.07 kNm2 / 0.85m = 1851.85 kNm2

A stud spanning 600mm, spaced at 850mm centres could support a concrete pressure of
1851.85 kNm2 in Shear for strength limit state

Deflection for Class 1 finish

Maximum deflection = L/360 (AS3610.1, Table 3.3.2)

L/360 = 600mm/360 = 1.67mm

I = 2 x (3.74 x 106) = 7.48 x 106 mm4 (2 RHS members per stud)

UDL up to Max Deflection:

∆max (EI)
w=
0.0069 L4
(1.67𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)(200000𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)(7.48×106 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 )
w= 0.0069 (600)4

w = 2793.79 kNm2

As each stud supports an 850mm strip

Equivalent UDL = 2793.79kNm2 / 0.85m = 3286.81 kNm2

A stud spanning 600mm, spaced at 850mm centres could support a concrete pressure of
3286.81 kNm2 in deflection to produce a class 1 concrete finish
 88

Deflection for Class 2 finish

Maximum deflection = L/270 (AS3610.1, Table 3.3.2)

L/270 = 600mm/270 = 2.22mm

UDL up to Max Deflection:

∆max (EI)
w=
0.0069 L4
(2.22𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)(200000𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)(7.48×106 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚4 )
w= 0.0069 (600)4

w = 3713.90 kNm2

As each stud supports an 850mm strip

Equivalent UDL = 3713.90kNm2 / 0.85m = 4369.3 kNm2

A stud spanning 600mm, spaced at 850mm centres could support a concrete pressure of
4369.3 kNm2 in deflection to produce a Class 1 concrete finish

From the limit state analysis calculations, it can be concluded that the plywood sheathing is
the component in the structure with the lowest allowable working load and thus the limiting
factor for the structure. To maintain a class 1 concrete finish with deflection of the plywood
sheathing form face limited to span/360 the maximum un-factored permissible concrete
pressure for the wall formwork system is 282.21 kNm2. To maintain a class 2 concrete finish
with deflection of the plywood sheathing form face limited to span/270 the maximum un-
factored permissible concrete pressure for the wall formwork system is 372.73 kNm2.
 89

4.4 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS RESULTS

The theoretical capacities calculated in the limit state analysis for the RHS conventional wall
form arrangement of a 280 kNm2 un-factored hydrostatic pressure envelope for a class 1
concrete finish was verified using 3D Finite Element Analysis.

The 280 kNm2 concrete pressure envelope was applied to the RHS wall form assembly by
splitting the face of the wall form into 8 500mm horizontal bands. A different uniform
pressure distribution was applied to each of these 8 horizontal bands with pressure
increasing moving towards the bottom of the wall form. Figure 4-9 shows these pressure
distributions.

Figure 4-9 280 kNm Hydrostatic Pressure Envelope used in FEA

 90

Figure 4-10 & 4-11 shows the Principal stress contour; it indicates maximum stress of
743.514 MPa which occurs in the RHS around the 3rd form tie up from the bottom of the wall
form.

Figure 4-10 RHS Wall Form Principal Stress Contour from FEA
 91

Figure 4-11 RHS Wall Form Principal Stress Contour Rear Elevation
 92

Figure 4-12 indicates the displacement in the RHS wall form assembly as a result of the
280kNm2 hydrostatic pressure envelope. A maximum displacement of 0.7375mm occurs at
the top of the wall form and is indicated in red. The finite element analysis results confirmed
the theoretical calculations that the delections caused by a 280kNm2 hydrostatic pressure
envelope would be small enough to maintain a class 1 concrete finish with deflection of the
plywood sheathing form face limited to less than span divided by 360.

Figure 4-12 RHS Wall Form Displacements Caused by 280kNm Hydrostatic Pressure Envelope
 93

4.5 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY

The concrete pressure data obtained from the project case study was used to evaluate the
adequacy of the 4 formwork varieties identified to be used in the high-rise building industry.
As concrete pour heights vary from project to project, concrete pressures within formwork
also differ. The maximum permissible concrete pressure for the 3 manufacturer designed
formwork systems supplied by Truform, Peri and Ishebeck was sourced from their product
design guides. The un-factored theoretical capacity calculated in the limit state analysis for
the RHS conventional wall form arrangement was used to assess its suitability. The concrete
pressure data from the project case study was then used to assess whether these panels are
adequate for use across high-rise construction in Australia.

Table 4-3 Maximum Permissible Concrete Pressure for Wall Formwork Systems
Maximum Permissible
Wall Formwork System
Concrete Pressure (kNm2)

Conventional Steel RHS Wall Forms 280 (un-factored)

Conventional Timber LVL Wall Forms 93.6

Peri Modular Panel Formwork 80

Ischebeck Titan Aluminium Panel Formwork 88

Conventional steel frame Rectangular Hollow Section (RHS) wall forms have become a
common building tool in Australian high-rise construction. The frame work of steel RHS
conventional wall forms are based on timber design guides with steel RHS members
substituted in instead of timber because they are stronger, more durable and have a longer
life. As well as adopting the same frame work design and member spacing the steel forms
also adopt steel member sizes similar to their timber counterpart, 95mm x 47mm timber
LVL’s are replaced by 100mm x 50mm steel RHS. At present there is no published literature
or design information pertaining to this formwork system as it is an adaptation of another
design. The analysis carried out in previous chapters of this research paper deemed the
maximum un-factored permissible concrete pressure for this system to be 280 kNm2. The
 94

maximum fresh concrete pressure recorded across the 77 sites of the project case study
carried out as part of this research paper found the highest fresh concrete pressure
distribution against wall formwork to be 104.4 kNm2. Therefore, conventional steel RHS wall
forms were suitable to be used across all the high-rise construction sites surveyed.

Conventional timber LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) wall forms are based on design guides
provided by timber manufactures such as Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia.
Conventional timber LVL wall forms consists of plywood sheathing, with timber members
placed as studs and wales on the back of the formwork connected with bolts and screws to
form a frame. Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia specify the use of 95mm x 47mm
LVL’s in their design guides for their two different vertical wall form assemblies (see Figures
2.9 & 2.10). Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia specify that the maximum
permissible concrete pressure for their LVL wall form system to be 93.6 kNm2. This is well
above the mean concrete pressure of 77.77 kNm2 recorded in the project case study and
means that Conventional timber LVL wall forms would have been suitable to resist the
bursting pressure of wet concrete in 75 of the 77 sites surveyed in the study.

The modular panel formwork system designed and supplied by Peri are plywood panels set
in a steel frame. Specialised patented hardware is a major component of the Peri panel
system, it is aimed at simplifying and speeding up erection of the wall formwork (Peri, 2016).
Panels can be used and reused as part of a large section and another time as individual units
and there is less need for skilled labour since almost all cutting, trimming, and fitting is
eliminated. Peri specify that the maximum permissible concrete pressure for their modular
panel wall form system to be 80 kNm2. This is marginally above the mean concrete pressure
of 77.77 kNm2 recorded in the project case study. The Peri modular panel wall form system
would have been suitable to resist the bursting pressure of wet concrete in 50 of the 77 sites
surveyed in the project case study.

The Ischebeck Titan aluminium wall formwork system is a modular system which is
comprised of plywood panels set in a aluminium frame (Ischebeck Titan, 2016). Because
these wall forms are aluminium panels they have the advantage of being extremely light
making them easier to handle and manoeuvre by both men and machinery. Like other
modular manufacturer supplied systems patented components are incorporated so that the
forms can be assembled for almost any size or shape. Ischebeck Titan specify that the
maximum permissible concrete pressure for their modular panel wall form system to be 88
 95

kNm2. This is higher than the mean concrete pressure of 77.77 kNm2 recorded in the project
case study. The Ischebeck Titan aluminium panel wall formwork system would have been
suitable to resist the bursting pressure of wet concrete in 58 of the 77 sites surveyed in the
project case study.
 96

Conclusions
The conclusions drawn from the obtained results and discussion, and the extent to which the
primary objectives set out at the beginning of this research paper have been achieved are
presented in this section.

Primary objective 1 was to research and evaluate the relevant Australian standards and
regulations for vertical wall formwork as they apply to the Australian high-rise construction
industry. This was achieved by a literature review. Australian standards and regulations were
gathered and reviewed as well as other research reports that evaluate current legislation of
the formwork industry. From this review it was concluded that although legislative
development in formwork practice over the years has been carried out, it can be argued that
it has not kept pace with innovation and practice within the industry. Due to the delay in the
release of an update of Australian Standard AS3610 Formwork for Concrete (1995) covering
formwork design and the issues stopping the release of the proposed Formwork Designers
Handbook there is currently a gap in appropriate literature for formwork designers in the
Australian formwork industry.

Primary objective 2 was to evaluate the wall formwork currently being used in the Australian
multistorey construction, and was achieved over several stages. The first stage was to
identify and quantify the types of wall formwork currently being used by carrying out a case
study on 77 Australian high-rise construction sites. There were 4 different wall formwork
systems identified, used by the 9 different formwork contractors to form the lift cores of the
buildings in the study. The case study was also used in identifying the number of uses wall
formwork was subjected to at each site, as well as the loads on wall formwork during the
construction cycle. The second stage in achieving primary objective 2 was to develop a
greater understanding of the lateral concrete pressures that occur against wall formwork
and then use this to evaluate the structural capacity of the different types of wall formwork
used in high-rise construction.

Conventional steel RHS wall forms were found to be the most popular wall formwork system
in Australia multistorey construction as they were being used on 81% of the sites surveyed.
At present there is no published literature or design information pertaining to this formwork
system as it is an adaptation of another design, developed out of necessity due to the
amount of re-uses the forms are subjected to on a high-rise building site. Because this style
of formwork system has become a common building tool a thorough structural analysis was
 97

carried out as part of this research. From this analysis, a theoretical maximum concrete
pressure capacity was attributed to the steel RHS conventional wall form system which will
serve as a guide for formwork designers wishing to use this system in the future.

A key finding from this research was the lateral concrete pressure data obtained from the
project case study. The concrete pressure data collected in this study will be useful in the
design of future wall formwork systems to ensure that the design is suitable for the range of
pressures the form will be subjected to when re-used across different projects in the
multistorey formwork industry. The mean maximum concrete pressure across the 77
construction sites was 77.77 kNm2, however this average pressure was increased
significantly by the high concrete pressures that occur on office building projects because of
their higher pour heights. Perhaps a better indicator for this data set is the median concrete
pressure which was calculated as 73.20 kNm2. The mode or most occurring concrete
pressure across the sites surveyed was 69.60 kNm2.

The concrete pressure data collected highlighted the vast range of pressures that wall
formwork is subjected to in multi-storey formwork construction. The maximum hydrostatic
pressure was found to be 104.40 kNm2 and the minimum was 67.20 kNm2 giving a wide
range of 37.20 kNm2. The concrete pressure data was used to evaluate the adequacy of the
4 wall formwork varieties that the project case study found formwork contractors are
currently using. The research found not all wall formwork systems are suitable for blanket
use with 3 out of the 4 varieties not suitable to be used on all 77 sites included in the study.

Whilst wall form systems require engineer design certification, this certification can be done
once and used as evidence of design compliance. The design certification can be provided as
part of the brochure prepared by the manufacturer of the system (Workplace Health and
Safety Queensland, 2016), thus when formwork is re-used on future projects there is a
danger that formwork will be inadequate for the concrete pressures encountered and failure
may occur.
 98

5.1 SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY

This research paper can be viewed as a preliminary study, aimed towards understanding and
quantifying wall formwork use and its governing regulations within the Australian multi-
storey construction industry. This study was limited by the fact that there was limited
published literature or past research within this field or industry.

The following recommendations for further research are proposed based on the conclusions
and limitations of this study:

• Validation of the project case study research by including a wider sample of building
sites will increase the accuracy of the data collected.

• Australian standard AS3610 Formwork for Concrete (1995) and this research study
rely on theoretical calculations to estimate design loads on wall formwork. An
accurate estimation of the lateral concrete pressures wall formwork is subjected to
during construction would be very useful to the industry. This could be done by
measuring the actual loads on the formwork while it is being used onsite. This
research could be presented to the Standards Development Committee for
Formwork to be considered in future amendments of AS3610 Formwork for
Concrete.

• Theoretical calculations were used to assess the structural capacities of wall

formwork structures in this study. Real world physical testing of formwork
components could be performed using specimens removed from formwork
assemblies to attain more accurate capacities for the different formwork systems.

• The deterioration of wall formwork capacity through use & reuse could also be
studied to assess the useful life cycle of the different formwork systems.
 99

Reference List
ACI, 2005. The Contractor’s Guide to Qaulity Concrete Construction. Michigan: American
Concrete Institute.

Autodesk Inc, 2016. Finite Element Analysis. [Online]

Available at: http://www.autodesk.com/solutions/finite-element-analysis

Barnes, M. J. & Johnstone, D. W., 2004. Fresh Concrete Lateral Pressure On Formwork, s.l.:
ASCE.

Boughton, G. N. & Crews, K. I., 2013. TIMBER DESIGN HANDBOOK. Sydney: Standards
Australia.

Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia, 2012. Formwork Solutions Guide, s.l.: Carter
Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia.

Civil Engineering, 2016. Temporary Structures Formwork. [Online]

Available at: http://www.learncivilengineering.com/wp-
content/themes/thesis/images/construction-engineering/Formwork.pdf

Civil Resources, 2010. Formwork. [Online]

Available at: http://civil-resources.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/formwork.html

Clear, C. A. & Harrison, T. A., 1985. Concrete pressure on formwork, London: Construction
Industry Research and Information Association.

Concrete Institute of Australia, 2016. Formwork Design Handbook. [Online]

Available at: https://www.concreteinstitute.com.au/Technical-Groups/Formwork-Design-
Handbook

Das, A., 2014. Risk and Reliability Associated with Use and Reuse of Vertical Formwork,
Oregon : Oregon State University.

Gorenko, B. E., Tinyou, R. & Syam, A. A., 2012. Steel Designers Handbook. Sydney: UNSW
Press.

Hallowell, M. & Gambatese, J., 2009. Activity based safety risk quantification for concrete
formwork construction. Journal of Construction Engineering Managment, pp. 990-998.
 100

Hibbeler, R. C., 2012. Structural Analysis. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Hurd, M., 2005. Formwork for Concrete, Seventh Edition. Michigan: American Concrete
Institute.

Ischebeck Titan, 2016. NOEtop Panel System. [Online]

Available at: http://www.ischebeck-titan.co.uk/fwbrochures/NOEtop%20Panels.pdf

Ling, Y. Y. & Leo, K., 2000. Reusing timber formwork: importance of workmens efficiency.
Building and Environment Vol 35, pp. 135-143.

McAdam, P., 1991. Plywood in Concrete Formwork, s.l.: Plywood Association of Australia.

Nemati, K. M., 2007. Introduction to Concrete Formwork, Washington: University of

Washington.

One Steel Australia Tube Mills PTY LTD, 2010. Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel
Hollow Section, Sunnybank QLD: One Steel Australia Tube Mills PTY LTD.

Peri, 2016. PERI Wall Formwork. [Online]

Available at: http://www.periaus.com.au/products/formwork/wall-formwork.html

Peurifoy, R. L. & Oberlender, G. D., 2011. Formwork for Concrete Structures. USA: McGraw
Hill.

Rodin, S., 1952. Pressures of concrete on formwork, s.l.: Institute of Civil Engineers.

Safe Work Australia, 2014. Guide to Formwork. Canberra: Safe Work Australia.

SRIA, 2016. EXPERTISE - High Rise construction. [Online]

Available at: http://www.sria.com.au/highrise.html

Standards Australia, 1995. AS3610 Formwork for concrete. Sydney: Standards Australia.

Standards Australia, 1998. AS4100 Steel structures. Sydney: Standards Australia.

Standards Australia, 2002. AS 1170.0 Structural design actions General principles. Sydney:
Standards Australia.

Standards Australia, 2009. AS3600 Concrete Structures. Sydney: Standards Australia.

 101

Standards Australia, 2011. AS1170.2 Structural design actions Part 2 Wind actions. Sydney:
Standards Australia.

Standards Australia, n.d. AS1720.1 Timber Structures. Sydney: Standards Australia.

Structx, 2016. Structural Engineering Resources. [Online]

Available at: http://www.structx.com/Beam_Formulas_036.html

Whyte, A. & Brandis, P., 2010. Concrete Formwork Safety and Local Practice, Perth: Curtin
University.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, 2016. Formwork Code of Practice. Brisbane:
Queensland Government.
 102

Appendix A

Project Specification

For: Brad Carson

Title: Analysis of Wall Formwork used in the Australian Multi-storey Construction

Industry

Major: Civil engineering

Supervisors: Dr Sourish Banerjee

Enrolment: ENG4111 – EXT S1 2016 & ENG4112 – EXT S2 2016

Project Aim: Conduct a comparative analysis of steel RHS and timber LVL wall formwork
commonly used in the Australian Multi-storey Construction industry with the aim of
providing suggestions to optimise the design of steel RHS wall formwork.

Programme: Issue A, 16th March 2016

1. Research and investigate types of wall formwork used in Australia and worldwide.

2. Research relevant Australian Standards and regulations for wall formwork.

3. Research and determine the lateral pressure imposed by the fresh concrete against
the wall forms as well as other construction loads imposed in service.

4. Compare the properties of timber LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) and steel RHS
(Rectangular Hollow Section).

5. Conduct a comparative structural analysis using steel and timber capacity tables, and
theoretical calculations.

6. Model both steel and timber wall forms and conduct Finite Element Analysis (Strand
7, AutoCAD Inventor) in 3D.

7. Conduct a comparative cost analysis including fabrication cost of the different wall
forms.

8. Make recommendation on refinement to the steel RHS wall formwork design.

If time and resources permit:

9. Research and Compare the effects weathering has on timber LVL and steel RHS.
 103

Appendix B
Case Study Data
Formwork Type of Vertical Pour Max 1.5 Max
Project Location Building Type Floors
Contractor Formwork Height Pressure Pressure

Air on Broadbeach Broadbeach, Gold Apartment 37 Heinrich Conventional LVL Wall 3.2 76.8 115.2
Coast Constructions Forms

Brisbane Square Brisbane CBD Office 38 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.7 88.8 133.2
Constructions Forms

Stamford Brisbane CBD Hotel 22 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108

Constructions Forms

Festival Towers Brisbane CBD Hotel 41 Heinrich Conventional LVL Wall 2.8 67.2 100.8
Constructions Forms

Artique Tower Surfers Paradise, Apartment 30 Pryme PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 2.85 68.4 102.6
Gold Coast Forms

Southport Central Southport, Gold Apartment 47 Pryme PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 2.95 70.8 106.2
Coast Forms

Ultra Broadbeach, Gold Apartment 30 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Coast Constructions Forms

Waves Broadbeach, Gold Apartment 34 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.97 71.28 106.92
Coast Constructions Forms
 104

Formwork Type of Vertical Pour Max 1.5 Max

Project Location Building Type Floors
Contractor Formwork Height Pressure Pressure

Reflections Tower 2 Coolangatta, Gold Apartment 20 Bosform PTY LTD Conventional LVL Wall 2.85 68.4 102.6
Coast Forms

Mantra Sierra Grand Broadbeach, Gold Hotel 31 Pryme PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Coast Forms

Evolution Brisbane CBD Hotel 36 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.8 67.2 100.8
Constructions Forms

Meriton Mosaic Pitt St, Sydney Hotel 35 Betaform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Forms

333 Anne St Brisbane CBD Office 27 Southgate Ishebeck Modular Panel 3.85 92.4 138.6
Formwork Forms

Northbridge Brisbane CBD Office 38 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.8 91.2 136.8
Constructions Forms

275 George St Brisbane CBD Office 32 Southgate Ishebeck Modular Panel 3.8 91.2 136.8
Formwork Forms

Grande Pacific Southport, Gold Apartment 25 Ashford Formwork Conventional RHS Wall 3.25 78 117
Coast Forms

Central Plaza 3 Brisbane CBD Office 14 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.55 85.2 127.8
Constructions Forms
 105

Formwork Type of Vertical Pour Max 1.5 Max

Project Location Building Type Floors
Contractor Formwork Height Pressure Pressure

Elysse Residences Kirra, Gold Coast Apartment 12 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.85 68.4 102.6
Constructions Forms

Oceans Broadbeach, Gold Apartment 20 Bosform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Coast Forms

Ambience Burleigh Heads, Apartment 15 Pryme PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Gold Coast Forms

Matisse tower Brisbane CBD Office 24 Southgate Ishebeck Modular Panel 3.5 84 126
Formwork Forms

Bundall Corporate Bundall, Gold Office 15 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.55 85.2 127.8
Center Coast Constructions Forms

The Rocket Robina, Gold Office 15 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.6 86.4 129.6
Coast Constructions Forms

111 Eagle St Brisbane CBD Office 54 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.75 90 135
Constructions Forms

Hilton East Tower Surfers Paradise, Hotel 57 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.95 70.8 106.2
Gold Coast Constructions Forms

Hilton West Tower Surfers Paradise, Hotel 37 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.92 70.08 105.12
Gold Coast Constructions Forms
 106

Formwork Type of Vertical Pour Max 1.5 Max

Project Location Building Type Floors
Contractor Formwork Height Pressure Pressure

40 Eden Ave Coolangatta, Gold Apartment 12 Dolcon PTY LTD Conventional LVL Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Coast Forms

225 Miller St North Sydney Apartment 25 Betaform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Forms

Victoria Towers Southport, Gold Apartment 37 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Coast Constructions Forms

King George Central Brisbane CBD Office 27 Bosform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3.75 90 135
Forms

3 Hasler Rd Osbourne Park, Office 15 G&N Peri Modular Panel 3.8 91.2 136.8
Perth Constructions Forms

Byres St Newstead, Apartment 17 Bosform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Brisbane Forms

127 Charlotte St Brisbane CBD Apartment 29 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Constructions Forms

Eclipse Broadbeach, Gold Apartment 21 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.1 74.4 111.6
Coast Constructions Forms

Victoria Park Zetland, Sydney Apartment 22 Betaform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Building A Forms
 107

Formwork Type of Vertical Pour Max 1.5 Max

Project Location Building Type Floors
Contractor Formwork Height Pressure Pressure

Victoria Park Zetland, Sydney Apartment 20 Betaform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Building C Forms

8 Chifley Square Sydney CBD Office 22 Trazmet PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3.85 92.4 138.6
Forms

G40 Southport, Gold Office 12 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 4.35 104.4 156.6
Coast Constructions Forms

7 Railway St Chatswood, Apartment 44 Trazmet PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Sydney Forms

825 Ann St Fortitude Valley, Office 12 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.65 87.6 131.4
Brisbane Constructions Forms

Felicity Hotel Sydney CBD Hotel 33 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Constructions Forms

Queens Riverside East Perth Apartment 25 G&N Peri Modular Panel 3.1 74.4 111.6
Constructions Forms

Mosaic Apartments Fortitude Valley, Apartment 17 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Brisbane Constructions Forms

1 Central Park Sydney Apartment 34 Trazmet PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3.15 75.6 113.4
Forms
 108

Formwork Type of Vertical Pour Max 1.5 Max

Project Location Building Type Floors
Contractor Formwork Height Pressure Pressure

168 Walters Drive Osbourne Park, Office 15 G&N Peri Modular Panel 3.67 88.08 132.12
Perth Constructions Forms

100 Skyring Terrace Newstead, Office 12 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.8 91.2 136.8
Brisbane Constructions Forms

Cloisters on Hay Perth Office 11 G&N Peri Modular Panel 3.8 91.2 136.8
Constructions Forms

One William St Brisbane CBD Office 44 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.85 92.4 138.6
Constructions Forms

Kings Square 1 Perth Office 19 G&N Peri Modular Panel 3.85 92.4 138.6
Constructions Forms

111 Mary St Brisbane CBD Office 10 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.85 92.4 138.6
Constructions Forms

Brooklyn on Brookes Fortitude Valley, Apartment 15 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Brisbane Constructions Forms

Crown Towers Perth Hotel 38 G&N Peri Modular Panel 2.9 69.6 104.4
Constructions Forms

The Milton Milton, Brisbane Apartment 30 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.91 69.84 104.76
Constructions Forms
 109

Formwork Type of Vertical Pour Max 1.5 Max

Project Location Building Type Floors
Contractor Formwork Height Pressure Pressure

Remora Rd Hamilton, Apartment 17 Bosform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3.1 74.4 111.6
Brisbane Forms

RNA Stage 1 Fortitude Valley, Apartment 15 Bosform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Brisbane Forms

Pinnacle Hamilton, Apartment 15 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108

Apartments Brisbane Constructions Forms

Synergy Broadbeach, Gold Apartment 26 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Coast Constructions Forms

Rhapsody Surfers Paradise, Apartment 42 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.85 68.4 102.6
Gold Coast Constructions Forms

RNA K1 Fortitude Valley, Office 10 Bosform PTY LTD Conventional RHS Wall 3.75 90 135
Brisbane Forms

Westmark Milton Milton, Brisbane Apartment 22 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Constructions Forms

Abian Tower Brisbane Apartment 41 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.2 76.8 115.2
Constructions Forms

Newstead Towers Newstead, Apartment 14 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.05 73.2 109.8
Brisbane Constructions Forms
 110

Formwork Type of Vertical Pour Max 1.5 Max

Project Location Building Type Floors
Contractor Formwork Height Pressure Pressure

480 Hay St Perth Perth Office 22 G&N Peri Modular Panel 3.85 92.4 138.6
Constructions Forms

300 George St Hotel Brisbane CBD Hotel 32 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.05 73.2 109.8
Constructions Forms

300 George St Brisbane CBD Apartment 82 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Residential Constructions Forms

300 George St Office Brisbane CBD Office 39 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.92 94.08 141.12
Constructions Forms

The Springs Perth Office 15 G&N Peri Modular Panel 3.7 88.8 133.2
Constructions Forms

Art House Brisbane Apartment 30 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.05 73.2 109.8
Constructions Forms

The Yards Fortitude Valley, Apartment 18 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Brisbane Constructions Forms

Spire Brisbane Apartment 39 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Constructions Forms

Southpoint Southbank, Apartment 15 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.08 73.92 110.88
Brisbane Constructions Forms
 111

Formwork Type of Vertical Pour Max 1.5 Max

Project Location Building Type Floors
Contractor Formwork Height Pressure Pressure

Jupiters Suites Hotel Broadbeach, Gold Hotel 22 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.5 84 126
Coast Constructions Forms

Coorparoo Square Coorparoo Apartment 19 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 2.9 69.6 104.4
Brisbane Constructions Forms

Jewel Tower 1 Surfers Paradise, Apartment 42 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3 72 108
Gold Coast Constructions Forms

Jewel Tower 2 Surfers Paradise, Apartment 48 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.4 81.6 122.4
Gold Coast Constructions Forms

Jewel Tower 3 Surfers Paradise, Apartment 35 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.4 81.6 122.4
Gold Coast Constructions Forms

Casino Towers South Brisbane Apartment 30 Heinrich Conventional RHS Wall 3.05 73.2 109.8
Constructions Forms
112