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

net/publication/259578995

Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study

Article  in  Advances in Structural Engineering · August 2012

DOI: 10.1260/1369-4332.15.8.1389

CITATIONS READS

3 515

4 authors, including:

Jui-Lin Peng Siu-Lai Chan

National Yunlin University of Science and Technology www.hkisc.org
48 PUBLICATIONS   530 CITATIONS    255 PUBLICATIONS   4,327 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chung-Ho Huang
National Taipei University of Technology
20 PUBLICATIONS   373 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Flexible barrier View project

Second-order Direct Analysis of steel and composite structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jui-Lin Peng on 04 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems:
An Experimental Study

by

Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang

Reprinted from

Advances in Structural Engineering

Volume 15 No. 8 2012

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.

5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems:
An Experimental Study

Jui-Lin Peng1, Pao-Li Wang2, Siu Lai Chan3,*and Chung-Ho Huang4

1Graduate School of Engineering Science and Technology, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
2Graduate School of Engineering Science and Technology, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
3Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
4Department of Civil Engineering, Dahan Institute of Technology, Taiwan

(Received: 13 December 2010; Received revised form: 21 November 2011; Accepted: 22 November 2011)

Abstract: This investigation elucidates the load capacities of wooden shores and
adjustable steel tube shores that are commonly used in construction. A series of
loading tests was performed based on actual setups used on construction sites.
Research results reveal that the load capacity of an isolated wooden or an adjustable
steel tube shore declines as its length increases, and the load capacity of adjustable
steel tube shores greatly exceeds that of wooden shores of the same length in isolated
and multi-post shoring systems. A wooden shore fails by buckling under compression
load. The failure of an adjustable steel tube shore in tests is due to buckling when the
shore length exceeds 3.96 m, and the failure will be resulted from damage of
connecting tube lock if the shore length is less than 3.96 m. When the top block of the
adjustable steel tube shore is a wooden stringer, the load capacity is remarkably less
than when it is a steel block. Adjustable steel tube shores will be reduced in load
capacity after reuses. The load capacity of an isolated shore is reduced when the shore
is placed on an inclined base. Reinforcing an isolated wooden shore with horizontal
wooden bars and iron wires increases its load capacity. However, when an isolated
wooden shore is reinforced with lateral cable bracings, the load capacity is not
affected. Inserting the woodblock under an isolated wooden shore on an inclined plane
can increase the load capacity of the shore. The multi-post shoring system that is
reinforced with horizontal bracings only slightly affects the total load capacity of the
system studied in this paper.

Key words: adjustable steel tube shore, critical load, falsework, load capacity, shore, wooden shore.

1. INTRODUCTION specifications for falsework setups in Taiwan are not

In Taiwan and some other places, low and high
headrooms are defined as headroom less than 4 m and
more than 7 m, respectively. Falsework members
commonly have varied lengths and are made of
different materials because constructions sites have
varied setups and internal clearance heights. Wooden
shores or adjustable steel tube shores are commonly
used in structures with low headroom. Figure 1 shows a
typically adjustable steel tube shoring system that is
used on construction sites in Taiwan. Since design
complete, workers always rely on their experience in
setting up such shores, leading to frequent collapses of
falsework. Figure 2 shows the collapse of falsework at a
construction site in Youth Park, Taipei, Taiwan.
Figure 3 shows arrangements of single-layer shoring
systems that are commonly used in construction sites.
As shown in the figure, adjustable steel tube shores are
arranged vertically while reinforced horizontal bracings
act as reinforcements of the vertical shores to increase
their load capacities. On construction sites, various

*Corresponding author. Email address: ceslchan@polyu.edu.hk; Fax: +852-2334-6389; Tel: +852-2766-6047.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012 1389

 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study

Horizontal bracing

Figure 1. Adjustable steel tube shoring system used on a Figure 4. Use of wooden bars as horizontal bracings on a
construction site in Taiwan construction site

In recent years, much research has been addressed to

the safety of falsework. For instance, Hadipriono and
Wang (1986) studied and analyzed the collapse cases of
85 bridges and buildings under construction within a
period of 23 years in the US. The results showed that
about 70% of the collapses occurred during concreting.
Among all the collapse cases, about 30% used vertical
shores and 50% used steel tower shoring systems,
indicating that the risk of collapse is rather high when
isolated steel tubes are used as falsework members.
As to the research of scaffolds as falsework, Godley
and Beale (1997) modeled the proprietary scaffold
under sway conditions and refined the performance of
their models. Liu et al. (2010) studied the effects of
Figure 2. Collapse of falsework at a construction site in Youth cross bracing on stability of falseworks. Weesner and
Park, Taipei, Taiwan Jones (2001) conducted tests and analytical studies on
4 different types of frame scaffolding systems
approximately 5 m height to explore the ultimate load
Floor slab
capacity of these scaffolding systems. Only eigen-
buckling analysis and geometrically nonlinear elastic
analysis were used in their study.
Horizontal
bracings
Peng et al. (1996a, b, 1997) investigated safety of
RC column various steel scaffolding systems with a variety of
headrooms, explored the difference of load capacity and
failure mechanism between the “steel scaffolding
system” and the “steel scaffolding system with wooden
shores”, and proposed design guidelines of the
Adjustable steel scaffolding system to falsework design. Peng et al.
tube shores (1998) further explored the effect of concrete grouting
(or wooden shores)
paths on the reaction forces of a simplified shoring
Figure 3. Setup of single-layer shoring system system. The results of this study could be used as a
reference for early warning design on shoring systems.
Kuo et al. (2008) conducted outdoor full-scale loading
materials are used in horizontal bracings, such as steel tests to explore the variation of reaction forces of a steel
tubes, wooden bars and steel bars. Figure 4 shows scaffolding system with wooden shores under different
wooden bars used as horizontal bracings on a concrete grouting paths. Sandbags were used to simulate
construction site. the concrete loading in these tests.

1390 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012

Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang
Chandrangsu and Rasmussen (2010) reviewed state-
of-the-art research in scaffolding systems and further
indicated the viability of advanced analysis in design
and analysis of scaffolding systems. Chan et al. (1995,
2003, 2004) investigated the stability of the scaffolding
system by non-linear analyses with allowance for frame
and member imperfections using element with initial
curvature to simulate member buckling.
Apart from steel scaffolds, adjustable steel tube
shores can also serve as falsework members. Peng
(2002, 2004) conducted numerical analysis on load
capacities and failure modes of single-layer and
double-layer setups of wooden shores and adjustable
steel tube shores respectively. The results showed that
the leaning column effect had a significant impact on
the ultimate load carrying capacity of both single-layer
and double-layer shoring systems. A larger leaning
angle in columns in a shoring system leads to a greater
reduction of ultimate load carrying capacity. However,
these studies conducted by Peng (2002, 2004) were
basically analytical without sufficient experimental
evidence.
As noted above, research on scaffolds as falsework
members is extensive. However, studies on using wooden
shores or adjustable steel tube shores as falsework
members are comparatively less. Furthermore, as shown
in Hadipriono and Wang’s (1986) studies, the risk of
collapse is high when single-layer shoring systems are
setup with wooden shores or adjustable steel tube shores.
Therefore, it is necessary to conduct studies on bearing
strength of this kind of shoring systems to prevent
collapse incidents.
2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND
SIGNIFICANCE
This study seeks to investigate the load capacities and
failure modes of single-layer shoring systems in
building construction. The investigations were mainly
conducted through experimental tests. The test setups
were based on the actual situations on construction sites
in Taiwan. As displayed in Figure 5, two theodolites
90° Theodolite
Theodolite
Top view
Figure 5. Setup for testing isolated wooden shores
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012
were used to measure the lateral displacement in two
vertical directions. Then, the relationship between the
axial force and the lateral displacement can be
identified.
The falsework members used in this study were
wooden shores and adjustable steel tube shores. Based on
the setup in construction sites, the loading tests were
conducted on both wooden and adjustable steel tube
shoring systems with different arrangements in terms of
shore length, boundary conditions, lateral reinforcement,
and various numbers of two kinds of shores. The research
items of this study and their reasons are described as
follows:
2.1. Isolated Shores
This test aims to determine the load capacities of an
isolated wooden shore and an isolated adjustable steel
tube shore, as well as the variation of bearing strengths
under various lengths of shores. The results can be used
as a basis for follow-up loading tests of shoring systems.
The results are also displayed in a column curve,
commonly used on construction sites, to make it easier
for engineers to obtain the load capacities of isolated
wooden or adjustable steel tube shores of various
lengths.
Figure 5 presents the setup for testing an isolated
wooden shore. Since the maximum length of wooden
shores supplied by Taiwanese construction suppliers is
3.6 m, the lengths of the wooden shores used in the tests
were 1.8 m, 2.0 m, 3.0 m and 3.6 m. Load capacities
were measured by loading tests as satisfying the code
CNS-453 (2005).
Figure 6(a) presents the test setup for an isolated
adjustable steel tube shore. The lengths of adjustable
steel tube shores used in the tests are 3.0 m, 3.4 m, 3.6 m,
3.96 m, 4.5 m and 4.7 m. Load capacities are measured
by performing loading tests that satisfy the code CNS-
5645 (1983). According to the code, both the top and
the bottom boards of the setup used in the tests must be
stuck on an even steel boundary. However, on real
construction sites, usually most upper members of
falsework are horizontal wooden stringers. Therefore,
the load capacity of the adjustable steel tube shore may
be affected by the boundary condition. To model the
actual setup on construction sites, the isolated
adjustable steel tube shore was established with the top
horizontal wooden stringer as the top boundary and the
bottom stuck smoothly to the concrete as in the actual
construction boundary [see Figure 6(b)].
2.2. Multi-Post Shores
In order to understand whether the load capacity of a
multi-post shoring system can be obtained through
1391
 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study

Steel boundary

60 cm
Steel base
60 cm 60 cm

60 cm 60 cm 60 cm

(a) Complying CNS code (a) 4-post case (b) 9-post case

Figure 7. Setup for testing multi-post wooden shoring systems

Wood

Adjustable steel
tube shore
R.C. base

(b) Imitating scenarios on construction sites

cm
Figure 6. Setup for testing isolated adjustable steel tube shores 60
60 cm

(a) 4-post case

multiplying the “number of shores” by the “load
capacity of an isolated shore”, loading tests were
performed on multi-post shoring systems. In this
investigation, 4-post and 9-post shoring systems were
used in the loading tests (Figures 7 and 8). The shores
were arranged in a bilateral and equally spaced manner
without any lateral supports.

2.3. Varied Boundary Conditions

Designers sometimes use slanted planes for aesthetic
reasons as in churches, temples, auditoriums and car
ramp lanes, for examples. In such cases, the boundaries
of a shoring system may be inclined planes with various
cm

angles. This investigation explores the effect of

60

inclined boundaries on the load capacity of shoring

cm

systems.
60

The loading tests were performed under the 60 cm 60 cm

following boundary conditions: (1) ground inclinations

(b) 9-post case
were 10° and 20°; (2) top surface inclination was 10°;
(3) both top and bottom surface inclinations were 20°. Figure 8. Setup for testing multi-post adjustable steel tube systems

1392 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012

Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang

Figures 9 and 10 present the test setups for isolated
wooden shores and multi-post wooden shoring systems,
respectively, with various inclination in boundaries. In
order to simulate the real situations on construction
sites, a triangle gap was maintained between the
vertical shore and inclined plane (see the insert graphs
in Figures 9 and 10).
Figure 9(a) presents an isolated wooden shore setup
on an inclination at the bottom end. The isolated
wooden shore was vertically set up on an inclined
concrete block. The top end of the wooden shore was
fixed to a horizontal wooden bar with nails. Figure 9(b)
presents an isolated wooden shore setup with an
inclination at the top end. The isolated wooden shore

α α

α α
(a) Inclined bottom (b) Inclined top (c) Inclined top/bottom

Figure 9. Setup for testing isolated wooden shores with variously inclined boundaries

α
(a) Inclined top surface (b) Inclined bottom surface

Figure 10. Setup for testing multi-post wooden shoring systems with inclined boundaries

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012 1393

 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study
was vertically set up on a horizontal concrete block.
The top end of the wooden shore was connected to an
inclined wooden structure, which was fixed under the
load holder of the test equipment. Figure 9(c) presents
an isolated wooden shore setup with inclinations at
both top and bottom ends. The isolated wooden shore
was vertically set up on an inclined concrete block
with its top end connected to an inclined wooden
structure. The inclined planes on the top and bottom
were horizontally set up to simulate the situation of a
car ramp.
Basically, the inclined setup in Figure 9(c) was the
same as those in Figures 9(a) and 9(b). Figure 10
presents a multi-post wooden shoring system. The
inclined setup in Figure 10(b) was the same as that in
Figure 9(a).
2.4. Falsework Reinforcements
Most workers strengthen shoring systems on
construction sites based on experience, but they may not
realize the effect of strengthening on load capacity. This
investigation elucidates various strengthening methods
that are frequently used in construction sites and reviews
the effect of these reinforcements.
As far as the isolated shore is concerned, the most
effective approach to increase the load capacity of an
isolated shore is to shorten its effective length. The tests
were planned based on this viewpoint. Cables and wooden
bars were used as reinforcements in loading tests.
Figure 11 presents isolated wooden shores that are
C -clamp
Cable Wooden bar
Wood
chip
Steel column Steel column
Steel column
(a) Cable reinforcement (b) Wooden bar reinforcement
Figure 11. Setup for testing reinforcements of isolated wooden shores
1394
reinforced with cables and wooden bars. As presented in
Figure 11(a), cables are fixed to the center of the wooden
shore using a C-clamp. Both ends of the cables are
fastened to the steel columns of the loading machine. As
presented in Figure 11(b), wooden bars are nailed to the
center of the wooden shore and fixed using wires. Both
ends of the wooden bars are also fastened to the steel
columns.
An isolated wooden shore on an inclined base
boundary is herein reinforced using a method usually
adopted in construction sites i.e. insertion of a
woodblock between the bottom of the wooden shore and
the inclined ground boundary. The woodblock was
tightly fixed in position with steel nails in order to assure
the reinforcement effect [see Figure 11(c)]. To reinforce
multi-post shoring systems, closed-form horizontal
bracings are fixed between vertical shores as shown in
Figure 12.
Figure 12(a) presents a 4-post wooden shoring
system with lateral reinforcements. The four posts of
the shoring system were reinforced with a horizontal
bracing respectively. The horizontal bracings were
fixed to each wooden shore with wires to make the
shoring structure a closed system. Figure 12(b) presents
a 4-post steel tube shoring system with lateral
reinforcements. A 4-post steel tube shoring system was
set up with its top end connected to horizontal wooden
stringers and bottom end on the concrete ground. The
four steel tube shores were reinforced at proper
positions with horizontal bracings when conducting
loading tests.
Wires
Steel column
Woodblock
α
(c) Woodblock reinforcement
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012
Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang

(a) 4-post wooden shores

2−3 layer

1−2 layer
(a) Case 8W1S

(b) 4-post adjustable steel tube shores

Figure 12. Setup for testing reinforcements of multi-post

shoring systems

2.5. Combined Shoring Systems

To reduce cost, combined setups of wooden shores and
adjustable steel tube shores are commonly used on
construction sites to increase load capacity and reduce
the cost of shoring systems. In this investigation, the
load capacity of a combined setup of wooden and
adjustable steel tube shores is tested and the difference
between its load capacity and that for a wooden shore
system alone is determined. (b) Case 6W3S
In the tests, the shores are arranged as follows: (a)
Figure 13. Setup for testing combined wooden and adjustable
The central wooden shore of a 9-post wooden shoring
steel tube shores
system is replaced with an adjustable steel tube shore.
This combined setup, with 8 wooden shores and 1
adjustable steel tube shore, is defined as “8W1S” three adjustable steel tube shores. This combined setup,
[Figure 13(a)]; (b) Replace the three wooden shores in with 6 wooden shores and 3 adjustable steel tube shores,
the middle row of a 9-post wooden shoring system with is defined as “6W3S” [Figure 13(b)].

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012 1395


3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1. Component Material Properties
Full-scale experimental loading tests were performed
on both wooden and adjustable steel tube single-layer
shoring systems. The wooden shores and adjustable
steel tube shores used in this study are common in
Taiwan. The material properties of the shores are as
follows: (1) The wooden shores are made of Kapur.
The average cross section is 5.6295 × 5.882 cm; the
average static bending elastic modulus (equivalent to
Young’s modulus of elasticity) is 1.247 × 106 N/cm2
(127,163 kgf/cm2). The yielding stress is 4,579 N/cm2
(466.9 kgf/cm2). (2) The properties of the adjustable
steel tube shores are as follows. The average diameter
and thickness of the base tubes are 60.14 mm and
2.21 mm, respectively. The second moment of area of
the base tube is 168,964 mm4 (Figure 14). The average
diameter and the thickness of the connecting tubes are
48.04 mm and 2.32 mm, respectively. The second
moment of area of the connecting tube is 87,294 mm4
(Figure 14). Young’s modulus of elasticity is
2.0 × 107 N/cm2 (2,040,000 kgf/cm2). The yield stress
is 24,517 N/cm2 (2,500 kgf/cm2).
3.2. Isolated Shores
3.2.1. Isolated wooden shores
Table 1 presents the load capacities of isolated wooden
shores determined in the tests. As indicated in the
C C
A A
d1
Lw Ls
d2
B B
Cross section d1 d2 (mm)
A 58.82 56.295
B – – 60.14
C – – 48.04
(a) Wooden shore (b) Section adjustable steel tube shore
Figure 14. Dimensions of wooden and adjustable steel tube shores
1396
Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study
table, the load capacity of an isolated wooden shore
declines as its length increases. The wooden shores
were damaged when large lateral displacements
occurred during tests. Figure 15 plots the P−∆ curve
obtained in test I of the load capacity of a 3.6 m
isolated wooden shore. In the figure, the vertical y-axis
represents the applied vertical axial force “P” while the
horizontal x-axis represents the lateral displacement
“∆”. As shown in the figure 15, the wooden shore
deformed at the beginning of load, revealing that the
isolated wooden shore had considerable initial
imperfection. Figure 16(a) presents the test results for
an isolated wooden shore.
Figure 17 plots the relationship between load capacity
(Pcr) and slenderness ratio (L /r) for wooden shores. The
test results all fall in a region as 100 < L /r < 250. The
formula for the curve of the wooden shores can be
obtained by regression analysis as Pcr = exp[−0.0109 (L/r)
+ 5.2683], where r is the radius of gyration.
Figure 17 reveals that when L/r of the wooden
shore is less than 23, the failure load is determined by
the yielding load of the shore (Pcr = Py), 152 kN (Py =
Fy × A = 466.9 kgf/cm2 × 33.1 cm2 = 15,454.39 kgf =
152 kN). When L/r exceeds 400, the load capacity is
almost zero.
Figure 18 plots the relationship between the load
capacity (Pcr) and length (L) of wooden shores, which is
given by Pcr = exp(−0.0068 L + 5.2755). In construction
Top tube
Ls3
Top plate
Connecting tube
Ls2 Ls2
Locking hole
Connecting tube
lock
D
t
Base tube
Ls1 Ls1
Bose plate
D t A (mm2) I (mm4)
– 3,311.3 954,692
2.21 402.2 168,964
2.32 333.2 87,294
(c) Section adjustable steel tube shore
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012
Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang

Table 1. Test results concerning load capacities of isolated wooden shores (unit: kN)

Bottom Bottom Top Top/bottom

Boundary inclined inclined inclined inclined
conditions Top/bottom horizontal 10° 20° 20° 20°
Length (m) 1.8 2.0 3.0 3.6 3.6
No. of I 56.33 56.11 28.20 18.77 10.88 8.94 10.43 10.15
tests II 58.00 49.49 20.94 16.93 12.13 10.94 12.97 9.56
Avg. 57.17 52.80 24.57 17.85 11.51 9.93 11.70 9.86

β
Graphs

200
sites, workers can conveniently determine load capacity
from shore length. As shown in the figure, when the
160 length of the wooden shore is less than 37 cm, the
buckling load equals the yield load. When the length
exceeds 600 cm, the load capacity is almost zero.
120 On construction sites, the length (L) of a wooden
P (kN)

shore can be determined more easily than the

slenderness ratio (L/r). For convenience, Figure 18 can
80
be used on construction sites. Field engineers can
simply use the length of the wooden shore to determine
40 the corresponding Pcr, then to divide this Pcr by a safety
factor or multiply it by an appropriate reduction factor
based on the actual boundary conditions on the site and
0 to determine the load capacity of the isolated wooden
0 30 60 90 120 150
shore. However, the appropriate safety factor or
∆ (mm)
reduction factor may need to be verified with further
Figure 15. P−∆ curve from tests of 3.6 m isolated wooden shore tests.

(a) Wooden shore (b) Adjustable steel tube shore (c) Adjustable steel tube shore imitating
scenarios on construction sites

Figure 16. Test results for isolated shores

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012 1397

 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study

200 3.2.2. Isolated adjustable steel tube shores

3.2.2.1. Tests based on CNS code
Table 2 presents the load capacities of isolated
Py
152
150 adjustable steel tube shores obtained in tests. The tests
were performed in a manner consistent with code CNS-
Pcr = exp (− 0.0109 (L/r ) + 5.2683) 5645 (CNS-5645 1983). As indicated in Table 2, the
Pcr (kN)

100 load capacity of an isolated adjustable steel tube shore

reduces with its length increases. When the total length
of an adjustable steel tube shore is less than 3.96 m,
failure occurs at the connecting tube lock, which is
50
inserted between the base tube and the connecting tube.
Failure is related to the material strengths of the
connecting tube locks, rather than the buckling of the
0
23 shore. Therefore, when the length of the isolated
0 200 400 600
adjustable steel tube shore is less than 3.96 m, the load
L/r
capacity can be effectively increased by simply
Figure 17. Pcr − L/r curve for wooden shores changing the material strength of the connecting tube
locks or increasing their cross-sectional area.
As the total length increases above 3.96 m, the load
200 capacity of an isolated adjustable steel tube shore
declines significantly. The failure model typically
Py
involves the buckling of the shore. In the test, when
152
150 failure occurred, the lateral displacement of the
adjustable steel tube shore was around 8–10 cm, which
Pcr = exp (− 0.0068(L) + 5.2755) is easily noticeable by the naked eye.
Pcr (kN)

100 Figure 19 plots the P−∆ curve from tests of a 3.6 m

adjustable steel tube shore, in compliance with code
CNS-5645. The critical load of the adjustable steel tube
50
shore is 31.19 kN. During the tests performed to obtain
Figure 19, when loading was less than 20 kN, elastic
behavior dominated and the P−∆ curve was almost a
straight line. Figure 16(b) plots the test result for an
0
37 adjustable steel tube shore setup which is based on the
0 200 400 600
code CNS-5645.
L (cm)
Tables 1 and 2 can be used to compare the average
Figure 18. Pcr − L curve for wooden shores load capacities of an isolated adjustable steel tube shore

Table 2. Test results concerning load capacities of isolated adjustable steel tube shores (unit: kN)

Test Imitating scenarios on construction sites

methods Complying CNS code 2-section 3-section
Length(m) 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.96 4.5 4.7 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.96 4.5 4.7 3.6 4.1 4.6
No. of I 33.05 31.35 30.99 27.94 15.92 15.31 32.60 19.95 8.00* 20.80 19.16 12.73 16.41 13.73 11.31
tests II 31.66 30.77 31.19 25.90 15.25 14.80 34.40 21.33 16.40* 26.47 13.42 14.88 18.83 13.81 11.69
Avg. 32.36 31.06 31.09 26.92 15.59 15.06 35.50 20.64 12.20* 23.64 16.29 13.80 17.62 13.77 11.50

Graphs

Note: 1. * denotes used shores

1398 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012

Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang
200
160
120
P (kN)
80
40
0 0
0 20 40 60 80
∆ (mm)
Figure 19. P−∆ curve from tests of a 3.6 m adjustable steel tube
shore based on CNS code
and an isolated wooden shore of the same length and
under the same boundary condition. The load capacity
(32.36 kN) of a 3.0 m adjustable steel tube shore is
around 32% (= (32.36−24.57)/24.57) higher than that of
a wooden shore (24.57 kN). The average load capacity
(31.09 kN) of a 3.6 m adjustable steel tube shore is
around 74% (= (31.09−17.85)/17.85) higher than that of
a wooden shore (17.85 kN). These results reveal that
increasing the length has a greater effect on reducing the
load capacity of a wooden shore. Therefore, for reasons
of both practicability and safety, when the shoring length
is high, adjustable steel tube shores should be used.
3.2.2.2. Tests that imitate scenarios on
construction sites
2-section and the 3-section adjustable steel tube shores
were used in the tests. As indicated in Table 2, the
average load capacity of a new 3.6 m and 2-section
adjustable steel tube shore is only 3.02 kN (= 20.64−
17.62) higher than that of a 3-section adjustable steel
tube shore of the same length. Field engineers can select
different adjustable steel tube shores based on the actual
conditions on construction sites.
Figure 20 plots the P−∆ curve obtained from tests of
a new 3.6 m 2-section adjustable steel tube shore. The
critical load of the 2-section shore is 19.95 kN. Figure
16(c) presents one of these tests. In the tests, when
buckling occurs, the lateral displacement on both the
2-section and 3-section adjustable steel tube shores is
greatest at the joint between the base tube and the
connecting tube, slightly closer to the edge of the
connecting tube.
As indicated in Table 2, the load capacity of an
adjustable steel tube shore used on construction sites is
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012
200
160
120
P (kN)
80
40
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
∆ (mm)
Figure 20. P−∆ curve from tests of a 3.6 m /2-section adjustable
steel tube shore used on construction sites
lower than that of an adjustable steel tube shore which
complies with code CNS-5645. The top wooden board
on an adjustable steel tube shore greatly affects the load
capacity of the shore. The top and bottom plates of an
adjustable steel tube shore can be treated as flexural
springs, providing the stiffness for bending resistance. If
wooden stringers are used on the top of the shores, the
bending stiffness is reduced and this leads to lowering of
the load capacity of the shore.
Table 2 also reveals that the load capacities of used
adjustable steel tube shores are lower than the new ones
under the same test condition. The load capacity of
some used shores is approximately 39% (=8.0/20.64) to
that of new ones. Since it is not easy to know well the
damage of used adjustable steel tube shores and the data
produced from this study are limited, the load capacity
loss of used adjustable steel tube shores needs to be
determined with further tests. In the tests, the connecting
tube locks between the base tube and the connecting
tube in the used shores deformed seriously after loading.
Therefore, special attention should be taken when used
shores are used on construction sites.
Figure 21 plots relationship between the critical load
(Pcr) and the slenderness ratio (L /r) of an adjustable
steel tube shore. The curve for adjustable steel tube
shores is approximated as,
Pcr = exp [−0.0093 (L/r) + 5.1473] (1)
r = (rb × Lsb + rc × Lsc)/(Lsb + Lsc) (2)
where rb represents the radius of gyration of the base
tube, Lsb is the length of the base tube, rc is the radius of
gyration of the connecting tube, Lsc is the length of the
base tube.
1399
 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study

200 200

150 150
Pcr = exp (− 0.0051(L) + 5.1624) Pcr = exp (− 0.0051(L) + 5.1624)
Py Test on CNS code Py Test on CNS code
Pcr (kN)

Pcr (kN)
99 99
100 100
Pcr = exp (− 0.0041(L) + 4.6597) Pcr = exp (− 0.0041(L) + 4.6597)
Simulated as on construction sites Simulated as on construction sites

50 50

0 16 111
0 16 111
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
L (cm) L (cm)

Figure 21. Pcr − L/r curve for an adjustable steel tube shore Figure 22. Pcr − L curve for an adjustable steel tube shore

As shown in Figure 21, the test results fall into the
range of 150 < L/r < 300. The rest of the curve is
obtained by extension and regression analysis. As
shown in the figure, when L/r of the adjustable steel
tube shore exceeds 500, the load capacity is almost zero.
When L/r is less than 59, the buckling load equals to the
yield load as 99 kN (Pcr = Py = Fy × A = 2,500 kgf/cm2 ×
4.02 cm2 = 10,500 kgf = 99 kN).
Since the cross-sections of the base tube and the
connecting tube of an adjustable steel tube shore vary,
determining the radius of gyration of the cross-
section, r , is difficult. For convenience on
construction sites, Figure 21 can be converted into a
curve of load capacity (Pcr) against length (L) for an
adjustable steel tube shore (Figure 22). This curve
reveals that when the length of an adjustable steel tube
shore is 6 m, its load capacity is only approximately
8 kN. Adjustable steel tube shores with a length of 6
m are commercially available for construction, but
their load capacities are very low. Therefore special
attention should be taken when workers use these
shores on construction sites.
3.3. Multi-Post Shoring Systems
3.3.1. Four-post wooden shoring systems
Table 3 presents the load capacities of multi-post
shoring systems obtained in the tests. As presented in
Table 3, when both ends have horizontal boundaries,
the average total load capacity of a 3.6 m 4-post
wooden shoring system is 52.91 kN. The average load
capacity of each wooden shore is 13.23 kN (=52.91/4).
The load capacity of each wooden shore in a 4-post

Table 3. Test results concerning load capacities of multi-post shoring systems (unit: kN)

Type of shores Wooden shore Adjustable steel tube shores

No. of shores 4 9 4 9
Length (m) 3.6 3.6 3.4 4.6# 3.6

Boundary Top/ bottom Bottom Top Top/bottom Top/bottom

conditions horizontal inclined inclined horizontal horizontal
20° 20°
No. of tests I 56.39 41.37 44.78 118.67 75.71* 32.87* 168.00
II 49.42 44.35 42.79 115.68 – 35.30* 158.83
Avg. 52.91 42.86 43.79 117.18 75.71* 34.10* 163.42
Avg./shore 13.23 10.72 10.95 13.02 18.93* 8.53* 18.16
α

Graphs α

Note: 1. * denotes used shores

2. # denotes 3-section adjustable steel tube shores
3. - denotes no test

1400 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012

Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang

wooden shoring system is 26% (=(17.85−13.23)/17.85)

lower than that of an isolated wooden shore (Table 1).
Figure 23 plots the P−∆ curve from tests of a 4-post
wooden shoring system, of which the critical load is
49.42 kN. As shown in the initial loading stage in the
figure, the applied load vs. deflection on the 4-post
wooden shoring system is linear. Once the loading
reached 40 kN, lateral displacement increases rapidly
and the system failed drastically. During the tests, some
wooden shores deformed more quickly and obviously
than others with a quick reduction in their load
capacities. Other wooden shores that did not fail would
need to take over the load distributed from the failed
wooden shores. When the system critical load reached,
lateral displacement increases suddenly and it causes
failure of the whole shoring system [Figure 24(a)].

3.3.2. Nine-post wooden shoring systems

Table 3 shows the test results on the load capacities of a
9-post shoring system. As indicated in the table, when (a) 4-post wooden shoring system
both top and bottom ends are horizontal boundaries, the
average load capacity of each wooden shore is 13.02 kN
(117.18/9), which is around 27% (=(17.85−13.02)/17.85)
lower than that of an isolated wooden shore. A
comparison with the 4-post wooden shoring system
reveals that as the number of posts in a multi-post
wooden shoring system increases, the average load
capacity of each wooden shore reduces.
Figure 25 presents the P−∆ curve obtained by tests on
a 9-post wooden shoring system, of which the critical load
is 118.67 kN. In the test, the observed wooden shore failed
first and its load was immediately distributed to other
wooden shores. This phenomenon caused an immediate

200

160

(b) 9-post wooden shoring system

120 Figure 24. Test results for multi-post wooden shoring systems
P (kN)

80 surge in the lateral displacement on the wooden shoring

system until the whole system failed [Figure 24(b)].

40 3.3.3. Four-post adjustable steel tube

shoring systems
The tests involved a 3.4 m 2-section and a 4.6 m
0 3-section adjustable steel tube shores. A 4-post
0 30 60 90 120 150
∆ (mm)
adjustable steel tube shoring system was established in
the loading tests. It imitates common scenarios on
Figure 23. P−∆ curve from tests of a 4-post wooden shoring system construction sites. The adjustable steel tube shores in the

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012 1401

 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study

200

160

120
P (kN)

80

40

0
0 30 60 90 120 150
∆ (mm)

Figure 25. P−∆ curve from tests of a 9-post wooden shoring system
(a) 4-post adjustable steel tube shoring system

tests have been used on construction sites. As indicated

in Table 3, with either a 3.4 m 2-section or a 4.6 m
3-section adjustable steel tube shoring system, the
average load capacity of each adjustable steel tube shore
is less than that of an isolated adjustable steel tube shore
under the same conditions (see Table 2).
Figure 26(a) presents the test results for a 3.4 m
2-section adjustable steel tube shoring system. As
observed in the tests, the failure mode of an adjustable
steel tube shoring system is similar to that of a wooden
shoring system. Both systems suffer from failure and large
displacement on the weakest shores after loading. Since
neither system is reinforced with any horizontal bracing,
the lateral displacement of each failed shore caused
buckling about its weak axis. The test results can be used
for reference in the reinforcement of shoring systems.

3.3.4. Nine-post adjustable steel tube

shoring systems
Tested on 3.6 m 2-section adjustable steel tube shores
were performed. A 9-post adjustable steel tube shoring
system was established in these tests. The setup imitated
common scenarios on construction sites. The average load
capacity of each 3.6 m 2-section adjustable steel tube
shore was 18.16 kN (=163.42/9) (see Table 3). Comparing
with the average load capacity of isolated adjustable steel
tube shores under the same conditions (Table 2), the load
capacity of each adjustable steel tube shore is only around
12% (=(20.64–18.16)/20.64) lower than that of an isolated
adjustable steel tube shore. As revealed by the tests, as the
number of posts in a multi-post adjustable steel tube
shoring system increased, the average load capacity of
each adjustable steel tube shore declined. Nevertheless,
(b) 9-post adjustable steel tube shoring system
Figure 26. Test results for multi-post adjustable steel tube
shoring systems
the decrease in the load capacity of adjustable steel tube
shores is less than that of wooden shores.
In the tests, collapse involved the failure of the
connecting tube lock and the buckling of the shoring
system, indicating that sledge pins between the base
tube and the connecting tube had reached the yield point
and could no longer bear the shearing force produced by
the connecting tube. The adjustable steel tube shores

1402 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012

Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang

200

160

120
P (kN)

80

40

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
∆ (mm) (a) Bottom inclined contact surface

Figure 27. P−∆ curve from tests of a 9-post adjustable steel tube
shoring system

were also observed to have undergone considerable

bending after buckling. As shown in Figure 27, the
adjustable steel tube shores had been laterally displaced
by 3∼4 cm when failure occurred. Figure 26(b) presents
the tests results. These failure directions of the shores
vary and they are determined by the weak axis of the
failed shore and independent of the strong or weak
directions of the whole shoring system.

3.4. Different Boundary Conditions

3.4.1. Inclined boundaries vs. isolated
wooden shores
Table 1 and Figure 28 present the test results about the (b) Top inclined contact surface
effect of various inclined boundaries on isolated wooden
shores. As shown in Figure 28(a), at a 10° ground
inclination, the average load capacity of isolated wooden
shores is 11.51 kN. As indicated in Table 1, the load
capacity of an isolated wooden shore with horizontal
boundaries at both top and bottom ends is higher than
those of an isolated wooden shore with a ground
inclination of both 10° and 20°. And the load capacity of
an isolated wooden shore with a ground inclination of
10° is higher than that of an isolated wooden shore with
a ground inclination of 20°. Therefore, under the
condition of an inclined ground boundary, the load
capacity declines as the inclination angle increases.
Figure 28(b) presents the failure modes of an isolated
wooden shore with a top inclination of 20°. The average
load capacity of these isolated wooden shores is 11.70 kN.
Figure 28(c) presents the failure modes of an isolated
(c) Top/bottom inclined contact surface
wooden shore with a ground inclination of 20°. The
average load capacity of these isolated wooden shores is Figure 28. Test results for isolated wooden shores with inclined
9.86 kN. As indicated in Table 1, the load capacity of an boundaries

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012 1403

 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study

isolated wooden shore with a top inclination of 20° is

lower than that of an isolated wooden shore with
horizontal boundaries at both ends. The load capacity of
an isolated wooden shore with a top inclination of 20° is
similar to that of an isolated wooden shore with a ground
inclination of 10°, but higher than those of an isolated
wooden shore with a ground inclination of 20° or an
inclination of 20° at both top and bottom ends.
It can be seen from the above tests that the drop of load
capacity of an isolated wooden shore is related to the
inclination angle. A larger inclination angle is associated
with a greater drop in load capacity. For a particular
inclination angle, the effect of the bottom inclined
boundary on the load capacity of an isolated wooden
shore exceeds that of the top inclined boundary. The load
capacity of isolated wooden shores when the top and
bottom boundaries are equally inclined is similar to that
of shores with boundary at bottom inclined to that angle. (a) Bottom inclined contact surface

3.4.2. Inclined boundaries vs. multi-post

wooden shoring systems
Table 3 and Figure 29 present test results of the effect of
variously inclined boundaries on 4-post wooden shores.
As shown in Figure 29(a), at a 20° ground inclination, the
average load capacity of 4-post wooden shoring systems is
42.86 kN, which is around 19% (=(52.91−42.86)/52.91)
lower than that of a 4-post wooden shore with horizontal
boundaries at both ends (52.91 kN). The average load
capacities of each wooden shore of a 4-post wooden
shoring system with top and bottom inclinations of 20° are
10.72 kN (=42.86/4) and 10.95 kN (=43.79/4)
respectively. This result is similar to those of isolated
wooden shores with the same inclined boundary
conditions, 9.93 kN and 10.70 kN (Table 1). The tests
reveal that under inclined boundary conditions, the load
capacity of a shoring system does not decrease as the size
of the shoring system increases. This phenomenon is (b) Top inclined contact surface
different from the situation under the horizontal boundary
Figure 29. Test results for 4-post wooden shoring systems with
conditions, in which the average load capacity of each
inclined boundaries
shore of a wooden shoring system is lower than that of an
isolated wooden shore.
As shown in Table 3 and Figure 29(b), at a top less than that of an isolated wooden shore (11.7 kN)
boundary inclination of 20°, the average load capacity of (Table 1). This result shows that in a wooden shoring
a 4-post wooden shoring system is 43.79 kN, which is system with inclined boundaries, increasing the number of
around 17% (=(52.91−43.79)/52.91) lower than the load shores marginally affects the average load capacity of
of 52.91 kN for a 4-post wooden shoring system with each shore in the system.
horizontal boundaries at both ends. This load capacity of a
4-post wooden shore with a top boundary inclination of 3.5. Shores with Lateral Reinforcements
20° (43.79 kN) is approximately equal to the one at a 3.5.1. Isolated wooden shore reinforced
bottom boundary inclination of 20° (42.86 kN). The with cables
average load capacity of each shore of a 4-post wooden In the tests, an isolated 3.6 m wooden shore with
shoring system with a top inclination of 20° is 10.95 kN horizontal boundaries at both ends was laterally
(=43.79/4), which is only around 6% (=(11.7–10.95)/11.7) braced using cables, fastened using a C-clamp to the

1404 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012

Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang

Table 4. Test results concerning load capacities of 3.6 m shoring systems with reinforcement (unit: kN)

4-post
wooden 4-post 3-setion adjustable
Type of shores Isolated wooden shores shores steel tube shores(4.6 m)

1–2 layer 2–3 layre 1–2–3 layer

Reinforcement Wooden horizontal horizontal horizontal
methods Cable bar Woodblock Bracings bracings bracings bracings

Top/ Top/ Bottom Top/ Top/bottom

Boundary bottom bottom inclined bottom horizontal
conditions horizontal horizontal 20° horizontal (4.6 m)
No. of I 17.63 36.61 12.56 57.05 44.88* 46.37* 43.46*
tests II 17.96 34.33 11.77 56.64 57.04* – 44.10*
Avg. 17.80 35.47 12.17 56.85 50.96* 46.37* 43.78*
Avg./shore 17.80 35.47 12.17 14.21 12.74* 11.60* 10.95*

Graphs

Note:1. * denotes used shores

2. - denotes no test

(a) Cable reinforcement (b) Wooden bar reinforcement (c) Woodblock reinforcement

Figure 30. Test results for isolated wooden shores with reinforcements

middle of the wooden shore, to study the effect of the
reinforcements. As presented in Table 4 and
Figure 30(a), under the condition of horizontal
boundaries at both ends, the average load capacity of
a 3.6 m isolated wooden shore reinforced with cables
was 17.80 kN, which is similar to the case of an
isolated wooden shore under the same conditions but
without any reinforcement (17.85 kN).
During the tests, the centre deformation of the
wooden shore present slowly in a vertical direction of
the cables and no deformation observed in the horizontal
direction of the cables, as shown in Figure 31(a).

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012 1405

 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study
Deformed
shape
Wooden
shore
Cable
90°
(a) Cable case
Figure 31. Setup and deformed shape of wooden shore reinforced using lateral cables and woodblock.
Although the cables are very stiff under tension, they
have little reinforcement effect in their vertical direction
in Figure 31(a) and cannot increase the load capacity of
shores. Therefore, if cables are used to provide
reinforcement, it is advisable to provide cables in two
mutually vertical directions at the middle of the shore to
effectively provide the reinforcement effect.
3.5.2. Isolated wooden shore reinforced
with wooden bars
Table 4 presents test results concerning isolated wooden
shores that were reinforced with wooden bars. The
average load capacity of a 3.6 m isolated wooden shore
reinforced with horizontal wooden bars with horizontal
boundaries at both ends is 35.47 kN, almost double
(=35.47/17.85) to that of an isolated wooden shore
under the same condition but without any reinforcement
(17.85 kN). Horizontal wooden bar reinforcement is
more effective than cable reinforcement in increasing
the load capacity of an isolated wooden shore.
In this test, the failure mode is the 2nd-order mode of
an Euler column [see Figure 30(b)] and its shape is in
the form of a half-sine curve. When the vertical
wooden shore buckled, the reinforced horizontal
wooden bar deformed slightly. However, the joint
between the vertical wooden shore and the horizontal
wooden bar did not slide, indicating that this fixity was
effective.
1406
Wooden
shore
Triangle
woodblock
20°
(b) Woodblock case
3.5.3. Isolated wooden shore with inclined
boundaries reinforced with woodblocks
In this test, 3.6 m isolated wooden shores were tested
with a ground inclination of 20° and top and bottom
boundary inclinations of 20°. In Figure 31(b), a suitable
triangle woodblock is smoothly inserted into the
triangular gap between the wooden shore and inclined
contact surface. Table 4 presents the test results on load
capacities of isolated wooden shores under inclined
boundary conditions.
At a ground inclination of 20°, the average load
capacity of 3.6 m isolated wooden shores with the
woodblock reinforcement at the bottom of the shore was
12.17 kN, which is around 23% (=(12.17–9.93)/9.93)
higher than that of the same isolated wooden shores
under the same conditions but without any
reinforcements (9.93 kN). This result reveals that the
woodblock, inserted under the shore, provides effective
reinforcement. However, test results reveal that
although woodblock reinforcement effectively increases
load capacity, it has little effect on the vertical
deformation control [see Figure 30(c)].
3.5.4. Multi-post shoring systems reinforced
with horizontal bracings
The 4-post shoring systems reinforced with horizontal
bracings were tested under the condition of horizontal
boundaries at both ends. The tests setups included (a) a
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012
Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang

3.6 m 4-post wooden shoring system that was reinforced

with 4 horizontal bracings in a closed form at the middle
of each wooden shore; the bracings were fastened on
wooden shores using wires; (b) a 4.6 m 4–post 3-section
adjustable steel tube shoring system that was reinforced
with 4 horizontal bracings in a closed form at positions
between the base tubes and the connecting tubes
(denoted the “1–2 layer”), between the connecting tubes
and the top tubes (denoted the “2–3 layer”), and in both
of these locations [denoted the “1–2–3 layer” in
Figure 12(b)]. Table 4 tabulates the test results.
As shown in Table 4, under the condition of
horizontal boundaries at both ends, the average load
capacity of 4-post wooden shoring systems reinforced
with horizontal bracings is 56.85 kN, which is around
7% [=(56.85−52.91)/52.91] higher than that of a 4-post
wooden shoring system under the same condition but
without horizontal bracing reinforcement (52.91 kN) in
Table 3. This comparison shows that the effect of
horizontal bracings for wooden shoring systems is not
(a) 4-post wooden shoring system
obvious. As shown in Figure 32(a), the failure mode of
the system reveals that all wooden shores deform in the
same direction fastened by horizontal bracings. The
failure mode of the wooden shores reinforced with
horizontal bracings is a 1st-order buckling mode of the
Euler column in Figure 32(a).
As presented in Table 4, under the condition of
horizontal boundaries at both ends, the average load
capacity of each shore of the reinforced 4-post
adjustable steel tube shoring system (denoted “1–2
layer”) is 12.74 kN, which is around 11% [=(12.74−
11.50)/ 11.50] higher than that of an isolated
adjustable steel tube shore of the same length (4.6 m,
imitating site boundary) (11.50 kN in Table 2). The
average load capacity of each shore of the reinforced
4-post adjustable steel tube shoring system (denoted
“2–3 layer”) is 11.60 kN, which is close to that of an
isolated adjustable steel tube shore of the same length
(11.50 kN). The average load capacity of each shore
of the reinforced 4-post adjustable steel tube shoring
system (denoted “1–2–3 layer”) is 10.95 kN, which is (b) 4-post adjustable steel tube shoring system
around 5% [=(10.95−11.50)/11.50] lower than that of
Figure 32. Test results for multi-post shoring systems
an isolated adjustable steel tube shore of the same
with reinforcements
length (11.50 kN). Clearly, the reinforcement in these
three cases is somewhat effective when the horizontal
bracings are fastened between the base tubes and the
connecting tubes. Figure 32(b) presents test results for insignificantly by addition of horizontal bracings. This is
the 4-post 3-setion adjustable steel tube shoring due to the reason that the horizontal deformation of the
systems reinforced with horizontal bracings located at first buckling shore activated the deformations of other
the 1–2–3 layers. three shores, transferred by the horizontal bracings, and
The test results presented in this section reveal that the this made all four shores failed at a later stage. This
load capacities of the 4-vertical shores increase vertical shore reinforcement using horizontal bracings

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012 1407

 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study
needs to be carefully monitored when used in the
construction sites.
3.6. Failure Models of Combined Arrangements
Table 5 presents the test results concerning the load
capacities of combined arrangements of wooden shores
and adjustable steel tube shores. As indicated in Table 5,
the average load capacity of the setup of 8 wooden
shores with 1 adjustable steel tube shore (defined as
8W1S) is 121.91 kN, which is similar to that of a 9-post
wooden shoring system (117.18 kN). As observed in the
tests, when the critical load reached, the lateral
displacement was greatest at the central adjustable steel
tube shore in the combined shoring system. Figure 33(a)
presents this test result. Therefore, when one or more
shores in a 9-post wooden shoring system are replaced
with adjustable steel tube shores, most loads are taken
by the central adjustable steel tube shores.
Table 5. Test results concerning load capacities of 3.6 m combined wooden and adjustable steel tube shores
(unit: kN)
Setups 9W
No. of tests I 118.67
II 115.68
Avg. 117.18
Graphs (9W)
Note:1.
:Wooden shore(W)
2.:Adjustable steel tube shore(S)
(a) 8W1S setup
Figure 33. Test results for combined wooden and adjustable steel tube shores
1408
As shown in Table 5, the average load capacity of
the arrangement of 6 wooden shores with 3 adjustable
steel tube shores (6W3S) was 117.39 kN, which is
almost the same as that of a 9-post wooden shoring
system (117.18 kN). As observed in the tests, when
critical load reached, all adjustable steel tube shores
deformed in the same direction. The adjustable steel
tube in the center of the combined system suffered the
largest lateral displacement. In contrast, the wooden
shores in the combined system were not greatly
deformed. Clearly, when the critical load reached,
most loads were taken by the adjustable steel tube
shores. Figure 33(b) presents the test result.
As revealed by the above tests, combining shoring
systems in case 8W1S and case 6W3S did not
significantly increase their load capacities. These tested
combined shoring systems are not recommended for use
on construction sites.
9S 8W1S 6W3S
168.00 127.76 120.68
158.83 116.05 114.09
163.42 121.91 117.39
(9S) (8W1S) (6W3S)
(b) 6W3S setup
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012
Jui-Lin Peng, Pao-Li Wang, Siu Lai Chan and Chung-Ho Huang
4. CONCLUSIONS
This study elucidates the mechanical behavior of a single-
layer shoring system after loading. This research was
mainly based on experimental tests and focused on the
issues induced by the actual falsework setup during
building construction in Taiwan, such as bearing strength
of isolated shores with different lengths, strength relation
between an isolated shore and a shoring system, inclined
floor or ground, falsework reinforcements, and combined
setup of different falsework members. The test systems
were set up based on the actual condition in construction
site in order to make the results of study applicable in
construction sites. The crucial points of this study are
described as follows.
(1) The load capacities of adjustable steel tube
shores in both isolated and multi-post shoring
systems greatly exceed those of wooden shores.
(2) When non-lateral supports are used, the load
capacity of an isolated wooden or an adjustable
steel tube shore reduces as the length of the shore
increases. Variation in the length has a greater
effect on the load capacity of wooden shores.
(3) When the length of adjustable steel tube shores
is less than 3.96 m, the failure mode mostly
involves the deformation of connecting tube
locks. When the length exceeds 3.96 m, the
failure mode mostly involves the buckling of the
entire shoring system.
(4) When top board on the adjustable steel tube
shores is made of wooden stringers, the load
capacity is around half or more precisely
49.42% lower than that of shores with steel
board at the top. Great care must be exercised
when the shore strength obtained by using steel
board in laboratory is used to predict the shore
strength based on the wooden stringer used at
actual construction sites.
(5) Re-used adjustable steel tube shores have a load
capacity that could be 41% lower than that of
new shores. Special care must be taken in using
the re-used adjustable steel tube shores on
construction sites.
(6) The average load capacity of all shores in a
multi-post shoring system is lower than that of
an isolated shore. This average load capacity
declines as the number of posts increases. The
drop in the load capacity on wooden shores
exceeds that of adjustable steel tube shores.
(7) The drop of load capacity of an isolated wooden
shore is related to the inclination angle at
boundaries. The inclination of bottom boundary
more strongly affects the load capacity of the top
boundary.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012
(8) When boundaries are inclined, increasing the
number of shores has little effect on the average
load capacity of each shore in the system.
(9) Reinforcing an isolated wooden shore with cable
lateral bracings when the boundaries at both ends
are horizontal does not increase the load capacity.
(10) Reinforcing an isolated wooden shore using
horizontal wooden bars at the middle of the
shore doubles its load capacity when the
boundaries at both ends are horizontal.
(11) When the ground is inclined, reinforcing an
isolated wooden shore using a triangular
woodblock underneath it increases its load
capacity by around 23%.
(12) Reinforcing a multi-post shoring system using
closed-form horizontal bracings does not
increase the total load capacity of the system
when the boundaries at both ends are horizontal.
The load capacities of the combined setups of
wooden and adjustable steel tube shores in this
study are similar to that of a wooden shore-only
system. However, these results may not be
obvious to experienced workers on construction
sites. More tests must be performed to confirm
the results of this observation in the near future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the National Science
Council of Taiwan, the Republic of China, Taiwan
(Contract No. NSC99-2221-E-224-024 and NSC98-
2923-E-002-005-MY3) and the Research Grant
Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region Government, under the projects “Second-
order and Advanced Analysis and Design of Steel
Towers Made of Members with Angle Cross-section
(PolyU 5115/08E)” and “Stability and second-order
analysis and design of re-used and new scaffolding
systems (PolyU 511611E)” for their financial
supports. Mr. W. C. Huang and Mr. C. M. Kung are
commended in conducting the experimental tests.
REFERENCES
Beale, R.G. and Godley, M.H.R. (1997). “Numerical modelling of
tube and fitting access scaffold systems sway stiffness of scaffold
structures”, Advanced Steel Construction, Vol. 2, No. 3,
pp.199–223.
Chan, S.L. and Zhou, Z.H. (1995). “Second order analysis of frame
using a single imperfect element per member”, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 121, No. 6, pp. 939–945.
Chan, S.L., Chu, A.Y.T. and Albermani, F.G. (2003). “Stability and
simulation-based design of steel scaffolding without using the
effective length method”, Structural Stability and Dynamics, Vol. 3,
No. 4, pp. 443–460.
1409
 Load Capacities of Single-Layer Shoring Systems: An Experimental Study
Chan, S.L. and Zhou, Z.H. (2004). “Elastoplastic and large
deflection analysis of steel frames by one element per member.
Part 2: Three hinges along member”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 545–553.
Chandrangsu, T. and Rasmussen, K.J.R. (2010). Structural
Modelling of Support Scaffold Systems, Research Report
No R896, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
CNS-453 (2005). Wood: Determination of Compression Properties,
Chinese National Standard. (in Chinese)
CNS-5645 (1983). Method of Test for Tubular Steel Adjustable
Shore, Chinese National Standard. (in Chinese)
Hadiprino, F.C. and Wang, H.C. (1986). “Analysis of causes of
formwork failures in concrete structures”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 112,
No. 1, pp. 112–121.
Kuo, C.C., Peng, J.L., Yen, T. and Chan, S.L. (2008). “Experimental
study of modular falsework system with wooden shores under
various path loads”, Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp. 369–382.
Liu, H.B., Chen, Z.H., Wang, X.D. and Zhou, T. (2010). “Theoretical
analysis and experimental research on stability behavior of
structural steel tube and coupler scaffold with X-bracing”,
Advanced Steel Construction, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 949–962.
Peng, J.L., Pan, A.D., Rosowsky, D.V., Chen, W.F., Yen, T. and
Chan, S.L. (1996a). “High clearance scaffold systems during
1410
View publication stats
construction. I: Structural modelling and modes of failure”,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 247–257.
Peng, J.L., Rosowsky, D.V., Pan, A.D., Chen, W.F., Chan, S.L. and
Yen, T. (1996b). “High clearance scaffold systems during
construction. II: Structural analysis and development of design
guidelines”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 258–267.
Peng, J.L., Pan, A.D.E., Chen, W.F., Yen, T. and Chan, S.L. (1997).
“Structural modeling and analysis of modular falsework
systems”, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123,
No. 9, pp. 1245–1251.
Peng, J.L., Rosowsky, D.V., Pan, A.D.E., Chen, W.F. and Chan, S.L.
(1998). “Simplified modeling and analysis of pattern loading
effects on shoring systems during construction”, Advances in
Structural Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 203–218.
Peng, J.L. (2002). “Stability analyses and design recommendations
for practical shoring systems during construction”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 128,
No. 6, pp. 536–544.
Peng, J.L. (2004). “Structural modeling and design considerations
for double-layer shoring systems”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 3,
pp. 368–377.
Weesner, L.B. and Jones, H.L. (2001). “Experimental and analytical
capacity of frame scaffolding”, Engineering Structures, Vol. 23,
No. 6, pp. 592–599.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 15 No. 8 2012