Ciria Report 108 Concrete Pressure On Formwork !free! -

Before Report 108, formwork designers relied on empirical rules-of-thumb or overly conservative hydrostatic pressure models. The hydrostatic assumption—that fresh concrete behaves exactly like a liquid (pressure = density × height)—led to massively over-engineered (and expensive) formwork. Conversely, simplified rules like "pressure = 1.5 × height" often proved unsafe for high-slump, fast-pouring conditions.

| | CIRIA 108 | ACI 347 (USA) | EN 12812 (Europe) | |-------------|----------------|--------------------|-------------------------| | Base formula | P_max = C1*(R/T) + C2 | P_max = C_w × C_c × (7.2 + 785R/(T+17.8)) | P_max = F + (R/(T+1)) × K | | Temperature | Explicit (°C) | Explicit (°C) | Explicit (°C) | | Slump influence | Coefficients for 0–50mm, 50–100mm, >100mm | C_c factor (0.5 to 1.2) | Built into K factor | | Rate limit | No strict cap, but pressure limited to hydrostatic | R ≤ 2.1 m/h for formula; above that, hydrostatic | R limited based on form class | | Minimum pressure | Yes (C2 term) | Yes (7.2 factor) | Yes (F term) | ciria report 108 concrete pressure on formwork

Standard CIRIA 108 was written before SCC became ubiquitous. SCC has much higher flowability and longer setting retention. Does CIRIA 108 still apply? Before Report 108, formwork designers relied on empirical

Factors that increase E (higher pressure risk): | | CIRIA 108 | ACI 347 (USA)