ENGINEER - Vol. LII, No. 02, pp.

[45-56], 2019
© The Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/engineer.v52i2.7353

Mechanization and Performance Analysis of Vertical

Slip Form Wall Construction Technology
H.P. Hemantha Kumara and G.K.K.A. De Silva

Abstract: Building construction industries in Sri Lanka are currently facing burning issues due to
lack of construction materials, transportation and high labour cost. Masonry wall construction and
plastering is one of the most important jobs of small and large building construction.
The slip form technology is an alternative wall construction method, introduced to the Sri Lankan
construction industry in 1980, instead of burnt clay brick walls or cement sand block walls. The
conventional slip form wall construction technology was commenced by the National Engineering
Research & Development Centre (NERDC) with a fully manually operated system consisting of steel
shutters, yokes, hydraulic jacks, and manually operated compaction hammers. An amount of 10%
cement with quarry dust mix volume is sufficient to get required strength (cement quarry dust ratio is 1:
10) and it can be used as a load bearing wall between columns. The system has identified main
drawbacks while construction of a wall such as uneven compaction due to manual compaction, high
operational and shutter lifting time etc.
NERDC has been studying and developing a mechanized slip form wall construction machine in order
to promote this technology in the society. The machine consists of a single phase 230 V hydraulic power
unit, two slip form shutters, two lifting hydraulic cylinders and a movable vibrator compaction unit.
Cement quarry dust mixer compact between columns by vibrating and applying a maximum of 140 kg
static load by a hydraulic cylinder. Shutter lifting total vertical force measured is 620 kg with
overcoming friction between metal shutter and newly bonded wall. Compaction ratio obtained was 40%
to 45% varying with moister content of a mixer. Average wall construction rate is around 75 to 80
min/m. A standard 140 mm diameter cylindrical core was tested with the test results for 150 mm thick
and 2900 mm span wall showing an average strength of 4.9 N/mm2 after 28 day completion of wall .The
average shutter lifting speed was measured as 24 mm/second. The machine was tested up to 10 feet
wall height continuously. The tactile controlled basic hydraulic system was employed to improve better
man machine interface with the entire operation. High initial setting time and heavy weight are the
main drawbacks identified while operating the system with three operators. It is likely that four
operators are required to achieve a better performance from the system.

Key words: Slip Form, Vibration, Compaction, Tactile controller

1. Introduction
assurance of masonry engineering wall
The wall is a main component of any building strength. Further, masonry brick walls cannot
and carries out important functions such as be constructed and plastered continuously due
bearing loads, provide fire protection, heat and to lack of adequate strength to steady the wall.
sound insulation, and provide protection Generally, the construction is carried out in
against environmental and weather conditions.
stages with construction discontinuing after a
Wall is also used as a partition of interior spaces particular period once built-up to 1.5 m height
[1]. Different kinds of masonry materials have to allow strength gain. At least 4 days are
been used for the construction of building walls
required to complete the wall with plastering
in Sri Lanka. Burnt clay bricks and sand cement [1]. [email protected], [email protected]
blocks are typically used. The main drawbacks
of using conventional clay bricks are lack of Eng. H.P. Hemantha Kumara, MSc, CEI I&II, AMIE (SL)
clay, low strength, and high production cost Senior Research Engineer, National Engineering Research and
and time. Development Centre of Sri Lanka, Ekala, Ja-Ela.
Email:[email protected]
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0311-6458
Low quality bricks affect the strength of the
Eng. G.K.K.A. De Silva, BSc Eng(Civil), MSc, C.Eng,
building walls. Low strength and high MIE(SL), Deputy Director General (R&D), National
variability are the reasons why it is difficult to Engineering Research and Development Centre of Sri Lanka ,
select clay bricks for load bearing wall Ekala, Ja-Ela.
Email:[email protected]
construction. In that case, hence, walls are being ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7051-0012
constructed in a concrete frame due to non-

This article is published under the Creative Commons CC-BY-ND License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/).
This license permits use, distribution and reproduction, commercial and non-commercial, provided that the original work is
properly cited and is not changed in anyway. 1
45 ENGINEER
However, findings have been made to steel angle frames and yokes to maintain the
introduce new bricks, such as cement blocks, spread and shape of the forms, while a lifting
compressed soil blocks and cement-ash mixed force was applied to the forms by hand-
bricks, for building wall construction. operated locomotive screw jacks located on top
of previously harden wall [3]. Figure 1 provides
Soil blocks are better to construct well finishing a sketch of the Peavey system.
both interior and boundary walls. Availability Yoke
of soil and cost of production are main Screw
drawbacks for soil block production. The Jack Hair Pin
cement stabilized block is widely used in Lifting Hook
building construction industries in Sri Lanka. Angle
Moving
Frame
In early 80’s, Kulasinghe [2] first introduced Frame
slip form technology as an alternative wall
construction method to burnt clay brick walls Slip Form
or cement sand block walls. Wall
Figure 1 - Peavey Slip Form Wall Construction
The conventional slip form wall construction System
method is fully manually operated, and system
has identified several drawbacks while The first true slip form system was developed
constructing a wall, such as uneven compaction in 1903, when contractors began supplying
due to manual compaction, high compaction lifting power to the forms by screw jacks
and shutter lifting time etc. positioned outside the form through the use of
wooden jacking legs. Such a system is shown in
As a solution to this problem, NERDC has Figure 2.
developed a mechanized slip form wall Working Deck
Yoke
construction machine to promote this
technology in the construction industry. The
mechanized machine operates well with
minimizing operational time. Greater initial
setting time and the heavy weight are the main Moving Form
Jacking Leg
drawbacks that were identified while operating
the system with three operators. Most likely, Slip Form
four operators are required to achieve a better Wall Screw Jack
performance from the system.

2. Slip Form History and Types Figure 2 - First True Slip Form System
Several additional lifting systems were devised,
Slip form techniques consist of forming panels, and by 1910, the most commonly used system
yokes and jacks. There are two types of slip consisted of a hand-operated hollow screw jack,
form constructions [6], viz., horizontal and which climbed a steel rod or a hollow pipe, that
vertical. was subsequently left in place in the completed
concrete wall. Figure 3 illustrates such a system.
Horizontal Construction
It is a process which is used to consolidate form
into a geometric shape appropriate for larger Yoke Hollow
jobs that require high production rates. Screw Jack
Working
Vertical Construction Deck 1” Jack Rod
In vertical slip forms, mixture is continuously Lift Completed
placed, compacted and form work is pulled up. Wall
Rate of slipping of formwork depends on the
feeding speed of cement quarry dust mixer,
moisture content and rate of compaction. This
method is suitable for uniform shaped rapid Moving Form
Slip form Wall
construction. Various methods of moving and
lifting sectional forms were tried. The method Figure 3 - Hand-operated Hollow Screw Jack
used by Peavey in 1899 employed a system of Operated Slip Form System

ENGINEER 46

2
Thus, vertical slip forming is an extrusion of yoke assembly is shown in Figure 4. Note
process where the material is stationary and the that there are no supports to keep wall
form moves upward. thickness at mid span. If, in the case,
deformation occurs at mid span of the wall,
The actual median form speed however, wall strength will reduce.
depends on such factors as admixtures used,
type of the cement, water cement ratio and
cement quarry dust content, symmetry of the
structure being constructed, required variations
in wall thickness, amount and complexity of
placement, jack spacing, number of blackouts
required, and the depth of the forms.

3. NERDC Slip Form Technology

The conventional NERDC slip form wall

construction system consists of yokes, frame
and shuttering assembly.
Figure 4 - NERDC Conventional Slip Form
Yokes provide two primary functions: to keep Wall Construction Technology
the forms from spreading; and to transfer the
load of the forms to the jack [2] [4] [5]. Yokes The wall strength is analysed by 140 mm
are inverted U shape, consisting of two legs and diameter core testing according to BS1881
a cross beam. The legs are attached to the frame standard. Figure 5 shows the compressive
and carry the vertical loads in tension, and the strength variation of the whole wall span.
lateral loads as cantilever beams. The cross arm According to the test results, wall strength
of the yoke must be designed as a simple beam obtained is low at mid span of each sample.
supported at the centre by the jack and subject Compressive strength Variation of Wall Span
4.00
to the moments from both the vertical and 3.90
lateral leg loads. Yoke spacing depends on 3.90
sample1
Compressive Strength ( N/mm2 )

3.80 sample2
several factors, including the design loads of 3.80 sample3
3.71
the yoke and wales, and the lifting capacity of 3.70
3.70
3.65
the jacks attached to the yokes. Conventional 3.60 3.57 3.57
slip-forming systems employ 2 ton capacity
3.50
hydraulic jacks. The frame provides support 3.44 3.45

and holds the shuttering in position, suspended 3.40

scaffolding and transmit the lifting forces from 3.30

the yokes to the form system. 3.20

300 mm from 1left side colunm Mid 2Span 300 mm from3right side colunm
Sample Position
The shutters make up the sides/walls of the
forms and are the portion of the formwork Figure 5 - Compressive Strength Variation
which actually contains and shapes the wall. Across the Wall Span
Since slip-forms are subjected to the hydrostatic
pressure of the plastic masonry mix, the Uneven compaction
shutters must support this lateral pressure with
beam action between the wales, and as a While compaction of mortar between shutters,
cantilever at the bottom of the form. The uneven compaction could occur due to
friction or drag force on the forms during the manually operation of impact hammer. The
sliding action is significant. This loading is impact hammer consists of a force applied by
highly variable and depends not only on the foot and sliding mass component. It is
type and depth of shutter used, but also on the practically difficult to maintain the hammering
temperature, moisture content, workability, unit in a vertical position during compaction of
and rate of concrete set. Steel forms are more mortar. It causes variation of wall strength
rugged, smoother, and easier to clean, but they across the total span. Random observations
do not lend themselves to easy alteration or indicate the manually compaction rate to vary
repair during the slip operation. from 35% to 45%.

A conventional NERDC slip form shutter

assembly fixed between two columns by means
47
ENGINEER
3
 Yoke
The hydraulically operated mechanized slip
Column
form wall construction system improved the
Uneven Mortar
Compaction wall construction rate by several times over
existing manual system without increasing
labour involvement. Further, it increased 1.5
times strength of 150 mm thick wall compared
with the conventional system. The proportion
of cement to quarry dust ratio can be increased
Figure 6 - Uneven Compaction Pattern of from 1:10 to 1:12, which saves usage of cement
Manual Impact Hammering by an adequate amount but maintaining the
standard required strength of the construction
The average shutter lifting speed obtained is wall.
5.7 mm/second and average compressive
strength measured after 28 days is 3.6 N/mm2. A – Form shutter, B – Yoke, C – Compaction
unit, D – Vibrators, E – Hydraulic motor, F –
4. Mechanization of the System Lift control valve, G – Move control valve H –
Static load control valve, I – Hydraulic power
This paper presents a new slip form wall unit, J – Hydraulic hoses , K - Level indicator
construction system to mechanize the existing
manual system and it consists of a vibration 5. Slip Form Wall Construction
compact unit, yoke with hydraulic cylinders for
lifting the shutters, two shutters, a portable The mechanized system was fixed to a 10 feet
hydraulic power unit and valves. span 6” x 6” precast column which was erected
at site, early. The cement to quarry dust ratio
With the mechanized system, mixing and filling 1:10 mixed masonry materials were used.
of mortar is done manually and compaction is Usually 0.5 water cement to 0.65 ratio was
done by the vibrator unit and the shutter lifting practically identified as better to maintain this
process done by two hydraulic cylinders. construction.
B
H
C

D
B

G
E
J
A
P
F
T

Figure 7 - Mechanized Slip Form Wall Construction Machine and Components

ENGINEER 48

4
 Static load variation with Time
The mortar was filled between the two shutters 160
and levelled. Mortar was compacted using the 140
vibrator unit by applying a static load. 120
The compaction time and applied static load

Force (Kg)
100

Force (kg)
were controlled by the machine operator while 80
compacting 200 mm height freshly filled mortar 60
to 100 mm of finished wall. After attaining the 40
required compaction, shutters were lifted to the 20
next layer. Therefore, in order to obtain 10 feet 0
full wall height, it was necessary to repeat the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
process. TIme(Seconds)

Figure 9 - Quasi Static Load Variation with

6. Vibratory Compaction
Time during Mortar Compaction
6.1 Compaction
The motor driven vibrating mechanism (230 V,
Compaction is defined as the method of
50 Hz) is usually a rotating eccentric weight or
mechanically increasing the density of mortar.
piston/spring combination with a 35 kg
vibration force and 2.5 mm amplitude. The
Compaction of mortar to the required degree is
compactors deliver a rapid sequence of blows
a very essential aspect of continuous masonry
(impacts) to the surface, thereby affecting the
construction. Strength, surface finishing of the
top layers as well as deeper layers. Vibration
wall and constructability mainly depend on the
moves through the material, setting particles in
degree of compaction. There are four types of
motion and moving them closer together for the
compaction effort on masonry construction
highest density possible. Based on the materials
such as vibration, impact, kneading and
being compacted, a certain amount of force
pressure. The two principle types of
must be used to overcome the cohesive nature
compaction forces were identified as static and
of particular particles. Figure 10 and Table 1
vibratory. Static force is simply the deadweight
shows the practical density variation of mortar
of the machine, applying downward force on
due to use of various compaction techniques.
the mortar surface and compressing the mortar
particles. The only way to change the effective
compaction force is by increasing or reducing
the weight of the machine. Static compaction is
confined to upper mortar layers and is limited
to any appreciable depth.
(a) Before (b) Manual (c) Vibrator
The controllable static load of the system,
compaction compaction compaction
applied by compressive spring loaded
hydraulic cylinder with tactile controlled Figure 10 - Density Variation with Different
manual valve, is shown in Figure 8. Figure 9 Compaction Methods
shows the static load variation with time during
mortar compaction. Table 1 - Density measurements due to
Hydraulic different compaction techniques
Static Load
Cylinder Control Spring
a b c
1153.3 kg/m3 1965.2 kg/m3 2226.1 kg/m3
Vibrators
Most granular mortar mixes with a content of
fines (particles < 0,064 mm) less than 10% can
be compacted by vibratory and impact
methods.

6.2 Energy transfer from compaction foot

In the plastic zone at the interface between the
mortar and the compaction foot, the maximum
Figure 8 - Vibratory Mortar Compaction Unit shear stress can approximate by Equation 1[6].
with Controllable Static Load Application
f  vmax Cs 
vmax Z s  …(1)

49
ENGINEER
5
where, vmax is the maximum particle vibration Table 2 - Load Analysis Test Data for Vertical
velocity, Zs is the mortar impedance and ρ is the Slip Form Wall Construction
bulk density. The mortar impedance is the
product of the strain dependent shear wave Lifting speed 24 mm/sec
velocity (Cs) and the soil density (ρ). According Wall thickness 150 mm
to Equation 1, the maximum vibration velocity Material Cement, Quarry dust
that can be transmitted to the mortar in the Mixer ratio dustdust
1:10
plastic zone can be estimated. The compaction Water/cement ratio 0.6
unit can travel horizontally on the shutter Form work material Mild steel
assembly by operating the hydraulic motor Dead weight of shutters 168 kg
Friction Load Min – 254 kg
with a speed of 300 mm/sec.
Max – 620 kg
Upper After placing mortar 142 kg
7. Case Study

pressure on the form

Waling a
After Vibration 205 kg
Lower After placing mortar 93 kg
7.1 Influence Factors
Waling

work (kg/m2)
Batterham [6] reported on a series of tests After Vibration 127 kg
which investigated the lateral and friction During lifting 134 kg
forces acting on vertical slip forms. The various Resulting slip form pressure on 387 kg
influence factors involved were divided into the lifting frame
two general groups. Group One Factors were
defined as the controllable variables such as The form shutter vertical lifting force and
general formwork design, wall thickness, slide horizontal frame load were measured using a
speed, type of formwork facing, mortar 2000 kN compressive load cell with Flintec FT-
compaction (vibration) and wall consistency 11 Weight Indicator shown in Figures 11 and 12
(slump). The Group Two Factors were the respectively.
uncontrollable influence factors, which
included live loads and differences in travel of
the lifting gear. Therefore, it was assumed that
the pressure head on the form was directly
related to the rate of slide. To a very limited
extent, the thickness of the completed wall was
also related to the rate of slide. Forces
transmitted to the wales were pre-calculated, to
allow for correct separation of the vertical and
horizontal forces.

7.2 Lifting of Shutters

The yoke and hydraulic lifting cylinder unit
consist of frame, hydraulic cylinder, and
pressing foot attached to the piston of hydraulic Figure 11 - Vertical Lifting Force Measured by
cylinder. The purpose of this unit is to lift the Using Compressive Load Cell
set of form shutters after compaction of
previous layer of the wall. When the hydraulic
cylinder is operated by hydraulic valve, the
pressing foot connected to end of the piston rod
exert a downward pressure on top of the wall,
and as a result, frame and set of form shutters
slide vertically up along two columns. To
ensure the horizontal alignment of the form
shutters, two units of this type have been
installed in the system close to two columns.

7.3 Test Results

The data resulting from the series of tests
conducted is given in Table 2.

Figure 12 - Slip form Shutter Horizontal Force

Measurement

ENGINEER 50

6
 Behavior of Horizontal and Vertical Forces on the Slipform During Lifting Shutters
700
a b c
650
a = Initial frictional load
600

550
Vertical Lifting b = Force variation when
Force
form shutters moving
Force (kg)

500
period
450 Horizontal Upper
400
Waling c = Dead load of the
shutter components
350

300

250 Horizontal Lower

Waling
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time (Second)

Figure 13 - Horizontal and Vertical Forces on the Slip Form During Lifting Shutters

The shutter lifting vertical force was increased The Batterham method [6] incorporated these
gradually until shutters move upward, facts and the test data to produce an analytical
overcoming frictional resistance. Figure 13 formwork model. Figure 14 shows the general
shows lifting force variation, upper and lower model of lateral pressure distribution on
shutter frame load variation, due to 200 mm vertical slip forms as a function of formwork
high slip form work wall construction. depth.

Figure 13 shows that the vertical forces on the Using Figure 14, Batterham [6] states the
forms are greatest just before the forms
following:
overcome surface friction and begin to move.
Once the slip form is in motion, the vertical Po H o  HU …(2)
force continues to decrease until the hydraulic
pressure in the jacks reaches zero. Further where,
decrease in vertical force is then caused by Po = Total resultant lateral force
slippage in the jack lifting head. The remaining Ho = Measured lateral force against the upper
vertical force is caused by the weight of form wale
work. Horizontal force in the upper waling Hu = Measured lateral force against the lower
decreases during the slide. wale
Equitation 3 evaluates Zo, which is the distance
The force on the lower waling is relatively of Po from the top of the new mortar [6].
constant, reflecting the fact that the mortar has 0.05 H o  0.24 HU
already begun initial set by the time it reaches Zo  …(3)
this lower portion of the slip form. The H o  HU
horizontal forces increased on both wales This is actually the sum of moments about
whenever vibration of the mortar was taking point A (in meter - kg) divided by the sum of
place [6]. The increase was greater with greater the horizontal forces on the wales (in kg), for a
depth of vibration. Higher slide speeds than per meter longitudinal length of slip form.
those used in the experiment are common and
the resulting lateral pressures under extreme
slide speeds will be much greater than those
noted in these tests.

The effective head of mortar which in turn

determines the lateral pressure on the
formwork is influenced by the sliding speed,
setting time, form sheathing, and the depth of
mortar vibrations. All of these factors except
mortar vibration can be controlled. However,
well-vibrated mortar is desired in many cases
for the increased density and strength Figure 14 - Batterham Model of Lateral
produced. Pressure with Vertical Slip Form Depth

51
ENGINEER
7
 Figure 15 - Maximum Pressure on Vertical Slip form

Point A, which corresponds to the top of the F1 = C2CIE2 = F2 = B1E2D2B2 = F

freshly placed mortar, which also corresponds …(7)
to j(z) = 0, and z = 0. Hydrostatic pressure of the PI (Z1 - Zo) = F a
density on the mortar just placed, represented …(8)
by j(z) = pz, states that Equitation 4 Point B is the where,
point where the mortar and form separate. P1 = P0
F = F1 = F2 = forces acting at the area centroids
Lateral pressure is equivalent to a hydrostatic a = distance between centroids of areas FI and
pressure distribution corresponding to triangle F2.
AC1B1 with the resultant horizontal or lateral
pressure equating to P1. P1 is assumed to be Thus, lateral force trapezoid GCC2D2B2 may be
equal P0. determined. In Batterham [6] terms the third
2 xPo and most correct approximation, points B and C
Z1  …(4) are connected by a dotted curve such that the
P
sum of forces F3, F4 and F5 equals zero, and F4 +
Triangle AC1B1 represents the hydrostatic F5 = F3.
pressure distribution P for mortar that weigh
approximately 1153.3 kg/m3. The hydrostatic Each approximation is successively more
pressure distribution of a level fill vertical realistic, with approximation one as a triangle,
masonry wall is given by Equation 5. approximation two a trapezoid, and
approximation three as an area bounded by the
q  kDh …(5) formwork and a curve as shown in Figure 14.
The lateral force variation model and graphical
where, q is hydrostatic pressure, D unit weight representation given in Figure 15.
of masonry materials, h vertical height from top
surface of mortar and k is a constant of wall The final approximation curve shows that the
filling condition as given in Equation 6. mortar and slip form separate at a point B1, 238
mm below the top of the formwork. This
1  Sin  …(6) indicates that the slide speed could have been
k  
1  Sin  increased. At the theoretical maximum slide
speed, the separation point would coincide
where,  is surcharge angle and it becomes zero with point B.
due to level filled condition. Hence k=1 in this
application. Second approximation is to assume
that the P2 = Po = Pl and Z2 = Z0. The distance of
C2D2 and D2B2 may be determined by the
Equation 7 and Equation 8.

ENGINEER 52

8
Batterham [6] recommends that the resulting The prepared specimen cores were tested after
lateral formwork pressure at point B (at the 3, 7, 14, 28 and 120 days from slip form wall
bottom of the slip form for optimal slide rate) construction according to BS1881 test standard.
be used as the design load. This can be easily
done because the trapezoidal pressure
distribution gives an excellent approximation of
both the general distribution of lateral pressure
and the position of the resultant force, as
verified by the test.
Therefore, for the NERDC slip form 300 mm (12
in) deep and with mortar lifts of 100 mm (4 in),
the bottom of the force trapezoid is determined
to coincide with the bottom of the formwork,
and the horizontal width is determined as one
half the maximum.

According to the test resultant hydrostatic

Figure 17 - Compressive Strength Test of
pressure applied a point 223 mm below the top
Specimen Core Samples
of the new mortar level. This lateral force
distribution can be proportionately applied to
The compressive strengths of tested wall
all slip form depths. Thus the maximum force
specimens are as shown in Table 3.
trapezoid can be determined by the formwork
base, the top of the fresh concrete and a lateral
Table 3 - Compressive Strength Variation
force equal to one half the maximum
with Different Ages of Sample Wall
hydrostatic pressures taken at a depth equal to
2/3 the form depth. No Age Load Sectional Average Compressive
(Days ) (kN) area (mm2) Strength (N/mm2 )
8. Performance Analysis 01 3 25.5 13273 1.92
02 7 38.5 13273 2.90
The mechanized slip form wall was constructed 02 14 50.0 13273 3.77
1.29 m long, 3 m full wall height and 150 mm 03 28 65.0 13273 4.90
thick, with 1:10 cement: quarry dust mix in 04 120 117.0 15397 7.65
open environment. The wall stability and
constructability were tested. The 1:10 The compressive strengths, compared with
cement/quarry dust ratio is used as the mechanized system and other wall construction
practically found optimum ratio for slip form methods, after 28 days from preparation are
wall construction [2]. shown in Table 4 [7].
The load bearing capacity of this continuous
Table 4 - Compressive Strength Comparison
masonry vertical slip form wall was tested
of Different Wall Panel Types
using 140 x 150 mm cylindrical cores.
Standard specimen cores were cut by core Ratio Panel Panel Type Load Strength
cutting machine as shown in Figure 16. size (kN) (N/mm2)
1:7 4” Brick 67.7 1.23
1:7 9” Brick 153.3 1.11
1:5 4” Brick 130.7 2.37
1:5 9” Brick 213.7 1.66
1:6 4” Continuous (Cement, 890.0 11.81
Sand)
1:8 4” Continuous 748.0 10.39
(Cement, quarry dust)
1:10 4” Slipform original 2.13 ~
(Cement, quarry dust 3.14
mix with coir)
1:10 6” Slip form 48.4 3.64
NERDC Conventional
Cement, quarry dust
1:10 6” Slip form 65.0 4.90
NERDC Mechanize
Cement, quarry dust

Figure 16 - Cylindrical Specimen Core

Samples Cut by Machine

53
ENGINEER
9
9. Analysis of Failure Mode causes to damage the top of the newly
compressed mortar layer.
There are some critical problems were
identified during operation of mechanized slip
form constriction machine.

The lifting stress can be divided into static and

sliding lifting stresses. Static lifting stress
represents the friction that has to be overcome
in order to start sliding and the sliding lifting
stress is the minimum friction that occurs
during sliding. Both the lifting frequency and
the lifting height had a considerable effect on
the static lifting stresses. Lower lifting height or
reduced lifting frequency will both result in a
higher static lifting stress [8].
Figure 19 - Lump Formation on the Bottom
9.1 Lifting Cracks Side of the Vibrator Foot

10. Structural Analysis of Form

Shutters

The forming metal shutters have subjected to

complex combine stresses during the
construction of slip form wall. Hence Solid
Works software tool (2016) was used to
simulate behaviour of form shutter with static
combine loads. Figure 20 shows the combine
forces subjected to one side of the form shutter.

Lifting Forces
Figure 18 - Horizontal Cracks Propagate Loads from upper
Wailing
During Shutter Lifting
Gravitational Forces

Horizontal (long) crack propagation on the wall Loads from Lower

Wailing
face perpendicular to the lifting direction is
normally identified as lifting cracks as shown in
Figure 18.

The depth and width of these cracks may vary

from thin, shallow to deep, and wide. Lifting Reaction from column

cracks are associated with forces during lifting Hydrostatic from

of the slip form panel. Heavy static load and
high degree of vibration on the masonry can
also make cracks.

Lifting cracks that occur during slip forming Figure 20 - Slip Form Shutters Subjected to
Complex Combine Forces
have often been assumed to be the main cause
for poor quality masonry materials, moisture
The shutters fabricated by 3 mm thick mild
content and deformed structures.
steel sheets folded at the two ends by 900 to
fasten wails and the vibrator compaction unit.
9.2 Lump Formation
The stress and strain variations of the mild steel
Lump formation starts as a thin layer of grout
shutter are given in Figures 21 and 22
sticking to the vibration foot. It continues to
respectively.
grow layer by layer until a lump is formed as
shown in Figure 19. After the lump hardens, it

ENGINEER 54

10
 shutter deformation, undefined complex
stresses formation due to clamping, higher
degree of vibration and misalignment of
columns, are the main reasons for the difference
between the practical values and simulation
results.

11. Conclusions

Researchers always look for economical, time

saving construction practices which could
replace conventional approaches. The vertical
continuous masonry wall constriction is cost
effective, material saving and allows rapid
construction. Hence, it points in the right
Figure 21 - Stresses Formation of the Form direction to achieve those targets.
shutters.
According to the test results, average wall
strength obtained, i.e. 4.9 N/mm2, is typically
good strength for masonry wall at 1:10 cement,
quarry dust ratio. Hence cement to aggregate
ratio 1:12 can be increased to maintain standard
required wall strengths. The surface finish of a
constructed wall is better than the finish from a
conventional slip form wall construction. Hence
plastering is not required to finish the
constructed walls.

The wall construction cost of quarry dust

masonry slip form found to be one third of that
Figure 22 - Strain Variation throughout the of conventional masonry wall construction cost.
Shutter Material The system also attempts to construct soil
compressed slip form walls for building
The shutter deformation between two columns construction.
due to combine forces was identified as a major
problem in slip form wall construction. Figure The slip form quarry dust masonry mix is
23 shows the deflection pattern of one side form homogeneous in its compositions as against
shutter. brick masonry. In relation to even vibratory
compaction, compressive performance it is
found that slip form are far greater than
conventional brick masonry and therefore it is
used as load bearing walls. In the structural
performance point of view, slip form masonry
construction has eliminated such weakness.
Therefore, it is expected to perform even better
under flexural loading.

A tactile controlled hydraulically operated

mechanised slip form system is developed to
construct slip form continuous masonry vertical
Figure 23 - Total Deflection Pattern of the Slip wall panels. Greater initial setting time and
Form Shutter Assembly heavy weight are the main drawbacks that were
identified while operating the system with
According to the software based simulation three operators. Quality of quarry dust cement
results, the maximum deflection was obtained mixing is directly affected to the strength and
as 4.48 mm. However, in practice, it was finishing of the wall. To obtain better
observed to be 10 mm to 12 mm deformation at performance recommended power mixing
the mid span of the both shutters. The initial machine except manually mixing of quarry

55
ENGINEER
11
dust and cement. It is likely that four operators 11. Camellerie, J. F. (1959), "Slip-Form Details and
are required to achieve a better performance Techniques", Journal of the American Concrete
from the system. The mechanized system was Institute, Vol. 30, No. 10, April 1959, p. 1131.
designed as bulk for heavy operational (two-
12. Kulatilake, M. P. M. (2002), ”A Study on the
tone) lifting forces. According to the test results, Characteristics of Cement Block Manufacturing in Sri
further developments are required to simplify Lanka, MSc Thesis, University of Peradeniya.
the structure of the mechanized slip form
system.

References
1. Manike, J. M. N. U. J. and Sooriyaarachchi, H. P.
(2009), “Constructability and Performance of
Continuous Masonry Wall Panels” ENGINEER -
Vol. XXXX11, No. 04, pp. [38-45], The Institution
of Engineers, Sri Lanka.

2. Kulasinghe A. N. S. (2000), “Kulasinghe Technology

for the Low Cost Housing”. National Engineering
Research & Development Centre, Colombo.

3. Camellerie, J. F. (1959), "Slip-Form Details and

Techniques," Journal of the American Concrete
Institute, Vol. 30, No. 10, April 1959.

4. Dissanayake, T. A, Dissanayake U. I. and

Ranaweera M. P.(2001), “Material Properties of
Slip-Form Load Bearing Wall Panel for Low Cost
Medium Rise Buildings”, Fifty seventh Annual
Sessions of Sri Lanka Association for the
Advancement of Science, Colombo.

5. Mendis, D. L. O. (2001), “Innovation and Self-

Reliance” Kulasinghe Felicitation Volume,
Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka, Colombo.

6. Batterham, R. G. (1980), “Slipform Concrete”

Construction Press Ltd., Lancaster, England, and
Longman Inc., New York.

7. Appuhamy, J. M. R. S., Chandrasekara, H. K. C.

P., Ruhunage J. C., Dissanayake T. A. and
Dissanayake U. I. (2003), ”Strength Variation of
Slip Formed Load with Partial Replacement of Crusher
Dust by River Sand“, Fifty Ninth Annual Sessions
of Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of
Science.

8. Fossa, K. T. (2001),”Slip forming of Vertical Concrete

Structures, Friction between Concrete and Slip form
Panel”. Dr.Ing Thesis, Department of Structural
Engineering. The Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Norway.

9. Camellerie, J. F. (1978), "Vertical Slip forming as a

Construction Tool", Concrete Construction, May
1978.

10. Perkins, A. C.,(1977). “Slip form Concrete

Construction” Fegles-Power Service Corp. Booklet

ENGINEER 56

12