HSE

Health & Safety

Executive

Investigation into aspects of falsework

Prepared by the
School of Civil Engineering
The University of Birmingham
for the Health and Safety Executive

CONTRACT RESEARCH REPORT

394/2001
 Crown copyright 2001
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:
Copyright Unit, Her Majestys Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ

First published 2001

ISBN 0 7176 2232 0

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner.
 HSE
Health & Safety
Executive

Investigation into aspects of falsework

Eur Ing P F Pallett, Dr M P N Burrow,

Professor L A Clark and Mr R T Ward
School of Civil Engineering
The University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
West Midlands
B15 2TT
United Kingdom

The results are presented of an investigation into the verticality of falsework achieved on construction
sites and of the views of practitioners on how stability of falsework is demonstrated in the design
process and achieved on site.
Verticality data were measured at eleven construction sites. Based on the verticality of their entire height,
the numbers of falsework legs on each site visit which were found not to be within tolerance varied from
0% to 50%, when compared against the current British criteria, and from 0% to 33%, when using the
proposed European criteria. The difference occurs because the British criteria are more stringent.
Two of the eleven sites were rated as inadequate in terms of the achievement of falsework verticality
when using the British criteria, but no site was rated as inadequate according to the European criteria.
The general performance does not appear to have improved since a similar study was conducted in 1989.
There is a lack of understanding of the principles of stability amongst practitioners, and the contracting
sector does not appreciate the implications of the assumptions made by the suppliers when designing
a falsework system.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its
contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do
not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE BOOKS
 FOREWORD
The current basic philosophy of the use and operation of the temporary works used to support
insitu concrete, precast units and steelwork, better known as "falsework", was established
following a major collapse in 1972 of a falsework structure on the River Loddon, near Reading.
In this incident three operatives were killed. The subsequent HMSO Report, better known as
the Bragg Report, published in 1975, set requirements for erection and stability of these
temporary structures. The recommendations were substantially incorporated into the British
Standard Code of Practice in 1982. The Code has undergone only one minor amendment since,
and remains the authoritative guidance document on the subject.

Since the first publication of the Code the industry has changed in the intervening years, with
greater use of specialist contractors, altered methods of design and procurement of falsework
and changes to the type and method of operation of the equipment used. Furthermore, a
forthcoming European Standard on temporary works, which will supersede in part the current
British Code of Practice, specifies new requirements for the stability of falsework.

To enable appropriate codes and regulations to be formulated in the future, this research project
was commissioned to identify the changes in practice which have occurred within the industry,
to establish and verify the erection tolerances achieved on site and to collate manufacturers'
recommendations on the provision of stability.

ii
 CONTENTS

FOREWORD .............................................................................................................................................II

CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................. III

SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................ V

1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 HISTORY........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................3
1.3 REPORT OUTLINE ..........................................................................................................................4
2 STANDARDS......................................................................................................................................5
2.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................5
2.2 BRITISH STANDARD - BS 5975, CODE OF PRACTICE FOR FALSEWORK ...........................................5
2.3 BRITISH STANDARD-BS EN 1065, ADJUSTABLE TELESCOPIC STEEL PROPS.................................6
2.4 AUSTRALIAN STANDARD-AS 3610, FORMWORK FOR CONCRETE ..................................................8
2.5 GERMAN STANDARD-DIN 4421, FALSEWORK - CALCULATION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .10
2.6 AMERICAN STANDARD - ACI 347R, GUIDE TO FORMWORK FOR CONCRETE ..............................10
2.7 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................................12

3 FUTURE EUROPEAN PERFORMANCE STANDARD prEN 12812....................................15

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................15
3.2 DESIGN OF FALSEWORK ..............................................................................................................15
3.3 CLASSIFICATION ..........................................................................................................................16
3.4 ECCENTRICITIES OF LOAD ...........................................................................................................16
3.5 ANGULAR CHANGES AND ECCENTRICITIES AT SPIGOT JOINTS ......................................................16
3.6 INITIAL BOW IMPERFECTIONS ....................................................................................................18
3.7 INITIAL SWAY IMPERFECTIONS ....................................................................................................18
3.8 LATERAL STABILITY REQUIREMENTS ..........................................................................................18
4 THEORY OF VERTICALITY AND STABILITY ...................................................................21
4.1 VERTICALITY OF FALSEWORK ....................................................................................................21
4.2 VERTICALITY - EFFECT OF SPIGOTS/JOINTS ................................................................................22
4.3 OVERALL STABILITY ..................................................................................................................23
4.4 STABILITY FORCE .......................................................................................................................23
5 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...............................................................................................................25
5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................25
5.2 TEXTS..........................................................................................................................................25
5.3 SCAFFOLDING, SHORING AND FORMING INSTITUTE .................................................................25
5.4 OSHA REGULATIONS .................................................................................................................25
5.5 RESEARCH MATERIAL ................................................................................................................26
6 ANGULAR CHANGES AND ECCENTRICITIES AT SPIGOT JOINTS ..........................27
6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................27
6.2 METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................27
6.3 COMMONLY USED PROPRIETARY SYSTEMS ................................................................................28
6.4 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................34
7 TOLERANCES ON VERTICALITY - SITE SURVEYS..........................................................35
7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................35
7.2 METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................35
7.3 VERTICALITY RESULTS ...............................................................................................................49
7.4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................62
7.5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................65
8 STABILITY INTERVIEWS ..........................................................................................................67
8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................67

iii
 8.2 METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................67
8.3 SUMMARY REPLIES BY QUESTION ............................................................................................68
8.4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................80
8.5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................82
9 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................83

10 REFERENCE LIST ....................................................................................................................87

GLOSSARY ..............................................................................................................................................89

ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................................................91

iv
 SUMMARY
Changes to procurement methods, the use of equipment and management in relation to
falsework have occurred in the last quarter of a century. These changes and their implications
have been investigated in this research project. The work involved reviewing world wide
literature on the subject, collating information on the proprietary falsework systems of major
suppliers, carrying out detailed site measurements of the quality of erection of nominally
vertical members on eleven building sites, and conducting technical interviews with suppliers,
contractors and sub-contractors to gauge their perception of the stability of falsework.

It was found that at all levels of the industry there is a lack of understanding of the fundamentals
and basic principles involved in achieving the stability of falsework. Nevertheless, it was found
that in the majority of cases falsework is being designed in accordance with the current British
Standard, BS 5975 "Code of Practice for Falsework", to withstand a minimum lateral force.
However, there would be concern if this requirement were to be removed, as seems likely, in
any future European Standard. The reason for the concern is that, once a "specified" minimum
lateral force is not required, each case has to be considered separately. Hence, there are the
risks of different interpretations by different engineers and of the force not being taken into
account.
In the management of falsework, a serious concern was identified over the perceived
responsibilities relating to the 'designed' falsework. The design of falsework is almost
exclusively being carried out by the suppliers of proprietary falsework systems. However, it
was found that the assumptions made by the suppliers in relation to the erection and use of the
falsework are not adequately communicated to the user. Furthermore, many interviewees
expressed concern over the inadequate checking of schemes. To overcome such problems the
appointment of a Temporary Works Co-ordinator (TWC) at an early stage in procurement of the
falsework is strongly recommended.
The tolerances of verticality in use in the industry have changed. Although aluminium systems
with frames are in common use, it appears they are being used with less control, resulting in
some cases of falsework being erected with quite large degrees of out-of-plumb.
It was noted that there is a paradox in the proposed European Standard, which eliminates
specifications for the most commonly used method of providing lateral restraint to a falsework
structure, that of using the formwork to transfer forces to the permanent works. It is
recommended that this omission should be addressed in any revision of BS 5975.
It is believed that the main reason why collapses of falsework are not more frequent is because
they are under-utilised in terms of capacity. The load capacity of current aluminium systems is
such that, in building work, there is usually a reserve of strength in the systems which is able to
sustain lateral forces. It was identified that there is a perceived risk, that should such systems be
used to their full safe working load, this reserve will not be available and collapses might be
expected. This risk is considered more likely if aluminium systems were to be used in civil
engineering structures, as opposed to building, because the systems would tend to be more
heavily loaded.
The quality of supervision on sites was seen to vary considerably. It was observed, as expected,
that when the main contractor set a good example to the sub-contractor the falsework activities
were noticeably better from both a safety and operation point of view.

v
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive
C30 1/98

vi
 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 HISTORY

1.1.1 Documentation and Update on Standards

In the UK, the first document published on the subject of Falsework was a joint report (Ref. 1)
in 1971 prepared by the Concrete Society and the Institution of Structural Engineers. It
introduced the concept of classes of falsework and was intended to summarise the knowledge
and experience developed in the industry. Just over one year later a major falsework
construction over the River Loddon near Reading collapsed. This accident led to the setting up
of a Government "Advisory Committee on Falsework". The subsequent report, better known as
the Bragg Report, was published in June 1975 (Ref. 2). It introduced a number of changes to
the way in which falsework is designed and used in the industry.

Many of the recommendations of the Bragg Report were incorporated into BS 5975 "Code of
Practice for Falsework", first published in 1982. The latest edition of the code of practice
published in 1996 (Ref. 3) did not alter the original tolerances and considerations of stability.

The Concrete Society republished "Formwork - a guide to good practice" (Ref. 5) in 1995. It
gives detailed design information on wall and soffit formwork, but does not cover the design of
falsework. The authors of the Concrete Society guide intended it to be complementary to BS
5975.

In 1999 a further specification, BS EN 1065 (Ref. 4), was published as a European product
standard. It gives characteristic strengths (not safe working loads) for the standardisation of 32
types of adjustable steel props for use throughout Europe.

The British Standards Institution (BSI) Technical Committee, B/514/26, Falsework has been
working with the European Standards Organisation (CEN) on finalising a European document
prEN 12812 "Falsework - Performance requirements and general design". This was published
as a draft for public comment in 1997 (Ref. 6) and has since been extensively changed. The
latest official BSI version is dated January 2001 (Ref. 8) and will be used by CEN/TC 53/WG6
committee at its next meeting in November 2001. At the time of writing the German delegation
had submitted to WG6 another version of prEN 12812, dated May 2001, which includes subtle
changes to the previous version and new formulae/factors. A final document is due to be
approved in October 2001 and is likely to be published by early 2002. A fuller description of
prEN 12812 is included in Section 3 of this report.

1.1.2 Change of Industry

Since the 1980s, the reduction in the road building programme and the change to composite
bridge construction has resulted in fewer applications of falsework to support insitu concrete
bridge decks in civil engineering.

In building construction, concrete frames have lost market share to steel framed structures due
to their promotion by the former British Steel. Recent marketing changes, combined with the
increasing cost of steel, are making concrete framed commercial structures more viable. There
has also been an increase in the use of the concrete structures as "heat stores" to generate more
thermally efficient structures.

The European Concrete Building Project (ECBP), completed in 1998, was constructed to
promote economic commercial concrete structures, with fast track insitu construction. Several

1
separate studies have already been carried out on this project. The CONSTRUCT "Guide to flat
slab formwork and falsework" (Ref. 7) is due to be published in July 2001. Although the
document assists the fast track approach, with early striking, better understanding of
backpropping, and highlights improved procurement and planning etc., none of the ECBP
funded research considered the tolerances and stability aspects of the falsework systems.

It should be noted that concrete building design in the UK favours flexible planning for future
usage with an open plan, with columns and lateral stability from lift shafts. In contrast,
European buildings often incorporate concrete crosswalls, even on low rise constructions, thus
giving a different shape of building. This affects the European falsework market and its
approach to stability.

The predominant use of falsework in the UK in 2001 is in the construction of insitu reinforced
concrete flat slabs in buildings which are generally flat slabs and supported off columns, and
usually without drop heads. The general storey height varies from 3.0 m up to a maximum of
approximately 4.5 m.

The procurement of falsework has also changed. The management of falsework has seen the
growth of sub-contractors employed as specialist frame contractors to the main contractor for
the erection of the concrete frame only. This has moved the emphasis on the management of
temporary works on site from the traditional contractor to the sub-contractor who, because of
the repetitive nature of their work, can justify the use of capital-intensive aluminium support
systems.

A corollary of this management shift has been the reduction in the number of contractors
maintaining temporary works offices. The effect of which is to transfer the "design" and in
many cases the "perceived responsibility" for the temporary works from contractors to the only
organisations carrying out the design, i.e. the suppliers of proprietary falsework equipment

Major contractors and sub-contractors now rely on schemes from suppliers, and simply carry
out "local checks on those schemes." One aspect of the stability interviews, which formed part
of this research, was the assessment of this revised procurement method for temporary works.

1.1.3 Change of Equipment

The type of falsework equipment used at the time of the Bragg Report (Ref. 2) was
predominantly adjustable steel props (each with a safe capacity of about 20 kN) or alternatively
48.3 mm diameter scaffold-tube and fittings (safe capacity about 15 to 25 kN).

Several proprietary scaffold systems, such as RMD-Kwikstage and SGB CupLok, were
developed in the early 1970s into falsework support systems. This was achieved by introducing
adjustable head and base jacks, giving initially a capacity of 25 kN per standard. They were
subsequently upgraded in the 1980s to capacities of 40 kN and 55 kN per standard, and more
recently to 75 kN per standard.

Undoubtedly, the biggest change in equipment has been the introduction of aluminium
falsework systems from North America. These have revolutionised the building market and are
now the most extensively used by sub-contractors. They provide a significant benefit in weight
saving, thus allowing larger areas of falsework to be handled. A reduction in manual handling,
combined with some operatives reluctance to "over-exert" during work, has led to a significant
use of cranes on building sites. Aluminium systems permit larger areas to be handled by crane,
thus reducing labour costs and increasing output. The safe working loads for such systems vary
from 60 kN up to 125 kN.

2
Currently, there are three main generic types of systems used for falsework. These are:

Type 1 Aluminium support legs with aluminium frames assembled into falsework
systems - e.g. Ischebeck Titan, SGB GASS, or PERI MultiProp with frames1.

Type 2 Individual aluminium or steel props, either with proprietary timber beams or
proprietary panels - e.g. PERI Multiflex or Doka Eurex systems.

Type 3 Heavier steel falsework systems - e.g. RMD Kwikform System Shoring
or A-Plant Acrow CP - 75 Co-Planar system, etc.

In building applications, Type 1 predominates with only a few Type 2 sites. Type 3 systems are
now used on civil works, or very small areas of slab construction where Type 1 may not be
appropriate. More details of these systems are given in Section 6.3 of this report.

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aims of the project were to identify the type of falsework systems in common use, to
determine the current tolerances achieved with these systems and to assess the implication of the
proposed European documents on the falsework industry.

To this end, falsework equipment used and the quality of its erection was determined at eleven
building sites in the UK. It was accepted that the site measurement data would relate to
available sites, although they would be representative of the industry. Each sub-contractor uses
the equipment on which their company has standardised, and thus selection of material from
different suppliers was not part of this project. Comments observed and recorded while on site
are included in the project report.

While studying the verticality of falsework, the brief required an assessment of the accuracy of
positioning components on site, compared to locations intended by the temporary works
designer, as shown on drawings, sketches etc. In repetitive building work it is of interest
whether the components are re-erected in a similar location on the subsequent floor.

To assess the impact of changes in the stability requirements envisaged with the introduction of
the proposed European practices, and to study the perception of falsework stability as
understood by those actively involved in building construction, interviews of staff of
organisations involved in current falsework design were undertaken. These interviews were
also to identify particular problem areas for falsework practitioners.

It is likely that future Standards will include formulae to calculate the effect of misalignment of
vertical components at adjustable jacks and at joints within the lengths of the components.
Consequently, an investigation of these imperfections, commonly referred to as "slop" in the
jacks and the misalignment at spigots, was carried out. This involved obtaining the proprietary
suppliers' detailed manufacturing tolerances to allow the theoretical deviations for different
systems to be calculated. To enable a comparison of the theoretical deviations to be made with
those achieved in practice, measurements were carried out on the falsework at the eleven sites
investigated.

The site measurements and stability interviews were conducted in the knowledge that the results
would be presented in this report in a confidential manner and that sites and interviewees would
not be specifically identified. As there are few proprietary systems and their generic method of
use are common knowledge, company trade names are used, such as SGB GASS, but the source

1
Note: these systems can be handled in three distinct ways: as individually erected towers, as
tables, or as large flying form assemblies.

3
of the site measurements and specific companies are not stated. In the interviews on stability
reported in Section 8, the names of organisations have been removed and generic titles, such as
proprietary supplier, specialist contractor etc., substituted in their place.

1.3 REPORT OUTLINE

This report describes the work effected to achieve the aims and objectives of the Research
Project. To this end Chapter 2 reviews a number of current Standards, whilst Chapter 3
describes the relevant sections of the proposed draft European Standard for falsework. To
emphasise the requirements of the Standards reviewed in Chapter 2 an additional Chapter
(Chapter 4) is included. This highlights and discusses the tolerances to be achieved in the
erection of falsework members for verticality, and details the stability requirements. Other
literature of relevance to the current study is presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 describes some
of the proprietary falsework systems commonly used in the UK. Using data from suppliers, the
analysis of the possible deviations from the ideal which may occur as a result of the tolerance
between any two connected vertical members, is reported in detail for each system. Results
from the detailed surveys to determine the tolerances on verticality achieved in the erection of
falsework at eleven sites in the UK are given in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 describes and summarises
interviews carried out with temporary works designers, contractors and specialists, to identify
current practice with regard to the treatment of lateral stability in the design of the falsework.
Conclusions and recommendations drawn from the project are presented in Chapter 9. Detailed
results from the site survey (Chapter 7) and the detailed responses to the questionnaire presented
in Chapter 8 are given in Appendices A and B respectively.

4
 2 STANDARDS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
A requirement of the research was a comparison of existing practice and that proposed in the
forthcoming European documents on falsework. This Chapter covers the existing published
standards in temporary works worldwide. The specific information on the latest draft European
standard, prEN 12812 (Ref. 8) is outlined separately in Chapter 3.

Several organisations have produced standards for the design and construction of falsework.
Typically, these standards recommend tolerances to be used in falsework design and erection.
The recommendations for such tolerances, specified in Standards produced by four
organisations, the British Standards Institution (BSI) (Ref. 3), the Standards Association of
Australia (Ref. 11), the German Standards Institute (DDIFN) (Ref. 10) and the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) (Ref. 13), are presented in this Section. The terminology
used in the Section is summarised in Figure 1.

2.2 BRITISH STANDARD - BS 5975, CODE OF PRACTICE FOR

FALSEWORK

2.2.1 Introduction
BS 5975:1996 (Ref. 3) recommends maximum erection tolerances and eccentricities of loading
which should be achieved on site for various types of falsework. In addition, the Standard also
discusses how these tolerances and eccentricities will affect the safe working loads and the
general design of falsework.

2.2.2 Tolerances and eccentricities in falsework construction

BS 5975 (Ref. 3) stipulates erection tolerances for the following four categories of falsework
construction:

Adjustable steel props and forkheads.

Tube and coupler falsework.
Purposely fabricated steel work.
Other types of construction.

The requirements specified within the British Standard for these categories are summarised in
Table 1.

In addition to the above categories, BS 5975 (Ref. 3) also stipulates erection tolerances for what
it terms 'standard solutions' for simpler types of falsework structure which are repetitive in
nature. Specified tolerances for such standard solutions are presented in Table 1.

It is emphasised that the above categories are not consistent with the three currently used
generic types of system stated in Section 1.1.3.

2.2.3 Design of falsework

BS 5975 (Ref. 3) discusses how falsework, which is to be erected in an out-of-vertical position,

should be designed. In particular, it specifies that where nominally vertical members are to be
erected in an out-of-vertical position provision should be made in the design of the falsework
for an appropriate horizontal reaction force. Clause 6.3.1.3.2 states that where the maximum
permissible erection tolerances recommended for individual tubes, structural steel sections and
proprietary components are not exceeded (see Table 1), the horizontal force should be equal in

5
magnitude to 1% of the applied vertical forces. Where the recommended maximum erection
tolerances are likely to be exceeded, the Clause 6.3.1.3.2 of the Standard recommends that
either the horizontal reaction force must be increased appropriately, or the falsework should be
designed as being out-of-vertical. See also Section 4.1.

Safe working loads for various types of falsework are given in the Standard with the proviso
that the falsework is erected within the tolerances specified in Table 1. Where loads are not
applied within these tolerances the Standards warns that the safe working loads may be
"considerably lower" and should be specifically calculated.

2.2.4 Lateral Stability

The Bragg (Ref. 2) recommendation that there should be a minimum value of lateral force
included in the design of all falsework was also incorporated into BS 5975, although the
magnitude was reduced. The minimum value of lateral force stated by Bragg (Ref. 2) was 3%
of the applied vertical load as a lateral force at head level.

BS 5975 Clause 6.4.4 (Ref. 3) recommends that ALL falsework should be designed to be able to
resist at each phase of construction the applied vertical loads AND the greater of either:

a) A horizontal force equivalent to 2% Pv where Pv is the sum of the applied

vertical forces at the time considered. This minimum force is considered to act
horizontally at the inside of the forkhead to the falsework.
or
b) Horizontal forces that can arise from wind loads, erection tolerance forces (taken as
1% Pv ), non-verticality, concrete pressure forces, water and waves, and dynamic and
impact forces .

Falsework stability is achieved by transmitting the greater of the above values to suitable
restraints.

It is noted that BS 5975 Clause 6.4.2 (Ref. 3) states that "allowance is not normally made for the
stiffness of the formwork unless it has been designed and constructed as an integral part of the
falsework.. . . . ". It is also required in Clause 7.4.2 that the falsework should be inspected to
ensure that the required restraints are effective.

2.3 BRITISH STANDARD-BS EN 1065, ADJUSTABLE TELESCOPIC

STEEL PROPS
The BS EN 1065 Specification for adjustable steel props (Ref. 5) published in November 1999
standardises 32 types of prop into five classes: Types A, B, C, D and E. It is a limit state
document and thus characteristic strengths of the 32 props are stated. In the testing of
individual props a single value (10 mm) of the eccentricity of load due to the prop being erected
out-of-vertical is used. The Standard, as a product standard for manufacture of "European
props", states a method of calculating the capacity if other eccentricities are assumed. No
guidance is given on the expected tolerances of erection that are actually achievable in site use.
No information or standard is available when using the longer European aluminium props

6
 Table 1
Acceptance tolerances and eccentricities in falsework construction - BS 5975

Falsework Category Required condition Acceptable Imperfections Eccentricity of loading Eccentricity of Bearing
Surfaces
Adjustable steel props Undamaged and not Verticals to be plumb within 1.5 of vertical (i.e. tan 0.025). No eccentricity in excess
and forkheads. visibly bent. Horizontal displacement not to exceed 25 mm over a height of 1 m. of 25 mm.

Tube and Coupler Undamaged and not Tan 0.0075. No eccentricity in excess Sole plates normally be set
visibly bent. Displacement not to exceed 15 mm over a height of 2 m, subject to a of 25 mm. within a tolerance not
maximum value of 25 mm. exceeding 25 mm per m.
Standard Solutions Tan 0.0075 No eccentricity in excess
(adjustable props) Displacement not to exceed 15 mm over a height of 2 m. of 25 mm.

Purposely fabricated a) Inclination of a column. Eccentricity of any beam

steel work. length Ls < 1450 mm Ls 1450 mm not to exceed 5 mm.
v< 5 mm v < 0.0035Ls
but v < 25 mm.
b) Out-of-straightness of a strut or column.
Ls < 3350 mm Ls 3350 mm
s< 5 mm s < 0.0015Ls
but s < 25 mm
c) Out-of-straightness of a beam.
Lb < 3350 mm Lb 3350 mm
v< 5 mm b < 0.0015Lb
but b < 25 mm
d) Eccentricity of Beam Bearing
The eccentricity of any beam should not exceed 5 mm

Other types of For special design, manufactured components or other types of construction, the appropriate
construction tolerance requirements should be ascertained from the manufacturer or designer

7
2.4 AUSTRALIAN STANDARD-AS 3610, FORMWORK FOR CONCRETE

2.4.1 Introduction
The Australian Standard (Ref. 11) recommends, for various categories of falsework, acceptable
values of tolerances and eccentricities of loading. The Standard specifies that these tolerances
and eccentricities should be used in the design of the falsework and should be achieved on site.
Furthermore, procedures to check the accuracy of the erection are given.

2.4.2 Tolerances and Eccentricities in Falsework Construction

Maximum acceptable values of out-of-plumb and eccentricity of loading are given for various
categories of falsework. For each category of falsework, acceptable values of tolerances and
eccentricities of loading are given for the 'initial' condition of the falsework components, the
initial straightness before erection (bow), the degree of plumb achieved in erection and the
eccentricity of loading. The acceptable values given in AS 3610 (Ref. 11) are presented in
Table 2.

2.4.3 Design of Falsework

In the design of falsework, the Australian Standard (Ref. 11) stipulates that all components in
compression must be considered to be eccentrically loaded. The source of these eccentricities, it
is argued, are a result of imperfect manufacture, damage inflicted on site, and the out-of-plumb
erection of the falsework. For each of these sources of eccentricity, AS 3610 specifies that the
minimum values of eccentricity to be used in the design are those specified as maximum values
to be achieved in construction (i.e. those given in Table 2). Furthermore it is recommended that,
where appropriate, larger eccentricities should be used.

2.4.4 Inspection of Falsework

The Australian Standard (Ref. 11) recommends that throughout the erection procedure the
stability of the formwork assembly shall be maintained. Furthermore, inspections shall be
carried out on the falsework assembly to ensure that tolerances and eccentricities used in the
design have been achieved.

8
 Table 2
Acceptance criteria for assemblies and components (from AS 3610)

Section Component Required Acceptable deviations Node point End to end Eccentricity of
condition Out of straightness Out-of-vertical connection bearing surfaces loading
1. Tube and coupler Free from splits, For tube not to Verticals to be plumb within Centrelines of The junction of For units or
cracks, visible tube exceed Ls/300 mm 1 in 200 (i.e. tan 0.005). tubes at node members intended components intended
deformations, rust refer to Figure 1. Horizontal displacement not points to be as to be assembled to be placed centrally
and dents. to exceed 40 mm Refer to close as possible with end to end under supported
Figure 1 (a) and never more bearing and members. Refer to
than 150 mm compression shall Figure 1(d)
apart. have the mating
surfaces within 1o
of square with no
protrusions in
excess of 1 mm.
Refer to Figure 1.
2. Props Inner and outer For each member As per
tubes free of splits, (inner and outer), not manufacturers
cracks, visible to exceed Ls/300 mm technical
deformations, rust of individual length literature.
and dents. Refer to Figure 1 (a).

3. Frames and As per manufacturers recommendations given in the relevant technical

modular scaffolds literature but not greater than Ls/300 mm.

4. Manufactured As per manufacturers

components literature or formwork
documentation.

5. Timber As per manufacturers recommendations given in the relevant technical

assemblies and literature but not greater than Ls/300 mm
components

9
2.5 GERMAN STANDARD-DIN 4421, FALSEWORK - CALCULATION,
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

2.5.1 Introduction
The German Standard (Ref. 10) for falsework assumes that, for a variety of reasons,
unavoidable inaccuracies in the geometry of the falsework will occur. Furthermore, the
Standard stipulates that these inaccuracies in the falsework construction should be considered
when designing the falsework.

2.5.2 Tolerances and Eccentricities in Falsework Construction

As far as the erection of the falsework on site is concerned, DIN 4421 (Ref. 10) stipulates that
the geometry of the erected falsework must match that specified in the design (see Section 2.5.3
below). Any difficulties encountered in achieving the correct falsework geometry is to be
reported including how "such difficulties were overcome".

2.5.3 Design of Falsework

For the purposes of designing the falsework, the German Standard (Ref. 10) states that the
methods of determining the likely unavoidable inaccuracies in the geometry of the falsework
should be obtained from technical building regulations where stated. However, where an
accurate and detailed design is not required and where respective imperfections relating to
individual structural components are not already specified in the technical building regulations,
a number of formulae are suggested in DIN 4421 (Ref. 10). These formulae enable, for the
purposes of the design, "initial values" of the likely out-of-plumb and eccentricity of various
falsework components to be determined. The formulae are presented in Table 3.

2.6 AMERICAN STANDARD - ACI 347R, GUIDE TO FORMWORK FOR

CONCRETE

2.6.1 Introduction
ACI 347R (Ref. 13) is an American Concrete Institute (ACI) Standard which has been adopted
in its entirety as an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard. The Standard2 is a
broad based, comprehensive document dealing with both formwork and falsework construction
and design.

2.6.2 Tolerances and Eccentricities in Falsework Construction

As far as the construction of falsework is concerned, ACI 347R (Ref. 13) specifies that all
members must be straight and true without twists or bends. Furthermore, vertical shores must
be erected so that they cannot tilt, and must have firm bearing. Inclined shores must be braced
securely against slipping or sliding. The bearing ends of shores should be square. In addition, it
is specified that the elevations, camber and plumbness of the falsework assembly should be
checked using appropriate devices during and after concreting, but before the initial set of the
concrete. However, maximum permitted tolerances to be achieved in erection are not specified.

2
However, the document actually used by the American construction industry is the ACI
Special Publication SP4 (Ref. 9) which includes the ACI 347R recommendations as an
appendix.

10
 Table 3
Acceptance tolerances and eccentricities in falsework design and construction (from DIN 4421)

Falsework Acceptable Imperfections Eccentricity of loading

Out-of-straightness Angular Imperfection
Individual columns, column bents Ls 10 m Ls > 10 m Introduce 5 mm eccentricity.
and girders subject to bending. L
s = s tan = 0.005 tan =
0.1
500 ls

n, aligned columns Ls 1 Introduce 5 mm eccentricity.

s =
500 n

Head and base jacks Aassume a jack screw obliquity of 2% i.e. tan = 0.005

11
2.7 CONCLUSIONS
The recommendations of four Standards for determining and specifying maximum limits for
likely imperfections and deviations in falsework have been presented in this Section. Each of
the Standards presented adopts a different philosophy regarding how these imperfections and
deviations are to be determined and incorporated in the design of falsework. In addition, each
Standard specifies different criteria regarding the maximum allowable imperfections and
deviations to be achieved in falsework erection.

The British Standard, BS 5975 (Ref. 3) specifies nominal tolerances which it stipulates should
be achieved on site. As far as the design of the falsework is concerned, the British Standard
suggests that, where these tolerances are expected to be achieved, an allowance should be made
in the design of the falsework for a horizontal reaction force, equal in magnitude to 1% of the
vertical load. BS 5975 adds that if it is likely that the specified erection tolerances are to be
exceeded then either the provision for the horizontal force must be increased, or the falsework
should be designed as being out-of-vertical.

The Australian Standard (Ref. 11) assumes that deviations from the ideal will be apparent in
erected falsework and, as a consequence, it recommends maximum values for these deviations
which should be allowed for in the construction of the falsework and stipulates that these values
should be incorporated into the design of the falsework.

In contrast to both the British and Australian Standards (Refs. 3 & 11), the German Standard
(Ref. 10) does not specify specific limits for erection tolerances to be achieved on site. Rather it
assumes that unavoidable inaccuracies will be present in the geometry of the erected falsework
and consequently the falsework should be designed taking these inaccuracies into account. The
Standard stipulates that, subsequently, the magnitude of these imperfections determined in the
design process should not be exceeded on site. To assist engineers in their designs, guidelines
for calculation and formulae are given to determine the likely magnitudes of the imperfections
and deviations.

The American Standard is much less specific about how likely imperfections in falsework
should be calculated for design purposes and does not specify a limit to the imperfections to be
achieved in the erection of falsework.

12
 v

Ls s Ls

a) Inclination of a column from vertical b) Outof straightness of a vertical strut or column

forkhead

b bearer

Lb Width of
bearer

c) Out-of-straightness of a beam

d) Eccentricity of loading

e) End bearing surfaces

f) Angular Deviation

Figure 1 : Acceptable deviations (after BS 5975 and AS 3610)

13
14
 3 FUTURE EUROPEAN PERFORMANCE STANDARD
prEN 12812

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The draft European Standard, prEN 12812 Falsework - Performance requirements and general
design (Ref. 6) specifies performance requirements and limit state methods for the design of
falsework. It introduces two main classes for falsework (see Section 3.3).

The current research has benefited from the fact that both The University of Birmingham and
the HSE provide a representative on the specific BSI committee, B 514/26, responsible for
falsework. This has meant that this report is up to date and has used the latest documentation
(Ref. 8) for its comparisons. Although minor editorial changes to the prEN 12812 are
anticipated at final publication, the details and diagrams used for this research project were
considered unlikely to be changed. At the time of finalising this report (September 2001) the
German delegation submitted to the CEN committee a further revised version of prEN 12812
with several subtle, but important, changes to formulae and numbers. It is not known whether
these changes will be accepted by CEN.

It is emphasised that this report has ignored the public comment version of prEN 12812 dated
April 1997 (Ref. 6) due to the significant changes introduced by the subsequent working group
revisions.

prEN 12812 (Ref. 8) assumes that designed falsework will have unavoidable geometric
imperfections present in the erected falsework. As a result of these imperfections, eccentricity
of loading of the falsework will occur. Furthermore, the Standard specifies that in the design of
falsework the effect of the imperfections on the stability of the falsework must be considered.
To assist the falsework designer, estimates are made of the magnitude of these imperfections for
various types of falsework construction.

The Standard recommends that a certificate (in writing) shall be prepared to verify that the
erected falsework conforms to the design.

3.2 DESIGN OF FALSEWORK

prEN 12812 (Ref. 8) specifies that, when designing falsework, the effect of the following
imperfections on the stability of the falsework must be considered:

Eccentricities of load.
Angular changes and eccentricities at spigot joints.
Bow imperfections.
Sway imperfections: the out-of-true in the unloaded erected structure, often
called the "initial out-of-plumb".

For each of the above imperfections and for a variety of types and class of falsework assembly,
various formulae for determining minimum values of the imperfections to be used in the design
process are given within the Standard. They are reproduced as necessary in the following
Sections.

15
3.3 CLASSIFICATION
The prEN 12812 (Ref. 8) Clause 4 introduces two falsework classifications for execution of the
works: Simpler structures as Class A and designed falsework structures as Class B, which is
further divided into Class B1 and Class B2.

Class A Falsework covers simpler construction, with clear span of beams and slabs
not exceeding 6.0 m, and the height to the underside of the permanent structure not
exceeding 3.5 m. It is intended for the use of the proprietary systems, props, etc in
common use. The resistance to vertical and horizontal loads is determined from
experience and established good practice.

Note: the sites investigated by this project, and reported in Section 7, would generally
be considered to be Class A falsework.

Class B 1 Falsework shall be designed fully with relevant European structural design
codes. Fully detailed drawings shall be prepared. Accuracy of erection shall be to the
relevant standard, and not to prEN 12812.

Class B 2 Falsework shall be designed to the relevant European Standards but use
can be made of the provisions and simplified methods given in prEN 12812.

Note: this is the likely design class for all falsework that does not conform to Class A.

The prEN 12812 is written such that users of Class B2 have a design "penalty" of 15% due to a
partial safety factor of 1.15 applied to the resistance, unless design is to Class B1, in which case
full second order theory is required.

3.4 ECCENTRICITIES OF LOAD

The Standard (prEN 12812, Clause 10.6) assumes that, where there is no centering device, the
load eccentricity at load points shall be at least 5 mm.

3.5 ANGULAR CHANGES AND ECCENTRICITIES AT SPIGOT JOINTS

The Standard (pr EN 12812, Clause 10.2) specifies the maximum tolerances and eccentricities
to be achieved for single tubes and for several uprights in a row.

For single tubes the angular deviation between two components is

d1 d 2
tan Li = 0.01 (3.1)
lo
where Li is a suffix denoting "loose items"
Li is the angle between the two components / loose items, in radians
d1 is the nominal inner diameter of the tube
d2 is the nominal outer diameter of the spigot or jack
lo is the overlap length

Further allowances are made for the erection of groups of components that are erected and
joined together, assuming that the net out-of-verticality will reduce as more items are connected
together.

Although not stated in prEN 12812, the effect of an adjustable jack projecting into a tube can be
considered in the same way as a loose connection between two components.

16
If there is more than one upright in a row, the angle Li,n at a joint to be used for calculation
purposes may be obtained as follows:
1
tan Lin = 0.5 + tan Li 0.01 (3.2)
n

where

Li,n is a suffix for the loose item in a row of n standards

Li is the angle between the two components / loose items, in radians
Li,n is the angle between the two components / loose items used in calculations
for the group of joined components in, radians
n is the total number of vertical tubes to be erected side by side.

For frame assemblies with spigot joints, the inclination between the planes of the frames may be
calculated as
1
tan CF = (3.3)
200

where

CF is a suffix denoting a "closed frame".

CF is the angle between two frames in radians.

Where there is a row of frames connected together, the angle of inclination between the frames
is reduced according to the number "n" of frames in one plane to:

1
tan CF,n = 0.5 + tan CF (3.4)
n

where

CF,n is a suffix for the closed frame in a row of n standards

CF is the angle between the two closed frames, in radians
CF,n is the angle between the two closed frames used in calculations for the
group of joined components, in radians
n is the total number of vertical closed frames to be erected side by side.

The load transferred through a base jack into the supports will be eccentric due to possible
"slop" in the inner tube. The Authors interpret this requirement to be applicable to both fixed
and adjustable bases. It is noted that if this formula is applied to a plain spigot scaffold
baseplate, which has only a small diameter spigot, then the eccentricity can become large.

The standard (prEN 12812 Clause 10.5) for base jacks also gives an eccentricity at a joint that
may be calculated from
e Li =
1
(d d 2 ) (3.5)
2 1

where

Li is a suffix denoting "loose items"

d1 is the nominal inner diameter of the tube
d2 is the nominal outer diameter of the spigot or jack
eLi is the eccentricity at a spigot or jack

17
The boundary conditions for base jacks are also stated in Clause 10.5 (Ref. 8) as

Eccentricity eb,o = 0.4 D1

Core eccentricity eb, core = 0.25 D1
Limiting eccentricity eb, limit = 0.5D1

3.6 INITIAL BOW IMPERFECTIONS

When proprietary modular columns, beams or trusses are used in falsework they are assumed to
have an initial overall bow imperfection (prEN 12812, Clause 10.4.1 (Ref. 8)). When using
modular components this clause refers to both Class B1 and B2 design. This bow imperfection
is additional to any member imperfection of the single elements.

The lateral displacement is given by

L 1
e= 0.5 + (3.6)
250 n

where

e is the lateral displacement of the component.

L is the nominal length of the component3 in millimetres.
n is the number of structural components arranged and supported side by
side and propped in the same way.

The standard states that "No account need be taken in design of the position of joints in the
members."

3.7 INITIAL SWAY IMPERFECTIONS

The Standard (prEN 12812, Clause 10.4.2)(Ref. 8) assumes that modular columns or frames in
falsework are built not exactly vertical and to have an initial sway imperfection. When using
modular components this clause refers to both Class B1 and B2 design.

The sway imperfection for components taller than 10 m is given by

10
tan = 0.01 (3.7)
h
where

h is the overall height of a compressive member or tower in metres.

is the angular deviation from the vertical.

Where h is less than 10 m, the value for sway imperfection is a minimum of tan = 0.01 (Note:
this is equivalent to a 1% lateral force for the majority of falsework less than 10 m).

3.8 LATERAL STABILITY REQUIREMENTS

The Standard (prEN 12812, Clause 9.2.2) introduces a "direct variable persistent horizontal
imposed action Q3 as a horizontal load of 1% of the vertical loads. This is regarded as an
external load and has to be taken to an external restraint.

3
Understood by the authors to mean the length overall of the column or beam etc, not the component.

18
In the UK this is not strictly regarded as a "stability" requirement. It is included in prEN 12812
as an unidentified load, but it has the effect of incorporating an additional 1% Pv load into
structures, above the known loads to be applied.

When considering the overall stability of the structure, the prEN 12812 allows certain design
simplifications under Class B2 for analysis of the structure.

There are two possibilities: either the falsework is freestanding and allowed to sway, or it is
restrained at the top; as follows:

3.8.1 Lateral stability - free standing falsework

In order to calculate the internal forces for a free standing falsework structure, the bracing may
be designed with the aid of an amplified horizontal force V" (prEN 12812, Clause 11.3.1 as:

V'+ Pv tan
V" = (3.8)
P
1 v
Si

Where

V" is the transverse force taking second order theory into account
V' is the sum of the transverse (lateral) forces arising from external loads at the ultimate
load condition
Pv is the sum of the vertical forces at ultimate limit state
is the initial sway imperfection
Si is the shear stiffness of the falsework in the direction considered.

3.8.2 Lateral stability - top restrained falsework

The prEN 12812 (Clause 11.3.2.3) states:

"This standard does not give information on this subject."

19
20
 4 THEORY OF VERTICALITY AND STABILITY

4.1 VERTICALITY OF FALSEWORK

The theoretical ideal is that falsework is erected true and exactly vertical. This means that there
would be no induced lateral forces in the structure from lack of straightness, or "out-of-plumb".
However, in practice true verticality may not be achievable, so temporary works codes make
allowance for this "lack of verticality".

Practically, there are several quality and workmanship issues that can affect the verticality:

The standard of erection, influenced by the type of equipment;

The quality of the labour;
The straightness of the equipment; and
The tolerances at joints, both at jacks and at intermediate connections.

The accuracy of erection is stated in Clause 7.3 of BS 5975 (Ref. 3). Although it does not give
information for proprietary systems, the limits for adjustable props and tube and coupler
falsework are often used as the "standard":

Individual props are expected to be plumb within 1.5 of vertical (i.e. 25 mm over
a height of 1 m).
Tube and fittings should be erected with maximum out-of-vertical of 15 mm over 2
m of height, and the maximum displacement in height is 25 mm.

The accepted industry practice for erection quality is that the maximum eccentricity of "load
path in" to "load path out" of vertical falsework is 25 mm.

There is no specific information given in BS 5975 for joint alignment and jack "slop", the
unintentional movement within members caused by the clear internal tolerances.

To cater in design for the effects of members erected not exactly vertical, BS 5975 Clause
6.3.3.3.2 (Ref. 3) identifies a force resulting from erection tolerance as 1% Pv to be considered
on the structure. This allows for the initial erection, any out of straightness of the member, and
is subject to the tolerance of erection not exceeding that stated in the "workmanship" section,
generally the 25 mm already stated.

It is noted that there is no provision in BS 5975 for any effect on the accuracy of erection of
having groups of standards joined together.

The proposed European Standard, prEN 12812 (Ref. 8) assumes that modular columns or
frames in falsework are built not exactly vertical and to have an initial sway imperfection as
shown in Section 3.7.

The height of falsework measured on the sites in the survey, reported in Section 7, were all less
than 10 m in height, and thus Equation 3.7 is applicable.

The site measurements reported in Section 7 were to establish whether or not the accuracy of
erection of the falsework systems was within the 25 mm limit (BS 5975) and/or whether a limit
of tan = 0.01 was reasonable.

21
4.2 VERTICALITY - EFFECT OF SPIGOTS/JOINTS
Typically, vertical components of falsework systems consist of several connected members.
These components may consist of a base jack, standard and or head jack connected in some
cases by means of a spigot as shown in Figure 2. Where the system is required to be extended
to substantial heights, additional standards may be connected together. To enable the height of
a system to be adjusted the standard is often designed to slide outside (or inside) the jack or
spigot connection. Obviously, this requires the dimensions of the cross-section of the standards,
spigots and jacks to differ at the points of connection. It is these differences in cross-section
dimensions which are sources for possible deviations at the connection of two members.

d1 d1

l0
l0

d2 d2

(a) Joint between tubes with a spigot (b) Base jack connection

Figure 2 : Connection Deviations

As described in Section 3, deviations from the vertical will give rise to a horizontal force in a
nominally vertical member. Obviously, to ensure the stability of the system, this horizontal
force must be provided for in the design.

4.2.1 Alignment - Two Components Connected

The prEN 12812 (Ref. 8) includes a specific check for the effect of the induced eccentricity of
the vertical load on either jack assemblies and/or on the change of angle at spigot joints in the
falsework standard, see Figure 2a. The jack/spigot (cf. Figure 2(b)) is assumed to be not
vertical due to the jack/spigot member's outer diameter being smaller than the nominal internal
diameter of the tube into which it fits, as discussed in detail in Section 3.5.

As described in Section 3.5, prEN 12812, Clause 10.2, specifies requirements for the maximum
tolerances and eccentricities to be achieved on site for single tubes and for several uprights in a
row. The magnitude of the angular deviation, Li, arising from a difference in the cross-section
dimensions of two connected members, is given by Equation 3.1.

The comparison of suppliers technical data to the deviations stated above is given in Section 6.

It should be noted that whilst Equation 3.1 holds true where the connected members are
regularly shaped, it may be inappropriate where either the inner or outer members are
irregularly shaped. In such cases, in order to determine an appropriate value of tan , it is
necessary to determine the maximum possible movement in any direction between the two
connected members. This value should be substituted in place of the d1-d2 numerator in
Equation 3.1 to determine an appropriate value of tan .

22
4.2.2 Alignment - Several Interconnected Vertical Members
When considering a number of vertical members connected together, the prEN 12812 (Ref. 8)
specifies that the values of the angular deviation, Li,n, to be used for design purposes may be
reduced by an amount which increases as the number of vertical members, n, connected together
increases. The reason why such a reduction may be applied is that an angular deviation at a
joint may occur in any random direction. Consequently, each nominally vertical member, in a
group of interconnected vertical members, may lean in different directions, thus reducing the
magnitude of the resultant horizontal force carried by the interconnected group as a whole.

If there is more than one upright in a row, the angle at a joint to be used for calculation
purposes according to the European Standard it is that given by Equation 3.2.

4.3 OVERALL STABILITY

Falsework is required to be stable at all times, during erection, use and dismantling. This
requirement is common to all codes. Designers generally consider the requirement for the
falsework to be stable in all directions in two mutually perpendicular directions. In any one
direction, the temporary works designer will have a choice of either assuming the structure is
freestanding, or is a restrained structure. These two methods of analysis are:

1. As a freestanding falsework which is allowed to sway, and stability generally

satisfied by inserting sufficient diagonal bracing members to transmit the lateral
forces to the foundations as suitable restraint.
or
2. Where the falsework is restrained at the top and not allowed to sway.
The arrangement of restraint will be either:

(a) by connecting the falsework to suitable columns and/or abutments walls,

or
(b) through the soffit formwork to adequate restraint.

Generally, in order to achieve the stability of falsework, temporary works designers provide
sufficient diagonal bracing in the system to transmit the lateral forces to suitable restraints, as in
Item 1, above. Where this is not possible, the falsework is physically connected by tube and
fittings to abutments or columns near its top as described in Item 2(a). Where the restraint of
the falsework is achieved through the soffit formwork, as described in item 2(b), the formwork
must be connected to the permanent structure.

The proposed European Standard specifies requirements for the use of formwork but it does not
include relevant specifications for the lateral stability of top restrained falsework,which is an
omission which the Authors consider to be surprising (see Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.2).

Whilst the European Standard specifies that any lateral forces should be taken to suitable
restraints it does not mention directly that the formwork may be used as the restraint for such
forces.

It is noted that the suppliers of proprietary systems now assume in their designs that the
formwork should provide the restraint to the falsework (cf. Item 2(b) above). This issue is
discussed in more detail in Section 8.

4.4 STABILITY FORCE

To ensure stability, the codes give various methods of calculating an equivalent horizontal, or
lateral, force. These methods consider the applied vertical loads and any lateral loads applied at

23
the time, such as: the effect of the wind, any out-of-vertical components of force on the
structure, and the consequences of the erection not being vertical.

4.1.1. Current Practice in the UK - BS 5975

The lateral stability of falsework is a design check requirement in BS 5975.

The concept of a lower bound lateral force for falsework was first introduced by Bragg (Ref. 2)
and subsequently embodied in BS 5975 (Ref. 3) at Clause 6.4.4.1 as a minimum stability force4.

The BS 5975 (Ref. 3) requires that all falsework should be designed to be able to resist at each
phase of construction the applied vertical loads AND the greater of either (Clause 6.4.4):

A) A horizontal force equivalent to 2 % Pv where Pv is the sum of the applied

vertical forces at the time considered. This minimum force is considered to act
horizontally at the inside of the forkhead to the falsework.
or
B) Horizontal forces that can arise from wind loads, erection tolerance forces
(taken as 1% Pv - see Section 4.1 above), non-verticality, concrete pressure
forces, water and waves, and dynamic and impact forces .

Falsework stability is achieved by transmitting the greater value above to suitable restraints. BS
5975, Clause 6.4.2 (Ref. 3) also states that "allowance is not normally made for the stiffness of
the formwork unless it has been designed and constructed as an integral part of the falsework."
This implies that lateral stability is provided by restraining the falsework to columns etc, or by
bracing to the foundations. See also Section 4.2.

In practice, temporary works designers consider the lateral stability requirements as

" 2% Pv " or " Known lateral loads (e.g. wind) plus 1% Pv " (4.1)

One preconceived premise to be tested in this project is the Authors' belief that nearly all
suppliers of proprietary equipment design falsework only for the current UK minimum value of
2 % Pv. The wind force calculations, as required by prEN 12812, are rarely carried out.

4.1.2. Future Requirements

In the future, the stability requirements specified in the prEN 12812 for the simpler falsework
structures (i.e. those not to Class B1 design), will require the falsework to withstand a minimum
lateral force of 2% Pv plus the wind. This is because there is no minimum lateral force stated,
and the initial sway imperfection (Section 3.7) of 1% Pv , for structures up to 10 m, is added to
the "direct variable persistent load (Q3)", also stated as 1% Pv (Section 3.8), and any other
known lateral loads.

Adding the minimum effects stated above seems to indicate that future falsework will need to be
designed for:
"Minimum of 2% Pv plus wind load" (4.2)

Thus, if the wind load is less than % Pv there will be a reduction compared with current
practice but, if it is larger, future falsework will require more stability force restraint.

4
Thought by many to be the reason why the UK has not had a serious falsework collapse since 1972

24
 5 PREVIOUS RESEARCH

5.1 INTRODUCTION
This Section presents a brief review of publications, other than the Standards described in
Chapters 2 and 3, which deal with the subject of erection tolerances to be achieved in falsework
design and construction.

5.2 TEXTS
Several texts have been produced on the subject of falsework. Wilshere (Ref. 14) provides a
general guide on falsework. With reference to BS 5975 (Ref. 3), he describes the deviations and
tolerances to be achieved in the design and erection of various falsework elements and systems.
Brand (Ref. 15) provides a more theoretical discussion than Wilshere (Ref. 14). He uses the
theory of statics to determine formulae for acceptable safe working load eccentricities and
angular deviations of various types of falsework. The introduction of diagonal bracing to
falsework to achieve stability when a loaded falsework member is out-of-plumb is also
discussed. Hurd (Ref. 9) provides guidance on recommended practices in the design and
construction of both formwork and falsework in the United States. The publication serves as a
commentary to ACI 347R (Ref. 13). For tolerances to be achieved in falsework she describes:
Requirements from the Standard, ACI 347R (Ref. 13) Guide to formwork for Concrete.
(See Section 2.6).
Recommendations for the erection of falsework from the Scaffolding, Shoring and Forming
Institute (USA) (Ref. 16), which is discussed in more detail below.
Safety regulations stipulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) in the United States (Ref. 17), which are discussed in more detail below.

5.3 SCAFFOLDING, SHORING AND FORMING INSTITUTE

The Scaffolding, Shoring and Forming Institute in the United States has prepared a check list of
points to be covered in the inspection of scaffold type shoring (Ref. 16). Two of these points
are of particular relevance to the tolerances to be achieved in falsework erection, and are as
follows:

A copy of the shoring layout that was prepared for the job should be obtained. The spacings
between towers and the cross brace spacing of the towers should not exceed the spacings
shown on the layout. If any deviation is necessary because of field conditions, the engineer
who prepared the layout for approval of the actual field set-up should be consulted.

Frames should be checked for plumbness in both directions. The maximum allowable
tolerance for a frame which is out-of-plumb is 1 in 288 (i.e. tan 0.0035). Where a frame
exceeds this tolerance, the base should be adjusted until the frame is within the tolerance.

5.4 OSHA REGULATIONS

The OSHA Regulations (Ref. 17) state that the falsework should be "designed, fabricated,
supported, braced and maintained so that it will be capable of supporting without failure all
vertical and lateral loads that may reasonably be anticipated to be applied to the formwork".
Furthermore an appendix, which serves as a non-mandatory guideline to the regulations,
recommends that plans for the falsework layout should be available at the job site. Furthermore,
the appendix suggests that the falsework should be inspected and bent or damaged members
should be removed. The Volume 2lso stipulates that any eccentric loads on shore heads and
similar members should be prohibited unless the members have been designed to carry such
loading, and that the form structure shall be maintained within all design tolerances specified for
plumbness during the jacking operation.

25
5.5 RESEARCH MATERIAL
Several surveys of site workmanship as well as the effect of site practices on the load capacities
of falsework are reported in the literature. Birch et al (Ref. 19) investigated the strength of
adjustable steel props. The tests compared props loaded concentrically with those loaded out-
of-plumb and those loaded out-of-plumb and eccentrically. The research indicated that there is
a significant reduction in strength, particularly as the load on the prop increases, for a prop
erected out-of-plumb and/or eccentrically compared to one erected perfectly. An earlier report
by Birch et al (Ref. 18) also showed deviations from the ideal in erection tolerances achieved on
site. On average, sixteen percent of props were erected with an angular deviation of 1.5 (i.e.
tan > 0.026) or more. The props were all erected individually. No evidence was found,
however, to suggest any systematic errors in erecting props.

Burrows (Ref. 20) reports an investigation carried out to determine the quality of falsework
erection at fifty-four construction sites in the UK. The investigation consisted of measuring
various properties of the falsework components and comparing the measured properties with
ideals. Two of the measured properties, head jack eccentricities and the angular deviations of
vertical members of the falsework, are of relevance to this study. From the measurements made
the overall quality of each construction site was ranked as good, fair and inadequate. It
was found that sixteen out of the fifty-four sites (30%) were deemed inadequate in terms of
the eccentricities achieved in head jack placement and the angular deviation of vertical
members. Of the sites found to be inadequate one was classed as a civil engineering site,
whilst the remaining 15 were building sites. Burrows concluded that the reason for the
discrepancy between the quality of falsework at civil engineering sites compared to that at
building sites was the presence of qualified engineers at the civil engineering sites. At such
sites the engineer would ensure, by inspection and checking, that the falsework construction was
to a satisfactory standard. Burrows (Ref. 20) argues that no such control exists at building sites.
As a consequence, Burrows suggests inter alia that contractors at building sites should be made
more aware of the importance of ensuring good quality falsework.

26
6 ANGULAR CHANGES AND ECCENTRICITIES AT SPIGOT
JOINTS

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The prEN 12812 (Ref. 8) requires the falsework designer to consider the effects, on the stability
of the falsework, of the angular deviations which may occur at connections and joints in the
vertical components of falsework systems. The theory to determine such angular deviations was
discussed in Section 4.

Out-of-alignments in the jack head and/or base of several proprietary falsework systems are
given in this Chapter. These have been calculated from inspection of the technical data issued
by suppliers. This information is compared to specific site measurements on relevant equipment
in Section 7. It is recognised that not all the types of equipment are incorporated in the field
measurements.

It is noted that consideration of this out-of-alignment as a deviation in prEN 12812 suits the
arrangement of the steel skeletal systems of support, rather than the larger aluminium frame
systems commonly used in building. The aluminium systems rarely have spigot joints. The
large threaded base jacks in the aluminium systems are often part of the aluminium leg, and may
give very small values of out-of-alignment.

6.2 METHODOLOGY
Proprietary suppliers gave information in broad terms about: tolerances to establish the
anticipated "slop" on spigots etc, on the internal and external diameters of jacks, and on
squareness of standard ends. The individual component tolerances were generally available in
technical literature and data sheets published by the suppliers.

Consideration of the precise manufacturing tolerances of individual components was not part of
the project.

Data obtained from the following six proprietary systems commonly used in the UK are
described in Section 6.3:

A-Plant Acrow CP-75 Co-Planar System.

Ischebeck Titan Support System.
PERI Multiprop Decking System.
RMD Kwikform Alshor Support System.
SGB Youngman GASS Support System.
Doka Floor System.

For each proprietary system a brief description of the main components of the system (i.e. jacks,
standards, spigots) is given, together with diagrams showing the connections and joints between
the components. In addition, the geometry of the connections of the systems are analysed to
determine the range of angular deviations which may occur in each system.

27
6.3 COMMONLY USED PROPRIETARY SYSTEMS

6.3.1 A-Plant Acrow CP-75 Co-Planar System (Type 3)

The A-Plant Acrow Co-Planar system is a steel skeletal system of falsework comprising
individual standards of 48.3 mm OD steel tube with horizontal individual members, called
ledgers, also of steel. Along the lengths of the standard, clusters of four "U" sockets are welded
in the same horizontal plane at 0.5 m centres. A maximum safe working load capacity of 75 kN
is stated. However, this varies depending on the vertical spacing of the ledgers in the cluster
positions, as this changes the effective length.

Standard

Standard

Spigot

Base jack

Cross Section Cross Section

Standard - Spigot Connection Jack - Standard Connection

Figure 3 : A-Plant Acrow CP-75 Co-Planar Spigot and Jack detail

The flanged spigot and adjustable base jack components of the Co-Planar System are shown in
Figure 3. Typically, spigots are used to join standards end-to-end whilst the adjustable base
jack and head jack fit into the bottom and top of the standard respectively. Table 4 shows
various standard, spigot and jack dimensions together with values of tan , the angular deviation
inherent in the system, for each joint.
Table 4
Co-Planar System - joints and deviations

Connection Spigot and Base jack Short base Head jack and Short head
standard and standard jack and standard jack and
standard standard
d1-d2 (mm) 41.7 - 40.5 41.7 -38.1 41.7 -38.1 41.7 - 38.1 41.7 - 38.1
Minimum overlap, l0 147 252.5 252.5 252.5 252.5
min (mm)
Maximum overlap, l0 147 791 491 794 494
max (mm)
Length of spigot 300 - - - -
Tan max 0.0082 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143
Tan min 0.0082 0.0046 0.0073 0.0045 0.0073
Note: Values of tan > 0.01 are shown shaded.

28
6.3.2 Ischebeck Titan Support System (Type 1)

The Ischebeck Titan support system is a two-component system, comprising aluminium Titan
vertical legs and aluminium Titan ledger frames. The stated maximum safe working load is 100
kN per leg. The three basic lengths of the adjustable vertical leg, see Figure 4, consist of an
inner screw jack and an outer leg. The height of a vertical member may be adjusted by
tightening a two-handled ring nut, which is threaded around the screw jack, to alter the overlap
between the inner screw jack and the outer leg. Several vertical members may be connected
together with frames to form a table system.

Outer leg

Wing nut

Screw jack

Section Through Titan Leg Cross Section at Connection

Figure 4 : Ischebeck Titan Support System

Inner screw jack and outer leg dimensions are listed in Table 5, together with maximum and
minimum values of tan , corresponding respectively to the minimum and maximum amounts
of overlap between the jack and outer leg. It should be noted that tan would range between
these minimum and maximum values depending on the amount of overlap between the two
connected components.

Table 5
Titan Support System - joints and deviations

Leg sizes 2, 4 and 6

Connection Base / head screw jack and Short base/ head screw jack and
outer leg outer leg
d1-d2 (mm) 77 - 74.5 77 - 74.5
Minimum overlap, l0 min (mm) 320 320
Maximum overlap, l0 max (mm) 1520 720
Overall outer leg length (mm) 1610 810
Overall screw jack length 1610, 2810, 4210 1610, 2810, 4210
(mm)
Tan max 0.0078 0.0078
Tan min 0.0016 0.0035
Note tan will vary linearly between the minimum and maximum values shown depending on the amount
of overlap between the two components.

29
6.3.3 PERI Multiprop Decking System
The aluminium PERI Multiprop consists of an inner and outer unit of extruded section. The
inner section comprises a part threaded tube. A free running collar/nut connected to the outer
tube allows the height of the prop to be adjusted easily. The props may be used individually or
combined with purpose-designed frames to form a table or a tower. The frames are available in
a variety of lengths, fabricated in steel up to 1.5 m long, and in aluminium for the longer lengths
of frame up to 2.96 m. Although individual props are available up to 6.25 m long, tall towers
can easily be assembled by bolting props end to end using a special coupler. The maximum safe
working load is limited to 60 kN to ensure that the adjusting nut releases easily.

Adjusting collar
Inner leg

Outer leg

Section through Multiprop Cross Section at Multiprop overlap

Figure 5 : PERI Multiprop System

As may be seen from Figure 5, the cross-sections of both the inner and outer tubes are irregular
in shape. Consequently, it is not obvious from viewing the cross-sections what the maximum
possible movement in any direction between the two tubes is. As a result, it is not possible to
determine accurately an appropriate value of tan for such a connection. However, values of
tan , based on the maximum dimensions of the outer and inner tube, for various lengths of
overlap between the two legs, are given in Table 6.

Table 6
PERI Multiprop Decking System - joints and deviations

System Names MP 250 MP 350 MP 480

d1-d2 (mm) 116 - 111 116 - 111 116 -111
Minimum overlap, l0 min (mm) 367 365 366
Maximum overlap, l0 max (mm) 1417 1915 2566
Overall length outer leg (mm) 1432 1931 2581
Overall length inner leg (mm) 1435 1934 2585
Tan max 0.0136 0.0137 0.0137
Tan min 0.0035 0.0026 0.0019
Notes 1. Values of tan > 0.01 are shown shaded
2.Tan will vary linearly between the minimum and maximum values shown depending on the
amount of overlap between the two components.

30
6.3.4 RMD Kwikform Alshor Support System (Type 3)
The RMD Alshor Support System is also made of aluminium. It consists of three lengths of
outer leg with an internal head and/or base jack, and a spigot connection. A spigot is used to
connect two outer legs together and a similar spigot may be used to connect a jack with an outer
leg. Frames are used to connect legs together and to form tables. Details of the jack - outer leg
connection is shown in Figure 6. The maximum safe working load of 80 kN per leg varies
depending on the position of the frames and the restraint conditions at the head/base jacks.

Outer leg

Alshor spigot

Alshor
head/base
jack

Section through outer leg/ jack connection Cross Section through connection

Figure 6 : RMD Kwikform Alshor System

Table 7 below shows, for various outer leg, spigot and jack dimensions, values of tan .

Table 7
RMD Kwikform Alshor Support System -joints and deviations

Connection Spigot and outer leg Base / head jack and Base/ head jack and
spigot spigot and standard
d1-d2 (mm) 82.0 - 79.5 50.0 -48.3 N/A
Minimum overlap, l0 min (mm) 200 200 200
Maximum overlap, l0 max (mm) 200 200 200
Length of spigot 425 425 425
Tan max 0.0125 0.0085 0.0210
Tan min 0.0125 0.0085 0.0210
Notes 1. Values of tan > 0.01 are shown shaded.
2. The amount of overlap between connected components is fixed to half the length of the
spigot, consequently maximum and minimum values of tan are equivalent.

31
6.3.5 SGB Youngman GASS Support System (Type 1)

The SGB GASS Aluminium support system comprises four lengths of aluminium legs and a
variety of ledger frames. It is a larger diameter extruded main leg than the other systems
observed. The safe working load is a maximum of 125 kN, depending on the number of ledger
frames fitted. It has an inner screw jack and an outer leg. The height of a vertical member may
be adjusted by means of a wing nut, which is threaded around the inner leg. Several vertical
members may be connected together with frames to form a table system. Inner and outer leg
dimensions are listed in Table 8 together with possible values of tan .
Ledger
frame

Outer leg

Inner
leg

SGB GASS leg assembly Cross Section through

Outer leg

Figure 7 : SGB Youngman GASS Support System

Table 8
GASS Support System -joints and deviations

Connection Large inner leg and any outer leg Short inner leg and any outer leg
d1-d2 (mm) 86 - 84 86 - 84
Minimum overlap, l0 min (mm) 350 350
Maximum overlap, l0 max (mm) 1590 690
Overall outer leg lengths (mm) 1400 to 4670 1400 to 4670
Overall inner leg length (mm) 1688 780
Tan max 0.0057 0.0057
Tan min 0.0013 0.0029
Notes 1. Values of tan > 0.01 are shown shaded
2.Tan will vary linearly between the minimum and maximum values shown depending on the
amount of overlap between the two components.

32
 6.3.6 Doka Floor System (Type 2)

The Doka Eurex prop consists of an inner and outer steel tube as shown in Figure 8. Coarse
adjustment of the length is obtained by sliding the inner leg within the outer tube, fine
adjustment is achieved with a rotating collar nut bearing against the attached pin.

The range of Doka Eurex props conform to EN 1065 which is published in the UK as BS EN
1065 (Ref. 5).

Pin

Collar nut

Inner
tube

Outer tube

Section of Doka Eurex prop Section through outer near base plate

Figure 8 : Doka Eurex 20 Prop

Table 9
Doka Floor System - joints and deviations

System Name 20-250 20-300 20-350 20-400 20-550 30-250 30-300 30-350 30-400
d1-d2 (mm) 63.4-54 63.4-54 68.4- 73.5- 85.4- 68.4- 68.4- 73.5- 80.4-
59 64.1 76.1 59 59 64.1 71
Minimum overlap, l0 min 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322
(mm)
Maximum overlap, l0 1403 1603 1853 2153 2853 1403 1603 1853 2153
max (mm)
Overall length 1411 1611 1861 2161 2861 1411 1611 1861 2161
outer tube (mm)
Overall length 1511 1711 1961 2261 2961 1511 1711 1961 2261
inner tube (mm)
Tan max 0.0292 0.0292 0.0292 0.0292 0.0289 0.0292 0.0292 0.0292 0.0292
Tan min 0.0067 0.0059 0.0051 0.0044 0.0033 0.0067 0.0059 0.0051 0.0044
Notes 1. Values of tan > 0.01 are shown shaded
2. In the case of the jack and standard connections tan will range between the minimum and
maximum values shown depending on the amount of overlap between the two components.

33
6.4 SUMMARY
Where the analysed systems are extended to their maximum (i.e. there is a minimum overlap of
components) values of tan , calculated using Equation 3.1, range from 0.0057 to 0.0292. To
meet the requirements of prEN 12812, as discussed in Section 3.5, systems with values of tan
greater than 0.01 should be designed using the calculated value, whilst those systems with lesser
values should be designed using a value of tan = 0.01.

For the cases where there is a maximum overlap (which differs from the minimum) between the
two connected components the values obtained range from tan = 0.0073 to tan = 0.0013. In
such cases, to meet the requirements of prEN12812, the designer would be required to use a
value of tan of 0.01, which would introduce additional "factors of safety" represented by the
ratio of the required to actual tan values between 1.37 and 7.7.

Only two of the systems considered, Ischebeck Titan and SGB GASS, have angular deviations
of tan always less than 0.01 and thus, designers are required to use a value of tan = 0.01 in
all cases. All other systems require individual checking of the value to be used in design. This
requires that the precise layout of the falsework, particularly all head and/or base jack
extensions in the falsework, are known before the calculations can be carried out, as values of
tan can be greater than 0.01 in some cases. The implication for these systems is that a
significant increase in input data is required in order to generate standard solutions.

34
 7 TOLERANCES ON VERTICALITY - SITE SURVEYS

7.1 INTRODUCTION
As discussed in Section 1.2, an aim of this study was to establish and verify erection tolerances
achieved on construction sites using proprietary falsework systems. This would enable the
implications of the European documents under preparation to be assessed and would also
provide useful information on the validity of the present code tolerances. To this end the quality
of the falsework erection was assessed at eleven sites within the UK. This Section describes
each of the sites measured and the techniques used to assess quantitatively the tolerances
achieved in the falsework erection. In addition, a qualitative assessment of each site based on
observations made, together with a summary of the quantitative results from the survey, are
presented. The theory involved in verticality of falsework is given in Chapter 4. Conclusions
based on the results of the site surveys are given at the end of this Chapter.

7.2 METHODOLOGY

7.2.1 Background
From the outset of the project, concerns were expressed over obtaining:

suitable knowledgeable staff for measurement, and

suitable insitu concrete frame building sites where the relevant falsework
equipment would be in use.

The appointment of Mr R. T. Ward, an authoritative figure in the field of temporary works, to

carry out the site measurements gave the project a significant credibility. His experience,
together with the meticulous recording of data, has enhanced this part of the project.

The finding of suitable relevant sites has not been as problematic as first envisaged, and contacts
through the industry provided by Eur Ing P. F. Pallett and Mr R. T. Ward, plus assistance from
proprietary suppliers, has provided the project with an adequate number of suitable building
sites for measurement.

The designer of falsework should consider stability in two mutually perpendicular directions
(see Section 4.3). As the majority of structures are rectangular in plan, these two directions are
normally considered in the plane of the proprietary equipment and are referred to herein as the
"x" and "y" directions.

On all of the sites, a repeat visit was organised to check on the tolerance during a subsequent
use of the same equipment, usually, but not always, at the next level of the building. Various
combinations of equipment were assessed: Type 1 handled in groups and tables handled in
rows, and Type 2 erected singly as individual members (cf. Section 1.1.3).

Included in the survey was one site (Site D2) with a steel skeletal system with "conventional"
adjustable forkheads (Type 3).

The load on the standard does not affect the measurements for erection tolerance and hence, the
time at which the measurements were carried out was not critical. Generally, measurements
were taken after completion of erection and before striking of the formwork.

Although comments on the procedural and management reasons for any non-compliance
observed on site were not considered part of the brief, the quality of the site safety inductions
varied so much that comments have been included in the site descriptions for information.

35
7.2.2 Sites Assessed
The sites were chosen based on the type of proprietary falsework system used. The aim in
choosing the sites was to try to ensure that surveys were carried out on each of three major
generic systems of falsework support in common use in building construction in the UK,
namely:

Type 1 Aluminium support legs with aluminium frames assembled into falsework
system, e.g. Ischebeck Titan, PERI Multiprop, RMD Alshor and SGB GASS.

Type 2 Individual aluminium or steel props, e.g. PERI Multiflex and Doka Eurex.

Type 3 Heavier steel falsework systems, e.g. RMD Kwikform System 75 shoring or
A-Plant Acrow Co-Planar systems.

However, due to the availability and predominance of certain falsework systems over others in
the building construction industry, eight of the surveys were Type 1 of aluminium support
systems with frames. Two surveys (Sites H and K) consisted of Type 2 individually erected and
dismantled props of either aluminium or steel. One site (Site D2) was found which used Type 3
of a generic steel system of support.

The selection of falsework legs to be measured was determined on site by discussion with the
contractor. Often it was the contractor who insisted that the survey should be carried out in a
safe area where falsework erection was complete and the formwork already levelled in. Where
the equipment was moved for the second visit, if the identical area were not available because,
for example, the tables had been moved diagonally, then legs in similar locations were selected.
The order of measurement remained unaltered.

7.2.3 Site Descriptions

Table 10
Summary of Sites by system and type
Site Reference System Type Falsework height
1 2 3 first/second visit
A PERI Multiprop 2 m/2 m
B RMD Kwikform Alshor 2.75 m/2.79 m
C Ischebeck Titan 2.32 m/2.32 m
D1 Ischebeck Titan 3.7 m/2.95 m
D2 A-Plant Acrow Co-Planar 2.945 m/2.995 m
E SGB GASS 3.25 m/4.23 m
3.45 m/4.25 m
F SGB GASS 3.1 m/3.46 m
G SGB GASS 3.49 m/3.49 m
H* RMD Kwikform Alshor 2.38 m/2.38 m
J Ischebeck Titan 2.81 m/3.79 m
K Doka Eurex 20 3.62 m/3.1 m
* It should be noted that at this site the RMD Kwikform Alshor falsework was erected as
individual legs.

36
7.2.3.1 Site A

Job Description: Seven storey apartment block comprising insitu columns and 280 mm thick
solid slab.

System:
PERI Multiprop aluminium support
legs with ledger frames, operating as
table forms and handled with a "C"
hook to give a two week cycle floor to
floor, see Figure 9. Strength
assessment of the concrete for the
striking of the slabs was based on cube
strength.

Site Surveys:
15th, 21st and 28th November 2000.

Figure 9 : Site A - View of table and 'C' hook

Survey details:
The falsework standard length was 2 m
on all visits. The total number of legs
measured was 46 with generally three
measurements in height, at base, at
jack/leg interface and at the top of the
falsework.

Figure 10 : Site A - Typical sketch of table

Comments: This site, although suffering from a chronic lack of working space, appeared to be
reasonably well organised and efficient. However, the policy of signing on and off site seemed
lacking as we were the only names in the register over a three week period.

Induction: Lasted 15 minutes and was reasonably well conducted.

37
7.2.3.2 Site B

Job Description: Three storey building comprising insitu columns and beams with permanent
formwork of Bison type, precast concrete planks spanning between the beams.

System:
R M D Kwikform Alshor operated in
narrow table form on a three week cycle,
see Figure 11.

Strength assessment for striking of

beams was based on cube strength.

Site Surveys:
7th December 2000 and 9th January 2001.

Figure 11 : Site B - View of beam falsework

Survey details:
The falsework height was 2.75 m on
first visit and 2.79 m on second visit.
The total number of legs measured
was 36 and 42 for the two visits
respectively, with four measurements
in height, at base, at base jack/leg
interface, at top jack/leg interface and
at the top of the falsework, see Figure
12. The verticality at the connecting
joint at mid height was not recorded.

Figure 12 : Site B Typical sketch of beam falsework

Comments:
This site was quite untidy and a number of legs were assembled
without the top jack sleeve causing severe misalignment of the jack
(Figure 13). This was pointed out to the Site Engineer but there
was no change on the second visit.

Induction: Lasted 5 minutes and was reasonably well conducted.

After the induction, Mr R.T. Ward and operator were handed the
company policy document and told to read it.

Figure 13 : Site B Upright misalignment

38
7.2.3.3 Site C

Job Description: Seven storey car park comprising insitu concrete portal frames supporting a
shallow trough slab (95 mm topping ) and 125 mm deep trough.

System:
Ischebeck Titan operated in large
six and eight leg tables on a two week
cycle, see Figure 14.

Site Surveys:
30th November 2000 and 10th January
2001.

Figure 14 : Site C General view of tables

Survey details: The falsework

height was 2.32 m. The total
number of legs measured was 36 on
the first visit and 42 on the second
with generally three measurements
in height, at base, at base jack/leg
interface, and at the top of the
falsework, see Figure 15. The
results include making an allowance
for the intentional fitting out-of-
vertical in one direction. The ramps
were at a slope of 1 in 15, and the
falsework tables were set up
"normal" to the slope. This meant
that the falsework had been
deliberately erected "out-of-plumb".
Figure 15 : Site C Typical sketch of tables

Comments: This site was well organised

and operated efficiently. The sub-
contractor commented that he had replaced
the jack retaining clips as they were
vulnerable to breakage and would be better
if they could be repaired on site. On this
system, when moving the tables (by tower
crane) the base jacks are retained in the
legs by spring loaded clips. These clips are
susceptible to damage and should be
designed to be easily replaceable by site
operatives or fitters. He also mentioned
that the trolleys for moving the tables were
much too heavy.
Figure 16 : Site C View of table tilt

Induction: Lasted 20 minutes and was reasonably well conducted.

39
7.2.3.4 Site D

Job Description: Fourteen storey building with insitu concrete columns and 400 mm wide
beams and a 150 mm thick solid insitu concrete slab. The development comprised shops and
restaurants at ground floor, followed by seven floors of offices, topped by seven floors of luxury
apartments.

System:
Ischebeck Titan operated in large
six and eight leg tableforms on two
weeks cycle, see Figure 17.

Site Surveys:
5th December 2000 and 16th January
2001.

Figure 17 : Site D General view at third floor tables

Survey details:

The falsework height was 3.7 m

on first visit, reducing to 2.95 m
on second visit.

The total number of legs

measured was 36 with generally
three measurements in height, at
base, at base jack/leg interface,
and at the top of the falsework,
see Figure 18.

Figure 18 : Site D Typical sketch of tables

Comments: This site was well organised and operated efficiently. However, operatives, who
enquired what we were doing, returned some time later and tried to rectify out-of-plumb legs
with a very large rubber sledge. (The slab had been poured two days previously.)

Induction: Lasted 5 minutes and was partly self-administered.

40
7.2.3.5 Site D2

Job Description: The same site as Site D, namely a fourteen storey building with insitu concrete
columns and 400 mm wide beams and a 150 mm thick solid insitu concrete slab. The
development comprised shops and restaurants at ground floor, followed by seven floors of
offices, topped by seven floors of luxury apartments.

System: A-Plant Acrow Co-Planar steel system operated on the same cycle as the main system
described at Site D, but had been introduced to prevent the aluminium tables becoming trapped
on alternate floors.

Site Surveys: 5th December 2000 and 16th January 2001.

Figure 19 : Site D2 Typical sketch of erected falsework

Survey details:
The falsework height was 2.995 m. The total number of legs measured was 9 with generally
four measurements in height: at base, at base jack/standard interface, at standard/head jack
interface, and at the top of the falsework, see Figure 19.

Comments: This system was well erected and appeared to be reasonably plumb.

Induction: Lasted 5 minutes and was partly self-administered.

41
7.2.3.6 Site E

Job Description: A vast project to provide new accommodation for a government department
and allow for expansion for the next two decades. Photography was not permitted on this site.
The construction was a mixture of insitu and precast concrete permanent formwork. The
project survey concentrated on the insitu concrete spine beam which supported heavy precast
concrete planks.

System: SGB GASS aluminium system operated as long narrow tableforms turned round on
a three week cycle.

Site Surveys: 11th January and 1st February 2001.

Survey details:

The falsework height was 3.25 m/3.45 m on the first visit, increasing to 4.23 m/4.25 m on the
second visit. The total number of legs measured was 30 with generally four measurements in
height: at base, at base jack/leg interface, at the leg/head jack interface, and at the top of the
falsework, see Figure 20.

Figure 20 : Site E Typical sketch of tables to spine beam

Comments: This site was well organised and operated efficiently. Safety and security were
paramount.

Induction: Lasted 75 minutes and centred around a very comprehensive video reinforced by
talk from a very nervous young quantity surveyor.

42
7.2.3.7 Site F

Job Description: Three office blocks, each of three storeys comprising insitu concrete columns
and 200 mm thick, post-tensioned solid concrete slabs.

System:
SGB GASS operated as eight and ten
leg tableforms stripped after 30%
post stressing at 3 to 4 days, giving a
ten day cycle floor to floor, see
Figure 21.

Site Surveys:
29th January and 7th February 2001.

Figure 21 : Site F General view at ground floor

Survey details:
The falsework height was 3.1 m
on first visit, increasing to 3.46 m
on second visit. The total number
of legs measured was 48 on the
first visit and 52 on the second
with generally three
measurements in height, at base,
at base jack/leg interface, and a
the top of the falsework, see
Figure 22.

Figure 22 : Site F Typical sketch of tables

Comments:
This site was well organised and operated efficiently. There
was good marking out of the base jack positions in advance,
see Figure 23. Safety and site temporary works policies
appeared to be strictly adhered to.

Induction: Lasted 30 minutes and was well delivered.

Figure 23 : Site F Base marking

43
7.2.3.8 Site G

Job Description: Four storey insitu concrete frame building comprising insitu columns and 250
mm thick solid slab to provide offices for a major utility. Unique slab reinforcement system
was in use which was delivered in rolled up form and simply unrolled over the deck
formwork on pre-positioned spacers.

System:
SGB GASS aluminium system
operated as fifteen leg table
forms turned round on a ten day
cycle floor to floor, see Figure
24.

Site Surveys:
30th January and 8th February
2001.

Figure 24 : Site G General view of tables at first floor

Figure 25 : Site G Typical sketch of table

Survey details: The falsework height was 3.49 m. The total number of legs measured was 54
with generally three measurements in height, at base, at base jack/leg interface, and at the top of
the falsework, see Figure 25.

Comments: Very well run site with a good system for relocating
tables in new positions relative to columns. Leg positions were
marked with a spray marker on new slab, see Figure 26. The re-
positioning of tables was carried out very efficiently.

Figure 26 : Site G Base Marking

Induction: The induction was well delivered by an engineer and lasted 20 minutes.

44
7.2.3.9 Site H

Job Description: Multi-storey car park and shopping complex to extend an existing
supermarket facility. Building comprised insitu concrete columns and slabs using a re-usable
GRP trough mould for forming the soffit.

System:
RMD Kwikform Alshor
aluminium system set up
in a table form but
completely dismantled for
movement to new
location, see Figure 27.
The site achieved a two
week cycle floor to floor.

Site Surveys:
20th and 27th February
2001.

Figure 27 : Site H General view of tables during erection

Survey details
The falsework height was 2.38 m.
The total number of legs measured
was 50 with generally four
measurements in height, at base, at
base jack/leg interface, at leg/head
jack interface, and at the top of the
falsework, see Figure 28.

Figure 28 : Site H Typical sketch of tables

Comments: Reasonably well run site, although some legs were assembled without the top jack
sleeves which are essential for stability under full load. The striking method of "crash striking",
deprecated in the industry, was the norm.

Induction: Lasted 30 minutes and was the most efficient of all the sites visited and performed
by a female engineer.

45
7.2.3.10 Site J

Job Description: First of a group of multi-storey office blocks comprising insitu columns and
solid slabs.

System:
Ischebeck Titan aluminium
operated in eight and six leg
tables. See Figure 29.
Although a full floor of
equipment was provided,
concreting was carried out in
three phases on a weekly
basis resulting in a three
week turn round of the tables
between floors.

Site Surveys:
6th and 28th March 2001.

Figure 29 : Site J General view at first floor

Survey details:
The falsework height was 2.81 m on
the first visit, increasing to 3.79 m on
the second visit. The total number of
legs measured was 54 with generally
three measurements in height, at
base, at base jack/leg interface, and
at the top of the falsework, see
Figure 30.

Figure 30 : Site J Typical sketch of table

Comments: Very tidy and efficient site where tables were relocated in almost identical positions
local to columns. The operatives appeared (to Mr R.T. Ward) to be completely familiar with the
system and it was noticeable that they worked as a team. Note in particular the width of the
working platform and the guardrail provisions on all sides of the building in Figure 29.

Induction: Lasted 30 minutes and was well delivered.

46
7.2.3.11 Site K

Job Description: Three storey prestigious office block comprising insitu concrete circular
columns and a waffle mould slab of 400 mm overall thickness.

System: Doka Eurex" adjustable steel props operated as minimum four leg table forms with
Doka timber main and secondary beams, see Figures 31 and 32. System moved with a C hook
on a three week cycle floor to floor

Figure 31 : Site K View of Prop heads

Figure 32 : Site K General view of props

Site Surveys:
1st and 20th March 2001.

Survey details:
The falsework height was 3.62 m
on the first visit, reducing to 3.1
m on the second visit. The total
number of legs measured was 50
with generally three
measurements in height, at base,
at the prop collar nut, and at the
top of the falsework, see Figure
33.
Figure 33 : Site K Typical sketch of prop layout

Comments: This system appeared (to Mr R. T. Ward) to be the least user friendly of all the
systems surveyed. It relied very much on the formwork for its horizontal stability, and access at
formwork level was non-existent. In make up areas, crash striking was practised and was quite
hazardous.

Induction: Took twenty minutes and was well presented.

47
7.2.4 Techniques Used to Assess Erection Quality
To assess quantitatively the deviations of the falsework erection at each site, the out-of-plumb
of nominally vertical components, such as the base jack, standard and head jack was measured.

The ledgers and transoms and/or frames connecting the vertical standards were rectangular in
plan. This meant that precise measurements could not be observed in the direction of the
members, as the connections would interfere with any conventional plumbing device.

To determine the out-of-plumb of each component a device, described in Section 7.2.5, and
shown in Figures 34 and 35, was used to measure the top and bottom offset of each component
from a plumb line, in two mutually perpendicular directions at about 45 to the required
directions. The offsets of each component were then computed to give the effective offset
parallel to the line of the props (known herein as the x-axis) and also perpendicular to the line of
props (the y-direction).

On a typical storey height of 3 m the offsets were measured to an accuracy of 5 mm in both

directions. In order to check erection tolerances of the components on re-erection, the out-of-
plumb of falsework components was determined for two cycles of use at ten of the eleven sites.
This required revisiting the sites a few weeks later. The required measurements usually took
approximately eight hours per site per visit.

For each site, copies of the suppliers falsework drawing layout were marked up with the
standards nomenclature, and interviews and observations recorded.

A simple explanatory freehand sketch was prepared for each site. These are included in the site
descriptions (see Section 7.3.2) and give the nomenclature used in the analysis of the results.

Figure 34 : View at base of measuring device

Figure 35 : View at top of measuring device

48
7.2.5 Apparatus Used
The device, shown in Figures 34, 35 and 36, was
used to measure the verticality of the legs on
each site. It was constructed in the School of
Civil Engineering workshops at the University of
Birmingham and comprises two 2 m long
aluminium tubes of nominal 30 mm diameter
telescoped one inside the other. This enabled
measurements to be recorded on uprights of up
to 3500 mm. For standards in excess of 3500
mm in height, a wooden broom stale was
inserted into the bottom tube to extend the
measuring range up to about 4500 mm.

The device had two aluminium sliding arms with

the upper one approximately 200 mm long with
three hole positions from which to suspend the
plumb line cord, see Figure 35. The lower arm
was approximately 350 mm long and had a V
shaped end to locate it against the falsework
standards/legs being measured. The whole was
held in position by an elasticated strap.
Figure 36 : Diagram of the measuring device

A vertical spirit level was attached to the lower section to aid locating the device in a vertical
position. During windy conditions it was found that the hanging plumb bob was susceptible to
excessive amounts of sway. This made the recording of suitably accurate measurements
difficult to achieve. To overcome this difficulty two additional pieces of equipment were used.
The first, a 350 mm length of timber with a "V" shape cut into one end, was placed on the
ground just below the hanging plumb bob to prevent the plumb bob from swaying excessively
as shown in Figure 34. Additionally, on some sites, small sheets of plywood were used to
shield the plumb bob from the wind.

Measurements were effected by setting the device at 45 to the main frame grids. Offsets from
the hanging plumb line were then taken with a tape measure at various positions from the top of
each vertical member to the bottom of the bottom jack. Subsequently, the device was rotated
through 90 in a clockwise direction to record a corresponding set of additional offsets. This
operation was repeated on 40 50 legs at each site. The legs were numbered so that they could
be re-measured on a second visit, the timing of which depended on the programmed cycle.

7.3 VERTICALITY RESULTS

7.3.1 Site Measurements

This Section presents, in Tables 11 to 21, a summary of the results for each site surveyed, whilst
the full survey results are given in Volume 2. Additionally, a comparison of each site is
presented in Table 22. To assist with the comparison of the data from each site a statistical test,
known as a Paired-difference test (Ref. 21), was used to analyse the results presented in Table
22 (See Section 7.4.1).

7.3.1.1 Tables 11 - 21
Each of Tables 11 to 21 present a summary of the verticality measurements, made during the
first and second visits, for an individual site. For a particular site the results presented are
grouped firstly by the number of the visit (i.e. first or second visit) and then by the x or y
direction in which the measurements were made (cf. Section 7.2.4). Subsequently, for each x or

49
y direction, the results are grouped according to the whether the measurements were made at
joints in the falsework (for example the angle between the inner and outer standard) or whether
the measurement refers to the overall height of the system considered as a whole. Separate
results are given for all legs individually and when considering the mean values of those legs
which are connected together in tables.

For both measurements made at joints and for the overall height, the mean values of tan for all
legs measured is given together with the standard deviation of tan from zero of the
measurements and the maximum value of tan . For the overall height of a leg the maximum
value of out-of-verticality is also given, in brackets, as a value in millimetres. Furthermore, the
percentage of measurements lying outside the relevant specification suggested by the European
Standard, prEN 12812 is presented. For joints between members this specification is that
described in Clause 10.2 of prEN 12812 (Angular changes and eccentricities at the joints) (cf.
Section 3.5 herein), whilst for the overall height of the falsework it is given by Clause 10.4.2
(Initial sway imperfections for compression members) (see Section 3.7). These results have
been determined when considering the legs individually and, where relevant, considering the
legs to be connected together by ledger frames in to tables. (Note the European Standard
specifies different criteria for individual props and those which are connected by ledger frames).

In addition to the above, for measurements referring to the overall height of the falsework, the
percentage lying outside the tolerances specified in Clauses 7.3.2.2 and 7.3.2.3 of the British
Standards (Adjustable Steel Props and Forkheads and Tube and Coupler falsework respectively)
(see Section 2.3) are given in the tables in brackets.

50
 Table 11
Summary of Site A (PERI Multiprop) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 46 11 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0011 0.0072 11 0.0204
Mean of connected legs 0.0011 0.0054 9 0.0111
Overall height
All legs 0.0020 0.0073 9 (15) 0.2400 (48)
Mean of connected legs 0.0021 0.0054 14 (14) 0.0138 (28)
y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0004 0.0091 13 0.0323
Mean of connected legs 0.0004 0.0039 0 0.0840
Overall height
All legs 0.0027 0.0074 11 (17) 0.0245 (49)
Mean of connected legs 0.0027 0.0064 13 (13) 0.0205 (41)
x
2 46 11 Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0008 0.0101 24 0.0297
Mean of connected legs 0.0006 0.0078 14 0.0186
Overall height
All legs 0.0009 0.0081 13 (20) 0.0300 (60)
Mean of connected legs 0.0010 0.0056 4 (14) 0.0175 (35)
y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0006 0.00112 28 0.0418
Mean of connected legs 0.0006 0.0086 17 0.0238
Overall height
All legs 0.0034 0.0082 15 (26) 0.0285 (57)
Mean of connected legs 0.0034 0.0071 17 (22) 0.0175 (35)

51
 Table 12
Summary of Site B (RMD Kwikform Alshor) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 36 8 x
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0018 0.1078 28 0.03175
Mean of connected legs 0.0291 0.1155 33 0.02985
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0269 0.0968 58 0.4805
Mean of connected legs 0.0366 0.0820 58 0.2402
Overall height
All legs 0.0022 0.0071 14 (22) 0.0226 (63)
Mean of connected legs 0.0020 0.0042 8 (8) 0.0102 (29)
36 8 y
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0138 0.1151 25 0.3487
Mean of connected legs 0.0075 0.0543 25 0.1485
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0019 0.0985 47 0.4738
Mean of connected legs 0.0161 0.0739 50 0.2337
Overall height
All legs 0.0013 0.0102 31 (39) 0.0272 (76)
Mean of connected legs 0.0017 0.0058 8 (17) 0.0142 (40)
2 42 9 x
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0078 0.0933 26 0.3465
Mean of connected legs 0.0056 0.0361 31 0.0825
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0020 0.0253 33 0.2133
Mean of connected legs 0.0045 0.0460 15 0.0633
Standard/standard joint
All legs 0.0016 0.0076 0 0.0045
Mean of connected legs 0.0007 0.0036 0 0.0184
Overall height
All legs 0.0080 0.0022 21 (26) 0.0253 (70)
Mean of connected legs 0.0016 0.0054 8 (8) 0.0119 (29)
42 9 y
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0155 0.0928 33 0.3575
Mean of connected legs 0.0212 0.0386 55 0.0660
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0045 0.0460 24 0.0515
Mean of connected legs 0.0148 0.0264 27 0.0589
Standard/standard joint
All legs 0.0119 0.0182 33 0.0312
Mean of connected legs / / / /
Overall height
All legs 0.0040 0.0112 33 (43) 0.0282 (78)
Mean of connected legs 0.0002 0.0045 0 (0) 0.0076 (21)

52
 Table 13
Summary of Site C (Ischebeck Titan) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 36 5 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0059 0.0384 64 0.0851
Mean of connected legs 0.0047 0.262 30 0.0718
Overall height
All legs 0.0092 0.0152 33 (47) 0.0369 (89)
Mean of connected legs 0.0095 0.0125 60 (60) 0.0199 (46)
36 5 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0199 0.0478 83 0.0800
Mean of connected legs 0.0199 0.0377 72 0.0791
Overall height
All legs 0.0038 0.0107 33 (53) 0.0241 (56)
Mean of connected legs 0.0038 0.0070 17 (22) 0.0112 (32)
2 42 7 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0023 0.0172 21 0.0901
Mean of connected legs 0.0021 0.0100 14 0.0270
Overall height
All legs 0.0016 0.0085 17 (17) 0.0376 (88)
Mean of connected legs 0.0016 0.0056 7 (14) 0.0144 (34)
42 7 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0014 0.0291 63 0.1379
Mean of connected legs 0.0013 0.0172 33 0.0570
Overall height
All legs 0.0011 0.0083 21 (36) 0.0192 (45)
Mean of connected legs 0.0011 0.0045 5 (5) 0.0103 (24)

53
 Table 14
Summary of Site D (Ischebeck Titan) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 36 6 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0028 0.0213 21 0.0428
Mean of connected legs 0.0028 0.0110 8 0.0334
Overall height
All legs 0.0007 0.0053 6 (11) 0.0137 (39)
Mean of connected legs 0.0007 0.0025 0 (0) 0.0040 (11)
36 6 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0060 0.0215 39 0.1039
Mean of connected legs 0.0060 0.0148 19 0.0539
Overall height
All legs 0.0019 0.0067 14 (19) 0.0172 (49)
Mean of connected legs 0.0019 0.0043 6 (6) 0.0117 (34)
2 36 6 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0001 0.0088 25 0.0215
Mean of connected legs 0.0001 0.0038 0 0.0070
Overall height
All legs 0.0021 0.0062 8 (14) 0.0166 (49)
Mean of connected legs 0.0021 0.0031 0 (0) 0.0066 (19)
36 6 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0020 0.0124 44 0.0316
Mean of connected legs 0.0020 0.0058 6 0.0150
Overall height
All legs 0.0012 0.0070 17 (25) 0.0139 (42)
Mean of connected legs 0.0012 0.0036 0 (6) 0.0078 (23)

54
 Table 15
Summary of Site D2 (A-Plant Acrow Co-Planar) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 9 0 x
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0001 0.0020 0 0.0028
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0016 0.0079 22 0.0132
Overall height
All legs 0.0003 0.0022 0 (0) 0.0037 (11)
9 0 y
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0007 0.0025 0 0.0036
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0011 0.0014 33 0.0189
Overall height
All legs 0.0006 0.0022 0 (0) 0.043 (13)
2 9 0 x
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0047 0.0216 44 0.0546
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0021 0.0080 11 0.0173
Overall height
All legs 0.0004 0.0061 0 (0) 0.0097 (29)
9 0 y
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0155 0.0226 78 0.0502
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0016 0.0055 11 0.0111
Overall height
All legs 0.0017 0.0047 0 (0) 0.0080 (24)

55
 Table 16
Summary of Site E (SGB GASS) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 30 3 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0004 0.0056 37 0.0130
Mean of connected legs 0.0005 0.0033 0 0.0047
Midsection joint
All legs 0.0002 0.0051 5 0.0168
Mean of connected legs 0.0002 0.0004 0 0.0005
Overall height
All legs 0.0006 0.0034 0 (7) 0.0095 (31)
Mean of connected legs 0.0010 0.0034 0 (0) 0.0062 (20)
30 3 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0010 0.0083 17 0.0167
Mean of connected legs 0.0010 0.0035 0 0.0075
Midsection joint
All legs 0.0002 0.0055 5 0.0146
Mean of connected legs 0.0002 0.0050 9 0.0112
Overall height
All legs 0.0011 0.0056 10 (10) 0.0170 (72)
Mean of connected legs 0.0011 0.0038 0 (13) 0.0070 (30)
2 30 2 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0030 0.0105 33 0.0277
Mean of connected legs 0.0023 0.0036 0 0.0056
Midsection joint
All legs 0.0042 0.0177 45 0.0312
Mean of connected legs 0.0042 0.0071 0 0.0070
Overall height
All legs 0.0006 0.0050 3 (10) 0.0188 (80)
Mean of connected legs 0.0006 0.0036 0 (0) 0.0040 (17)
30 2 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0003 0.0156 53 0.0343
Mean of connected legs 0.0003 0.0077 20 0.0138
Midsection joint
All legs 0.0045 0.0204 57 0.0473
Mean of connected legs 0.0045 0.0154 45 0.0308
Overall height
All legs 0.0004 0.0063 7 (20) 0.0198 (84)
Mean of connected legs 0.0004 0.0051 7 (20) 0.0114 (49)

56
 Table 17
Summary of Site F (SGB GASS) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 48 4 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0006 0.0051 4 0.0164
Mean of connected legs 0.0006 0.0022 0 0.0044
Overall height
All legs 0.0005 0.0035 4 (4) 0.0107 (29)
Mean of connected legs 0.0004 0.0022 0 (0) 0.0036 (10)
48 4 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0002 0.0054 8 0.0135
Mean of connected legs 0.0005 0.0031 0 0.0061
Overall height
All legs 0.0009 0.0040 2 (6) 0.0107 (29)
Mean of connected legs 0.0008 0.0026 0 (0) 0.0061 (17)
2 45 4 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0020 0.0053 7 0.0178
Mean of connected legs 0.0021 0.0030 0 0.0052
Overall height
All legs 0.0004 0.0029 0 (0) 0.0069 (24)
Mean of connected legs 0.0003 0.0016 0 (0) 0.0037 (13)
45 4 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0001 0.0067 11 0.0163
Mean of connected legs 0.0001 0.0033 0 0.0061
Overall height
All legs 0 0.0035 0 (2) 0.0069 (30)
Mean of connected legs 0.0001 0.0020 0 (0) 0.0039 (13)

57
 Table 18
Summary of Site G (SGB GASS) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 54 5 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0013 0.0051 7 0.0181
Mean of connected legs 0.0010 0.0028 0 0.0050
Overall height
All legs 0.0009 0.0042 2 (6) 0.0120 (41)
Mean of connected legs 0.0006 0.0026 0 (0) 0.0037 (12)
54 5 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0003 0.0083 21 0.0211
Mean of connected legs 0.0009 0.0037 0 0.0099
Overall height
All legs 0.0013 0.0055 7 (13) 0.0161 (55)
Mean of connected legs 0.0001 0.0032 0 (0) 0.0063 (22)
2 54 5 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0025 0.0058 9 0.0148
Mean of connected legs 0.0026 0.0035 0 0.0054
Overall height
All legs 0.0020 0.0049 6 (11) 0.0181 (62)
Mean of connected legs 0.0024 0.0037 0 (0) 0.0074 (24)
54 5 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0009 0.0083 19 0.0236
Mean of connected legs 0.0014 0.0059 9 0.0137
Overall height
All legs 0.0013 0.0044 0 (13) 0.0100 (32)
Mean of connected legs 0.0014 0.0035 0 (4) 0.0077 (25)

58
 Table 19
Summary of Site H (RMD Kwikform Alshor) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 50 13 x
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0040 0.0184 22 0.0397
Mean of connected legs 0.0034 0.0147 13 0.0273
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0027 0.0152 10 0.0552
Mean of connected legs 0.0022 0.0088 8 0.0217
Overall height
All legs 0.0001 0.055 8 (12) 0.0218 (52)
Mean of connected legs 0.0004 0.0047 4 (4) 0.0145 (35)
50 13 y
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0046 0.0303 72 0.0546
Mean of connected legs 0.0046 0.0124 8 0.0418
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0031 0.0197 42 0.0417
Mean of connected legs 0.0031 0.0170 8 0.0253
Overall height
All legs 0.0005 0.0056 8 (16) 0.0147 (27)
Mean of connected legs 0.0005 0.0042 0 (0) 0.0099 (24)
2 50 9 x
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0020 0.0128 10 0.0462
Mean of connected legs 0.0022 0.0079 0 0.0187
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0010 0.0139 14 0.0286
Mean of connected legs 0.0011 0.0090 6 0.0239
Overall height
All legs 0.0004 0.0071 12 (14) 0.0252 (60)
Mean of connected legs 0.0004 0.0049 6 (19) 0.0116 (28)
50 9 y
Standard/base jack joint
All legs 0.0013 0.0262 52 0.0377
Mean of connected legs 0.0013 0.0105 4 0.0809
Standard/head jack joint
All legs 0.0022 0.0246 50 0.0517
Mean of connected legs 0.0022 0.0125 8 0.0325
Overall height
All legs 0.0007 0.0086 16 (38) 0.0269 (64)
Mean of connected legs 0.0008 0.0058 8 (16) 0.0132 (32)

59
 Table 20
Summary of Site J (Ischebeck Titan) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 54 8 x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0008 0.0088 17 0.0180
Mean of connected legs 0.0009 0.0073 19 0.0192
Overall height
All legs 0.0003 0.0033 0 (2) 0.0082 (18)
Mean of connected legs 0.0002 0.0029 0 (0) 0.0056 (12)
54 8 y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0009 0.0069 83 0.0268
Mean of connected legs 0.0009 0.0047 4 0.0164
Overall height
All legs 0.0012 0.0064 9 (28) 0.0142 (31)
Mean of connected legs 0.0012 0.0040 0 (7) 0.0089 (20)
2 54 8 x
Base extension
All legs 0.0029 0.0250 59 0.0712
Mean of connected legs 0.0025 0.0184 44 0.0449
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0008 0.0085 31 0.0171
Mean of connected legs 0.0007 0.0053 6 0.0120
Overall height
All legs 0.0008 0.0041 0 (7) 0.0099 (34)
Mean of connected legs 0.0007 0.0028 0 (0) 0.0058 (20)
54 8 y
Base extension
All legs 0.0032 0.0417 94 0.0737
Mean of connected legs 0.0032 0.0129 37 0.0364
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0003 0.0092 30 0.0281
Mean of connected legs 0.0004 0.0062 11 0.0168
Overall height
All legs 0.0009 0.0041 2 (9) 0.0111 (38)
Mean of connected legs 0.0009 0.0035 0 (7) 0.0085 (29)

60
 Table 21
Summary of Site K (Doka Eurex 20) Measurement of Verticality

Visit No. No. Member Mean Standard % Outside Maximum Value

Legs Tables [Radians] Deviation Tolerance [Radians / (mm)]
[Radians]
1 50 / x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0002 0.0082 12 0.0440
Overall height
All legs 0.0010 0.0080 16 (18) 0.0284 (88)
50 / y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0013 0.0015 14 0.0521
Overall height 0.0005 0.0068
All legs 12 (22) 0.0184 (57)
2 50 / x
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0005 0.0069 6 0.0283
Overall height
All legs 0.0002 0.0091 20 (36) 0.0171 (62)
50 / y
Inner/outer joint
All legs 0.0009 0.0066 10 0.0234
Overall height
All legs 0.0001 0.0093 30 (40) 0.0254 (92)

61
 Table 22
Site Comparison

% Outside Rating
Site System Visit Tolerance
UK European UK European
A PERI Multiprop 1 18 10 Fair Fair
2 22 14
B RMD Kwikform Alshor 1 31 23 Inadequate Fair
2 35 27
C Ischebeck Titan 1 50 33 Inadequate Fair
2 27 19
D Ischebeck Titan 1 15 10 Fair Fair
2 20 13
D2 A-Plant Acrow Co-Planar 1 0 0 Good Good
2 0 0
E SGB GASS 1 9 5 Fair Good
2 15 5
F SGB GASS 1 5 3 Good Good
2 1 0
G SGB GASS 1 10 0 Fair Good
2 12 3
H RMD Kwikform Alshor * 1 14 8 Fair Fair
2 26 14
J Ischebeck Titan 1 15 5 Fair Good
2 8 1
K Doka Eurex 20 1 20 14 Fair Fair
2 38 25

* Erected as individual legs.

7.3.2 Qualitative Observations

A number of observations concerning the overall condition of each site were made during site
visits. These observations have been presented in Section 7.2.3. and their implications are
discussed in Section 7.4.2.

7.4 DISCUSSION

7.4.1 Site Measurements

The standard deviations are large for each site indicating that there was considerable variation of
verticality on each site. However, it was a few very large deviations which tended to result in
the very large magnitudes of the standard deviations. As can be seen from the last column of
each of Tables 11 to 21, the largest deviations at most sites tended to be very large.

In order to make comparisons between the sites and with the measurements made by Burrows
(Ref. 20) in 1989, the averages, for all legs, of the x and y percentages of out-of-tolerance for
the overall height to both UK and European standards are given in Table 22. The rating, which
is based on the average of the percentages for the two visits, adopts the following criteria
proposed by Burrows, so as to enable a comparison with his 1989 results:

62
< 10% Good
10-30% Fair
> 30% Inadequate

Before making comparisons the criteria which have been adopted for determining the number of
measurements outside tolerance in relation to the overall height are stated as follows:

For aluminium support legs (Sites A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and J) the requirements of the

European and UK standards are:

European standard: design for a minimum out-of-plumb of 0.01h (where h is the height of
the falsework).
British standard (BS5975): Erect according to manufacturers recommendations.

However, for proprietary aluminium falsework, in order to correlate with Burrows (Ref. 20), the
clause in BS5975 relating to "tube and coupler" falsework has been adopted. This clause states
a tolerance of 15 mm per 2 m (i.e 0.0075h) subject to a maximum of 25 mm, which is reached at
a height of 3.33 m. Consequently, BS5975 is interpreted as always being more stringent than the
European standard. For falsework of height (h) up to 3.33 m the two tolerances are 0.0075h and
0.01h for the British and European standards, respectively, whereas for heights in excess of 3.33
m, the tolerances are 25 mm and 0.01h, respectively.

A distinction is not made between steel and aluminium in the European standard and, thus, the
above value of 0.01h for aluminium has also been adopted for steel. The BS5975 requirement
was to erect within 0.025h.

It can be seen from Table 22 that there is no consistent evidence of better performance on the
second site visits compared with the first visits. This could be due to the fact that the specialist
sub-contractors tend to use their own equipment with which they are familiar.

A statistical Paired-difference test was performed on the data of Table 22 and it was established
that, at the 5% significance level, more legs are out of tolerance according to the British
standard than to the European standard. This is to be expected in view of the comments already
made on the criteria of the two Standards.

In 1989, Burrows (Ref 20) found that, for proprietary systems, the ratings in terms of verticality
for a sample of 42 sites were: 31% good; 50% fair; and 19% inadequate. The values for the
current survey, for a smaller sample of 11 sites, when using the same BS5975 criteria as
Burrows are: 18% good, 64% fair; and 18% inadequate. Hence, there appears to be little change
in performance over the 22 years between the two studies.

When the European criteria are used, the figures for the current study improve to: 45% good;
55% fair; and none inadequate. This improvement is a result of the less onerous European
criteria.

It should be noted that even sites rated as good from considerations of the overall height
tolerance exhibited significant out of tolerance according to the European standard within the
overall height at joints.

There are too few data to attempt to correlate the systems and their ratings. However, the
following observations are pertinent.

The two sites deemed to be inadequate according to the British criteria are B and C. It is
significant that, on Site B, it was observed on the first visit that a number of legs were
assembled without the top jack sleeve in place. This caused severe misalignment of the jack, as

63
shown in Figure 13, and resulted in some large deviations from verticality. Although this point
was made clear to the Site Engineer, the problem still occurred on the second visit.

Site C was an unusual site in that the falsework was deliberately founded on a slope and the
resulting slab was also at a slope. Although the falsework was erected with the intention of it
being normal to the slope, the drawings showed it to be vertical. It is emphasised that the values
in Tables 13 and 22 relate to the angle of the falsework to the intended normal rather than to the
vertical. It is apparent that one would expect greater deviations from verticality on a site such as
this and, hence, the inadequate rating is not necessarily a reflection of the site management
and/or the falsework system.

As can be seen from Table 19, there were some very large deviations associated with the
standard/jack joints on Site H. This is consistent with the observation on site that some legs
were assembled without the top jack sleeves in place.

Some large deviations were measured on Site K, see Table 21, and these are consistent with the
observation made at Site K that the system used appeared to be the least user friendly.

7.4.2 Qualitative Observations

It was clear from all of the surveys that the main contractors concerned all had very
comprehensive temporary works and safety policies in place. However, the application of these
policies out in the field depended to a large extent on the sub-contractor and, although no life
threatening situation or condition was witnessed, some sites had scope for improvement in the
assembly and use of the falsework materials.

It was perceived that the well organised main contractors performed better and provided "safer"
sites. In contrast, the sites of main contractors with more relaxed attitudes tended to exhibit
cases of in-effective supervision.

On several sites the measurement team encountered the problems of lack of access and edge
protection, which seem to be continuing problems in the industry. They were particularly
noticeable where aluminium table systems were being moved out of a building up to their next
location. The suppliers instructions and drawing(s) should identify adequate working platforms
and edge protection, or provide alternative safety measures. Perhaps it is a matter that should be
identified early in the procurement of temporary works, and then enforced more vigorously on
site by the Temporary Works Co-ordinators (TWCs). However, these requirements can be
implemented fully only if the contractor makes available adequate resources.

The quality of the site inductions varied significantly, and was related to the enthusiasm and
status of the presenter.

An area of particular concern was the acceptance by several sites of the regular use of "crash
striking" techniques. Such techniques involve simply lowering the props a few turns, then
pushing or pulling the props at their base, thus causing the falsework, including the
plywood/decking and beams at the top end, to fall to the floor. It was observed, principally on
those sites using the long "European" props without frames and not made up into towers, or
tables. Site management often seemed not fully aware of the dangers of such techniques of
striking.

There was no evidence of poor quality equipment in use on any of the sites visited. This is due,
in part, to the reduced maintenance needed for, and more robust designs of, the proprietary
equipment now used in building.

On one site one piece of equipment was identified as "breaking repeatedly in use". It was a
small retaining clip to prevent the jacks sliding out when lifting the units. As the base jacks are

64
not captive this represents a safety hazard. The equipment had been so designed that a site
repair could not be effected. It was suggested that such retaining devices should be designed
and manufactured so that repairs could be effected on site. This would avoid the loss of
production while replacement clips were ordered and supplied. It was considered a fault in the
equipment design, rather than its use on site.

At another site, a component had been assembled incorrectly, with an internal collar missing.
This is shown in Figure 13. This generated particularly large eccentricities on one standard.
Significantly, even after it was pointed out on the first site visit, the collar was still missing on
the second visit.

The surveys showed some quite large degrees of out-of-verticality, which would generate
larger values of lateral force than expected by the designer. Assuming that this is typical for the
industry, then it is significant that there are few, if any, collapses reported. The Authors
consider that it is the robustness of the current systems that limits the number of collapses, as
the leg loads are estimated not to exceed approximately 75% of their potential maximum safe
working loads.

The problem of eccentricity, which used to be encountered, appears to have been almost
eliminated by the current systems with bolted and clipped connections at the head ensuring
more concentric loading than the previous use of forkheads etc. which generally required
wedges to each side to make the member concentric.

Overall, there appears to have been improvements in procedures and attitudes since a similar
exercise was carried out almost thirty years ago (see Ref. 18).

7.5 CONCLUSIONS
Over the full overall heights, the percentage of legs outside tolerances at each site visit
ranged from 0% to 50% when using the British criteria and from 0% to 33% when using the
European criteria.
There was no evidence of better performance at a site on the second visit to that site
compared with the first visit.
82% of the sites were considered to be performing as good or fair and 18% were
inadequate when considering the British verticality criteria. These percentages are very
similar to those reported in 1989 by Burrows (Ref. 20). Hence, there does not appear to
have been an overall improvement in verticality over the last 12 years.
When considering the European criteria, all of the sites were considered to be good or
fair in relation to overall height. Although none was classified as inadequate, it should be
noted that there were many instances of gross deviation within the height joints within a
falsework leg.
The measured tolerances and the site rating correlate with the site practices observed and, in
one case, with peculiarities associated with the site itself.
By under-utilising the load capacity of current aluminium systems there is a reserve of
strength in the systems which can accommodate lateral forces. This is possibly due to the
systems acting in part as portal frames. However, there is a perceived risk that, should such
systems be used to their full safe working load, then this reserve would not be available and
collapses might be expected. This risk is considered more likely if aluminium systems are
used in civil engineering, where falsework loads tend to be larger than those from the
relatively thin slabs used in building.
Industry still needs to be reminded of the dangers of "crash striking".
The quality of supervision on sites varies considerably. It was observed, as expected, that
the main contractor, who sets a good example to the sub-contractor, noticeably performed
better from both a safety and operation point of view.

65
 There remains a lack of consideration of edge protection.
The quality, and therefore the effectiveness, of onsite initial inductions is varied.
The equipment was observed to be undamaged and not visibly bent.
Suppliers need to be notified of any equipment deficiencies which may lead to safety
concerns.

66
 8 STABILITY INTERVIEWS

8.1 INTRODUCTION
The objective of the interviews was to identify how temporary works designers, in both
suppliers and contractors organisations, analyse the stability of their falsework. The theory of
falsework stability is described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.

The proposed prEN 12812 (Ref. 8) gives simplified methods of analysis for freestanding tube
and fitting falsework. It also has recently included some limited clauses5 concerning the
restraint of falsework at the head level by the soffit formwork. It was known to the Authors,
and confirmed in this research project, that all the European-designed proprietary aluminium
tower falsework systems rely, in general, on the soffit formwork for stability of the falsework.

The site measurement part of the project (Section 7) included observational and some limited
recording of the operative and site perception of falsework in building applications. In addition,
interviews were conducted with technical staff from contractors, suppliers and specialist sub-
contractors who have direct involvement with, and responsibility for, falsework on site. In
many cases their roles involve checking the supplied schemes.

The term "sub-contractor" generally implies working for a "main contractor". However, in
practice, contractual relationships have developed such that specialist contractors no longer only
carry out sub-contracts, but regularly tend to work as specialists to complete the entire
"structural concrete frame". Such sub-contractors are referred to as "specialists" in this Section.

8.2 METHODOLOGY
The eleven interviews were conducted in confidence by Eur. Ing. P. F. Pallett. A simple three
page questionnaire with diagrams was used as an aide memoir. Identical questions were asked,
without advanced warning of their content, of all interviewees. During the interviews, four
diagrams were shown to the interviewees and their comments sought. After the formal
questions, the interviewees were each asked for any further comments concerning any foreseen
problems in falsework and its stability.

If requested, a copy of the total questionnaire was left with the participant at the conclusion of
the interview.

A summary of the anonymous replies to each question is given in Section 8.4. The full recorded
responses are given in Volume 2.

The level of management attained by a potential interviewee was considered in depth before
interviewees were selected. In view of the reduction in the number of offices actually carrying
out falsework designs, and the use of young technicians with little knowledge of design or code
requirements to produce schemes, it was decided that the most suitable interviewees would be
those actually responsible for the checking and technical control of their falsework design staff.

Of the five proprietary suppliers' representatives interviewed, three were chief engineers with
full responsibility for the technical content of the majority of falsework designed in the UK, and
one was a technical director. It was noted that the major UK contractors rarely have temporary
works designers, and their roles are now confined to providing design briefs and checking the
suppliers' falsework schemes. The four contractors' representatives interviewed were
"formwork managers" or "senior design engineers" with responsibilities for checking the
suppliers schemes for their companies sites.

5
In May 2001 the German delegation proposed removal of all reference to top restrained falsework.

67
In some organisations, several people were interviewed together. All their views were included
in the collated comments and, in the detailed interviews given in Volume 2 individually
identified by numbers.

The two specialist sub-contractors interviewed have obtained a position of seniority in their
companies and are in senior management and contract/tender selection, rather than being
involved in day-to-day technical details. Between them they represent a large proportion of the
industry, and they gave an interesting view of the specialist sub-contractors technical view of
falsework.

Although 7 of the interviewees were employees of companies involved with the various sites
surveyed, none had any direct involvement with the sites themselves.

8.3 SUMMARY REPLIES BY QUESTION

8.3.1 Question 1-What is your involvement with Temporary Works (TW)?

Proprietary suppliers have a recognised management structure with regional offices. All
schemes must be checked on completion. They will design to recognised codes, and invariably
to BS 5975. At least two said that the Formwork Guide (Ref. 4) was a code of practice.

The types of schemes currently designed in proprietary suppliers' offices are predominately for
buildings and are designed for their own brand of aluminium falsework. One supplier estimates
that 50% of their schemes are for wall formwork6 and 50% for soffit schemes. The simpler wall
formwork schemes are carried out either by the contractors' site staff, or by the suppliers own
authorised representatives who have the relevant experience and training.

None of the suppliers interviewed designed UK schemes as freestanding props. Generically

they were made into tables with ledger frames.

The contractors all admitted to undertaking far fewer falsework schemes for work being carried
out in the UK, although, when working in support of overseas contracts, they often did the
temporary works design in the UK for the overseas contract. It was found that the contractors'
in-house design offices tend to design the temporary works for cofferdams and deep excavation
supports, leaving the majority of falsework schemes to be carried out by the suppliers. The
principal activity of the in-house office is to check suppliers' drawings and calculations.

It was significant that even the specialist concrete frame contractors and sub-contractors were
now tending to use the proprietary suppliers for temporary works (TW) schemes. Both of the
sub-contractors interviewed currently own stocks of SGB GASS Aluminium falsework, and
expected the supplier to undertake all of the designs for them. One sub-contractor had
established a formal agreement with one supplier for the design of all their falsework. This
included the design of other suppliers' equipment which they own.

One of the specialist sub-contractors interviewed recognised the shortcomings of engineers on

site and their failure to appreciate the significance of falsework design. They were setting up
appropriate appraisal systems for grading of their site staff against type of temporary works, for
example: soffits up to 3 m, slabs not greater than 350 mm thick, etc. This meant that staff were
expected to design temporary works on site, so reducing the head office involvement. This was
considered important, in that it gave those responsible for the temporary works the design
responsibility, with the aim of reducing site problems and increasing the individuals
understanding.

6
The company also markets a range of large panel formwork systems.

68
8.3.2 Question 2 - What do you understand by "Falsework Stability"?
Although all interviewees had some idea of stability being the means of stopping the falsework
falling over, only three mentioned the British Standard requirement for the provision of a
minimum stability force (Sections 1.3.4 and 8.2).
Concerning the individual stability of members within the falsework structure, only three raised
it as an issue concerning "stability". One specialist actually mentioned a 1% lateral force
required for node point stability. Head and base jack stability was mentioned by contractors
checking schemes as they would need to check against suppliers' load charts, particularly if the
jacks were extended longer than 250 mm for safe loads of 55 kN and 75 kN loads.

Two suppliers raised the issue of connecting the falsework directly to the permanent works to
provide its stability and, thus, passing the concern to the contractor. They pointed out that in a
structure, such as a culvert, the falsework can be restrained in one direction by the walls with
tubes or similar, but in the other direction it would be considered unrestrained.

Several interviewees mentioned the use of an aspect ratio of 3:1 as the height to minimum base
width as a stability "rule of thumb". This is similar to the ratio that was used7 by the
Prefabricated Access Suppliers' and Manufacturers' Association (PASMA), which represents the
suppliers of prefabricated aluminium towers (Ref. 12). One interviewee said that the ratio was
3 to 1.

Two common statements made on stability were that it was a necessary requirement "to remove
the risk of the falsework collapsing" and an allowance for "horizontal loads not catered for
adequately" in the structure.

One specialist approached the question from the client's viewpoint, in terms of whether they
were getting the right shape out of the formwork to suit the specification and what the client
needs. The interviewee then quoted double the required value for lateral stability, by saying 5%
of the vertical load as a sideways load was necessary for stability.

The stability of falsework erected near the edge of buildings was raised, and particularly the
problems associated with downstand beams. The falsework is often unstable during the erection
stage. The contractor needs to make certain that no one can go onto the edge platform. The
supplier said he "solved" the problem by putting 'standard notes' on their drawings, and also
made the "client" 8 more aware by adding notes near to the open edge on the drawing. This
particular concern is also addressed in the Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and Falsework (Ref.
7). This is a management concern because sites often do not make their operatives aware that
tying down is needed during erection and before anyone uses the falsework as an access
platform.

One contractor deliberately "over designs" the bracing and tends to "design and then double it!".
A senior design engineer in the temporary works office had started this idea some years
previously, and the philosophy has meant they have had no collapse.

Three interviewees, two contractors and one specialist, mentioned the stability of the
foundations on which the falsework rested. The suppliers are unlikely to raise it as an issue
because it is not their responsibility. They only worry about their equipment, i.e. only the
stability of structures above the foundations.

7
The European standard for towers (HD 1004) published as BS 1139: Part 3 is a product standard and
gives forces to be resisted; it is up to individual manufacturers how to resist the lateral forces, hence the
removal of height-to-base ratios.
8
Client in this context meaning the constructor - as they are the supplier's customer, or client.

69
8.3.3 Question 3 - Do you differentiate between building or civil engineering
structures?
With the exception of one supplier, no interviewee differentiated between civil and building
work. This might reflect the proportion of work currently available, i.e. the majority of
interviewees were currently involved in general building structures and major building work.
Building work was considered as slabs 150 mm to 250/300 mm thick, with falsework heights up
to about 3.5 m, but the increased height of retail shops at 4.5 m needed more careful thought for
stability.

One supplier thought that in civil work it was harder to identify how the structure worked and
whether it would have the capacity to stabilise the falsework.

8.3.4 Question 4 - Do your designers make any allowance for wind force in
falsework designs?
Wind calculations are rarely completed for falsework in building work. The exception is for
particularly tall buildings where wind forces become relevant at higher levels. On civil
structures wind forces would be considered in the falsework design.

When wind is considered, the method used is that of BS 5975 (Ref. 3) which was reproduced
from the earlier CP3 Chapter V wind Code of Practice. BS 5975 is more rigorous than CP3
Chapter V because it gives wind information for soffit formwork, parapets, and multiple legged
falsework structures, and includes an "upper limit" for wind on falsework.

The latest UK wind code, BS 6399, is definitely not used in temporary works design. However,
as Permanent Works Designers (PWDs) are aware in building design of BS 6399, they often ask
for signage and site office accommodation to be designed to BS 6399. Wherever possible,
interviewees tried to change the PWD request from BS 6399 to use of CP3 or BS 5975 methods.

Three of the suppliers interviewed from one particular company said that they ignored wind on
building schemes as they rely on the falsework being "locked" into the permanent works. They
said, if required, they would use CP3 Chapter V for wind design, but thought a lot of
information on wind was contained in the "Formwork Guide".9 They did not mention or "refer
to BS 5975" for wind on soffit formwork or parapets. None had heard of BS 6399 for wind
calculation.

8.3.5 Question 5 - Are you aware of any instances where falsework has moved
due to instability?
Several suppliers have heard of a European company, working in the UK, having instability
problems with systems which comprise of steel props made up into tables. Apparently, collapse
has occurred due to sideways movement of the unrestrained legs.

One failure occurred a few years ago when the striking of a bridge deck was carried out by
starting near the abutments. The operatives were called away to another section leaving the
section not fully struck. When they returned the resulting creep of the structure as it took up its
deflected shape overloaded the standards near the centre of the structure and the head jacks
failed by bending.

Several suppliers were aware of failures of table forms parked between uses and caught by the
wind in the unloaded condition.

One serious incident involved the clamping of different suppliers' aluminium beams fitted on
top of the falsework legs to make up the tables. The problem arose in the beam-to-beam
9
The section on wind in Formwork guide only gives overturning of wall shutters, but nothing on
falsework.

70
connections, not the beam to tower connections. Each system had a different beam clamp
which was not interchangeable.

Undoubtedly the most serious recent incident concerning stability was reported by two
interviewees: the contractor and supplier involved. Due to an inadequate design detail a large
over-bridge road deck of insitu concrete construction skewed about 95 mm during concreting.
Both the supplier and the contractor had checked the scheme and neither group had spotted the
serious error. At least four separate "experienced" temporary works designers had seen the
drawings for the scheme and had checked and/or completed the calculations. The movement
was observed during concreting and remedial actions had to be carried out to "save" the pour.

Backpropping to permanent formwork is regarded as a common difficulty. Normally the

backpropping is incorrectly installed, or, as reported at a major contract, the backprops are
forgotten all together, resulting in a collapse.

One supplier highlighted a serious incident involving the use of a proprietary soldier system in
an "A" frame to support the underside of a conical concrete hopper. The bottom connection of
the "A" frame was made with "4" rather than "3" connections, thus forming a mechanism rather
than a triangle. As a result, once the structure was loaded with lateral forces during concreting,
it rotated and collapsed. This error is typical of that arising through a supplier completing a
scheme without checking the drawing. Additionally, in this case, the contractor checking the
scheme also failed to spot the error.

Only one instance of buckling failure of beams was reported. The incident occurred some years
ago when a steel beam, which was part of a grillage, failed in a pile test. The beam buckled
because web stiffeners had not been fitted.

8.3.6 Question 6 - Do you use a computer to analyse the falsework structure?

From the interviews conducted it would appear that very little use of computer programs is
made in falsework design. The analysis is simplified into simply supported beams and the leg
loads determined using the "10% continuity rule" (BS 5975 Clause 6.4.3.1 (Ref. 3)).

Loads induced into the legs of larger falsework structures are analysed by considering the beam
systems at the head level in two directions. The program mentioned by most interviewees as
being used regularly is the Microsoft DOS-based program developed for RMD Ltd for analysis
of continuous beams10. The RMD beam analysis program has the benefit that it allows for the
stiffness of the supports.

One supplier uses an in-house developed program on a Hewlett Packard system to analyse loads
and the geometry of complex bridge decks to establish optimum leg spacing and head/base
dimensions, but it does not calculate the bracing, which is still done manually.

Several suppliers mentioned that they were considering developing more sophisticated systems,
but carefully added that the simple methods still work best.

Although the German manufacturers do all of their system design and testing with computer
programs, this is not normally done in the UK. Contractors are sometimes sent computer
calculations by suppliers but, as checking is done on site, it is always assumed that it is
technically correct. Hence, the check is more "does it suit what we want?".

During the interviews a number of specialist commercial analysis programs were mentioned.
They are used only very occasionally. They include "SPAN", the "QSE frame program", a

10
Written by Mr R.W. Horsington (The University of Birmingham) and Eur Ing P. F. Pallett in 1985.

71
program called "STRAP" for beams and portals, a Posford Duvivier program called "STRUC"
used for the design of temporary roofs on scaffolds and, on rare occasions, SuperStress.
8.3.7 Question 7 - How do you calculate the restraint forces when using
formwork for stability?
This particular question was asked to highlight the different views of suppliers and users
regarding the stability requirements for the commonly used falsework equipment. The answers
demonstrated the lack of awareness by contractors of the "design rules" imposed by the
suppliers.

None of the four contractors interviewed were aware that the suppliers of the aluminium
falsework systems make the assumption that the formwork is required to restrain the falsework.
One of the specialists interviewed was aware that often the formwork is required to provide the
restraint. However, he had never performed calculations and he worked on the principle that "if
it looked about right, then it probably was right."

All the suppliers adopted the policy of stating the technical facts about stability in notes on
drawings or in data sheets. Typical statements quoted were:

"The design assumes that the equivalent 2% of vertical loads in the shoring can be
transferred into the tops of the columns/walls by contact with the soffit plywood and
that they are capable of transmitting this load into the previously constructed
permanent works, it is the customer's responsibility to verify this."
(Instruction note on supplier's drawing)

"Client to provide full horizontal restraint in both directions."

(Instruction note on supplier's drawing)

"The safe loads given assume that the formwork is restrained by the permanent works,
and no horizontal loads are applied to the falsework."
(Instruction in supplier's safe load data sheet)

In the interviews none of the suppliers could recall ever being asked by contractors or specialists
to calculate the value of the required restraining force required acting through the formwork.

One supplier suggested that the plywood is cut to suit, and nailed to secondaries to carry the
loads back to the permanent structure. He believes that such systems will work in compression
only and that consequently the system should be surrounded by a permanent structure.

One contractor commented that this subject was currently "a hot potato" in his company. When
the system relies on falsework restraint, notional loads are taken by boxing in around columns,
or wedging between walls, which seems to be acceptable. A problem occurs on open sided
buildings which cannot provide compression restraint in all directions. In such cases he would
ask for other systems of restraint, such as tying back to columns or inclined members connected
down to the floor slab. He tended to accept, without question, that, when a supplier has detailed
a scheme in a certain way for restraint, the supplier had checked it and, hence, the contractor
was satisfied with it as designed by the supplier. However, it is complicated to work out the
restraint mechanism, and very difficult to judge in a system how the forces are actually
transmitted.

He presumed that the proprietary systems have been "tested", and it is known that they have in
the past provided satisfactory service, and so he assumes that they will work. He commented
that it was a "custom and practice" style of design.

One contractor simply assumed that the falsework is butted off the walls. Very occasionally the
contractor would work out the wind load on edge shutters using the wind area and rules for

72
stability, and then add in the 2% of the vertical load for stability. He would look at how the
falsework is restrained, say by box-ties around columns, and occasionally give the value of the
restraint force to the PWD to check the strength of the columns. However, he said that he
thought that it was rare to be asked for the restraint forces. On an occasion when a problem had
occurred, he addressed it by using tie rods connected to the lower floor slab.

One specialist contractor now uses precast columns for the permanent works wherever possible.
As a direct result of the interview, he will now be introducing design checks to ensure that such
arrangements are stable.

Few of the specialists had used the formwork for restraint, and one said that formwork restraint
had been achieved on large jobs by tying into the structure, but he added that he had not been
asked to restrain the falsework by using the formwork.

8.3.8 Question 8 - Is the current 2% Pv acceptable for falsework stability?

The basic stability requirement is explained in Section 8.2. This question queried its value.

The interviewees were unanimous in thinking that 2 % Pv was acceptable. They would all be
concerned if it were to be reduced. A couple thought that unless there was conclusive evidence
to change it, then it should remain as a minimum requirement.

Several commented that they would be very sad to see it omitted from a falsework standard.

8.3.9 Question 9 - How do you consider stability when falsework is

unrestrained and can sway?
Where the falsework is not connected to the permanent works and is thus "free standing", prEN
12812 requires restraint forces to be determined as indicated in Section 3.8.1. These forces have
to be transferred through the bracing. An example of a free standing falsework in the swayed
condition is shown in Figure 37 with three lifts and four bays, but only three of the bays are
braced. The diagonal braces are fitted in different directions. Base jack bracing is shown
dotted.

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

V" htop

h3

h2

h1

hb

b1 b2 b3 b4

Figure 37 : Section of freestanding braced falsework that can sway

This question was asked to determine the present design method for such falsework. It is quite
evident from the replies that there is some confusion in the industry over what values are used to
satisfy the BS 5975 stability requirements.

73
All of the interviewees selected 2 % Pv as the minimum value of the horizontal force to be
resisted at head level. One supplier, experienced in the use of aluminium frames, said he would
design it as a two dimensional frame, but would consider the deck level to be fully restrained
and then add long inclined props to the ground. This highlights, yet again, suppliers'
misconception of "restrained falsework".

The out-of-vertical was assumed by most to be "within the erection tolerances stated". One
supplier thought that, if the falsework were deliberately out-of-plumb, he would only need to
design for an extra load in the bracing if "falling down hill", but not if "up hill". However, the
interviewer is not really sure what these statements meant.

Generally, most decided that they would resolve the restraint force equally into the bracing. One
said that this would depend on stiffness, and some added that there would be components of the
bracing loads taken into the leg loads at the bases. Base jack bracing would simply follow the
requirements in the supplier's brochure.

Three suppliers said they would either design for wind loads or 2 % Pv and totally ignored
the 1% Pv erection tolerance force.

One experienced contractor thought that the wind load was added to the 2% Pv. Another
contractor thought that erection out-of-vertical is covered in the 2% value, and that any wind
load would be considered separately, i.e. considered as an alternative loading laterally as wind
plus 1% of the vertical loads.

One of the specialists considered the Q" restraint force as the eccentricity plus wind loading,
but, if this were less than 1% of the vertical loads, he would use 2 % of the vertical load. He
thought that, from a contracting point of view, eccentricity should be catered for by the factor of
safety on the load. The designer of the props should have thought about progressive loads and
accumulation of eccentricities. On site any lateral movement of the finished concrete represents
non-compliance with the specification and, hence, sites should monitor deformations while
pouring slabs, which is rather confusing to the Authors. The out-of-vertical was explained as
the initial sway caused by lack of erection verticality, not a sway after concreting.

The experienced specialist was the only person who considered the gap in the bracing. He did
not consider it a problem from a theoretical point of view, but thought that some contraflexure
may occur if the structure were tall. He also stated that when analysing the forces, some braces
were in compression and some in tension. He would check those in compression.

74
8.3.10 Question 10 - Analysis when top of the falsework is restrained by the
soffit formwork
The situation of falsework restrained by the soffit formwork so that it will not sway, but which
could be erected out-of-vertical is not covered by prEN 12812 as indicated in Section 3.8.2.
However, in such a case the effects of bow imperfection should be considered in the analysis of
the members. Figure 38 shows an example with four bays and three lifts. UK practice for this
situation is to design for a lateral force of 2% Pv.

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Soffit
Qres Formwork

htop
h3

h2
e

h1

hb

b1 b2 b3 b4
Figure 38 : Section of braced falsework restrained by the formwork at the head

The arrangement shown in Figure 38 is typical of the assumptions made in the earlier versions
of prEN 12812 for restrained structures. See also Section 4.3

The analysis of Figure 38 and, in particular, the choice of the lateral loads presented many
interviewees with considerable difficulties. Although most agreed that the design of the
formwork restraint would be for 2% Pv, the wind was considered very differently. Some
thought that no wind forces would act because the forces were taken directly into the permanent
works, others thought that half went into the ground and half would be carried by the bracing.

The design of the bracing also caused confusion. One experienced specialist said that the
bracing is required for the strut only and to prevent the column buckling. He then added that the
wind acts in bending on the standards, with 50% to top, etc.

One supplier was confident that there would be no component of the bracing force in the legs as
the 2% is a notional load. Notwithstanding this comment, he added that his company fully
cover this aspect by notes on the drawing. (Some examples are given in Section 8.3.7). He
believed that no wind force needed to be considered.

Interestingly, nobody seemed to know what to do with the bow and the eccentricity "e". One
experienced contractor with steelwork design knowledge mentioned the P-delta effect. He then
went on to suggest designing for a restraint force of 2% Pv plus 50% wind load plus the
out-of-plumb component.

75
8.3.11 Question 11 - Restraint of single storey falsework using aluminium tables

The situation of aluminium falsework which is restrained by the soffit formwork such that it
will not sway, but which could be erected out-of-vertical is not covered by prEN 12812. In such
a case the effects of bow imperfection should be considered in the analysis of the members. An
example is shown in Figure 39 with two separate tables, in an arrangement which is similar to
that shown on many common proprietary suppliers' schemes. UK practice for this situation is to
design for a lateral force of 2% Pv.

P1 P2 P3 P4
Qres Soffit Formwork

Figure 39 : Section of aluminium falsework tables restrained by the formwork

The question posed concerned how the force Qres should be analysed.

The suppliers normally resolve this question by adding the following note to their drawing
"Client to provide full horizontal restraint in both directions"; hence, as far as they are
concerned, this scheme is designed as simple props with only top to bottom buckling. None of
the suppliers mentioned any requirement to create a node point at the top, and the requirement
to generate a minimum lateral restraint force for the top via the formwork, to act as a node.

However, after further questioning of the interviewees, they realised that the tables have to be
continuous to help transfer the loads and this was then seen as a problem at the joint between the
two tables. The vertical legs are designed as struts of full length from top to bottom. In certain
tables, fixity at the prop-to-beam connection gives a portal action reducing the effective length,
but it is rarely allowed for in the design.

One interviewee, an experienced supplier, noted that a worse case could occur if a stop end were
fitted on the right hand side causing a discontinuity in the soffit formwork and side movement
of the system. In fact the correct answer is that the lateral force at the discontinuity occurs
whether there is a stop end or not. It is relevant to note that nobody interviewed mentioned the
effect of the discontinuity generating a lateral force to separate the two tables when concreting.

Some discussion ensued with most interviewees about the use of pre-cast planks with the same
falsework structure. Generally such planks are simply supported from beam to beam and the
friction between components provides restraint. Where more than one plank is used with a butt
joint at mid-span then restraint is not present. All interviewees thought this was a serious
problem for stability and continuity. In such cases most would ensure that the heads of the
falsework supporting the planks were tied into the columns.

Two of the contractors thought that, if they had to calculate the restraint, they would use the
minimum 2% Pv rule and assume that the frames would provide sufficient stability from the

76
internal frames. They had seen a European supplier's scheme where a chain in tension only was
attached from the top of the towers to the ground/slab to provide restraint.

Several thought that the bigger plan area grids have larger loads and ,therefore, need more
stability, but all considered the make-ups between towers most critical.

An interesting point made by a contractor was that it is always assumed by Temporary Works
Designers (TWDs) that columns and walls are cast about 25 mm high, thus giving a suitable
"bite" for the plywood in compression pushing against the permanent work. This assumption is
rarely stated on drawings. The interviewee considered that, if the walls/columns were cast low,
then there could be a problem with stability.

Two interviewees identified that, if there were an open end, they would have to provide some
tensile restraint which needs a horizontal member to tie back to the wall or outside raking prop,
or possibly with an inside raking tie to the floor. Both specialists acknowledged that the
connections between tables are never tied to take tension. Some limited nailing occasionally
takes place and, often, tensile capacity is provided by friction alone.

Certainly the specialists and several of the contractors were concerned about this aspect of
restraint of the formwork and the assumptions made by the suppliers for provision of stability.

The Authors have observed that the usual practice on site is to place the tables, and then move
them to suit the plywood make-up sizes. Once the tables are positioned and the make-ups fitted
between them around columns and along wall edges, then the soffit becomes sufficiently stable
for steel fixing to commence. It is this lateral stability provided by the plywood face, acting in
compression, that provides the formwork restraint and, by inference, the restraint to the
falsework below.

8.3.12 Question 12 - Restraint to single storey framed falsework.

Where the falsework consists of simple framed towers restrained by the soffit formwork, as is
adopted extensively in the Far East, the falsework will not sway. However, it may be erected
out-of-vertical, and the effects of bow imperfections should be considered in the analysis of the
members. In the example shown in Figure 40, two separate tables are shown orientated
perpendicular to each other. The vertical members are usually made of light gauge steel tube,
with very light 'tension only' members for the scissors bracing.

The question asked was "how would you analyse the force Qres in both directions of the frame
and with the scissors bracing as shown?". Interviewees were also asked in which direction they
thought the frame arrangement was stronger, in the portal plane or the scissors plane?

77
 P1 P2 P3 P4
Qres Soffit Formwork

C
joint
cross
brace B

Frame bay Bracebay

Figure 40 : Cross sections of scissors braced falsework tower system restrained by the
soffit formwork

Three suppliers and two contractors were of the opinion that the frame bay was weaker than the
cross braced bay because the effective length was longer and of "full height". After discussion
with the interviewer they all changed their minds and considered the cross brace, only tension
and having a "full height" effective length for buckling inwards, to be the weaker because the
frames had some stiffness from portal action.

One experienced contractor and both the specialists made the correct choice that the portal
frame direction was likely to be the stronger for load capacity and, in the scissors brace
direction, the effective length was likely to be the "full height" of the tower because the bracing
cannot carry compression. They all considered that the stability of the leg carrying load P3
would be improved if a further set of frames and cross braces, were added to the right of
standard AD, as indicated by the dashed line in Figure 40.

The question highlighted, yet again, the industrys general lack of understanding of basic strut
theory, and the way in which effective node points are established.

8.3.13 Question 13 - Do you have any other comments to make on falsework

stability?
The final question gave an opportunity for the interviewee to comment on any aspect of
falsework stability. The responses are given below.

Supplier 1 said that buildings in the UK tend to have more columns and less walls than their
European counterparts and, hence, stability is more of a problem in the UK. In addition, he said
that structures built in the UK have more redundant members in the system once it is erected.
He considers that our sub contractors do not understand the basic principles of the top restraint
of falsework, but achieve restraint from experience. Hence, he does not consider it to be a
problem on site.

Supplier 2 was concerned with finding, when required, suitably qualified members of staff to
perform complex computer calculations for a scheme. He believed that there is already a
reduction in the skills of staff because, whereas in the past long serving experienced draftsmen
completed the schemes, youngsters were now employed as CAD "designers" with keyboard

78
skills but few relevant technical qualifications. Hence, in the future, only a few people have the
capability and relevant experience to do the work. This raises the question as to how the work
will be checked.

In general he finds that guidance is clear in the guide (The interviewer thinks that he meant the
Formwork Guide (Ref.4).) on most things and few problems occur.

Suppliers 3, 4 & 5 had supplied the equipment for one of the sites measured (Site C) and
qualitative results from this site are given in Section 7.4. The interviewer raised the design
issue of how the particular aluminium tables were designed, as they were deliberately erected
out-of-vertical at a slope of 1 in 15 in one direction. This conveniently followed the constant
slope of a car park slab and its coffered soffit formwork. The question was asked whether it
was designed to be out-of-vertical. The supplier's reply was that, because the loads were so
small (said to be only 20 kN per leg), no allowance was made for the effects of the slope in the
design. The suppliers drawing does not show any slope to the tables. It was also stated that the
plywood/grp mould of the table top actually butts against the previously cast concrete beam for
any stability11, and this is considered by experience to be acceptable.

Although Contractors 1 & 2 commented that they always expect to see bracing in both
directions on a scheme, it was due to inadequate checking that the major incident on the skew
bridge discussed in Section 8.4.5 had occurred. They were both now very much aware that
suppliers' schemes, even though they had been signed as checked by suppliers, should be
checked again.

The major comment of Contractor 3, which was also raised by others, was that few, if any, of
the proprietary suppliers have adequate checking procedures. He is certain that this is due to the
inexperience of the CAD operators, and the failure of supervising staff to carry out recognised
basic engineering checks. This view was strongly endorsed by Contractor 4 who thought the
quality of schemes from suppliers varies from "very good" to "utter rubbish" and the quality of
the design depends on the depot which produces the scheme. He believes the problems arise
because schemes are not checked and that they have too many inexperienced staff, who work
unsupervised.

Suppliers are definitely not aware of stability issues and certain offices do not even allow for it.
Rarely do they receive a proper working drawing and, on the occasions which they do, they are
often incomplete. For example, Contractor 4 recently had a 170 page computer printout for a
simple scheme: the printout comprised pages of simply supported spans of short lengths. There
was no mention in the design for stability or bracing.

This lack of understanding in the industry today, and concern over lateral stability, was raised
by Specialist 2, who was very concerned about falling between two areas of responsibility. The
supplier assumes the contractor has to stabilise the top, but the contractor assumes that stability
has been taken care of in the design and that the scheme is inherently stable. This point, he
believes, is often overlooked at the procurement stage, and he believes that suppliers should be
made more aware of the stability requirements at an early stage of procurement.

Contractors are becoming very reliant on suppliers' designs to the extent that sites assume they
are correct and only check for compliance, and not for structural adequacy.

One particular concern raised by Specialist 1 was the issue of falsework stability at the base, i.e.
below the underside of the proprietary items. This is of particular concern in buildings, where
the pad foundations are placed first and support to the first floor is taken from the sub-base
because the ground slab is not cast. The suppliers' drawings do not cover this aspect

11
In practice on the site, a gap was left and filled with a mastic, thus the table was effectively
freestanding.

79
satisfactorily, and the contractors have to complete this work themselves. Where the grid
spacing is large the high leg loads in the system can make their foundations critica. The
supplier does not cover this issue, except in the standard note "foundations by contractor".

Suppliers rarely address edge protection and safe platforms to all edges of tables in a building.
These issues are particularly relevant to aluminium tables with large spacings for the primary
beams.

Specialist 2 was also concerned over a lack of knowledge and understanding of basic
engineering principles. The Authors have noticed that these concerns are common in the
industry. The interviewee recalled Eur Ing P F Pallett's lecture tutorial that is used with
graduates to identify whether they know the difference between a force and a pressure: results
from graduate engineers with up to two years site experience consistently fail to get it correct.
When asked for the forces acting, they only stated the maximum pressure. Having tested his
own staff, he was particularly concerned that few of his own "competent engineering staff"
could convert a triangular pressure diagram into a force.

8.4 DISCUSSION
There is a lack of understanding at all levels of the fundamentals of stability of falsework and
the principles involved. The confusion of how to deal with wind loads and other forces
highlights the need for continuous training and refresher Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) courses. There is, though, an argument that says that, because the industry seems to be
only involved with "Class A" falsework, such knowledge only needs to be known by a few.
The problem envisaged is that, those who should know, i.e. the suppliers, also seem to lack the
understanding.

The concept of bow imperfections and sway imperfections were unknown to most interviewed.
Although they were experienced designers, they did not really know how to cater for the
imperfections, particularly bow imperfections.

There is some evidence from the interviews of a misconception, at site level, that increasing the
vertical load on a structure increases its stability.

The project verified the Authors' premises that suppliers were designing falsework only for the
current UK minimum value of 2% Pv, and that wind force calculations, as required by prEN
12812, were rarely carried out. The simple concept of the minimum stability force as 2%
Pv for all falsework does appear to be regarded by all as the basic requirement. There was little
evidence that the people on site and in TWD offices understand "limit state design" and have the
ability to apply it to falsework. Their working environment is very demanding, with many on-
site decisions to be taken. Thus it is believed by the Authors that simple "rules of thumb" will
be better understood, and consequently passed on to operatives, rather than complex design
statements. This further supports the Authors' view that future standards in temporary works
should be written in simple terms.

There appears to be a serious management issue which relates to the perceived responsibilities
for the design of the falsework. There is a predominant feeling amongst contractors and
specialist contractors that the drawings and schemes prepared by suppliers are correct, simply
because they have been completed by a supplier. There seems to be little notice taken of the
assumptions made by the supplier, or of the stability implications involved. The major issue of
concern is that of the top restraint of aluminium systems, which is often assumed to be provided
by the plywood butting in compression against the permanent works.

The suppliers' information and responsibility for design does not include the foundation design,
or the transfer of load to other lower slabs. It was found that several organisations were
concerned by this interface of responsibility. The solution that they adopted was to ensure that

80
the sites were aware of the suppliers limits of responsibilities and for the TWC to initiate the
relevant extra design at an early stage of the procurement.

The appointment of suitably qualified temporary works co-ordinators (TWCs) at an early stage
in procurement of the falsework is recommended. This would ensure that the limits of the
suppliers' responsibilities, such as for foundations and restraint, are adequately taken into
account at an early stage.

It has been shown from the interviews that the design change introduced by aluminium suppliers
to restrain the top of the falsework system by the permanent works has not been generally
communicated through to the site management. The Authors are aware that in a "custom and
practice" approach to design, the fact that it appears to work can rapidly become a justification.
The fact that no supplier has been asked by any contractor to check this aspect, which is clearly
mentioned in drawings and data sheets, supports this premise.

This raises the question of why there have not been collapses attributed to instability. The
answer, the Authors believe, is related to the low ratio of loads actually carried by the systems
to the safe working loads. The use of the aluminium systems in building work with falsework
lengths of about 3 m and fitted in tables with ledger frames for handling and general stability
gives safe working leg loads of about 100 kN. The actual leg loads in building work are usually
considerably lower than this value. Thus, there is a considerable reserve of strength within most
of the current systems which are rarely fully utilised to capacity. The problems would be more
evident if lighter systems were used in the same way and/or heavier slabs were cast.

It is noted that the aluminium systems discussed in this report and used in building construction
are starting to be used in civil engineering structures. The Authors consider it is essential in
such applications that due regard is taken by the Temporary Works Designers (TWDs) of the
actual conditions of use to avoid future instability.

The industry rarely considers wind loads on falsework in building. If required, wind
calculations would be to BS 5975 methods, and not to the later BS 6399.

The future of falsework design is quickly becoming the sole prerogative of the proprietary
supplier. Often justification for the design comes from tables and graphs produced in other
countries using assumptions not known or stated. An example is that of the eccentricity of the
load applied to a system in a computer program. It is unclear what value of eccentricity, if any,
the program assumes and how users and approval authorities can verify the program.
Furthermore, it is not clear whether the suppliers can verify the program themselves. In the
course of this research many comments on the failure of suppliers to check even their own work
were received.

The Authors believe that the solution to ensuring falsework stability is twofold

To encourage suppliers to improve their in-house checking, for example by formal

certification.
and
To ensure adequate training of TWCs, including teaching them simple "rules of thumb",
which are easily remembered, such as the minimum stability requirements.

If these steps are not taken, future falsework for large civil engineering projects will become
"fully designed by consulting engineers" to permanent works codes, i.e. Class B1, and the costs
will escalate. Such a change may appear to improve the design process. However, the Authors'
experience of temporary works designed by consultants indicates that this is not necessarily the
case, because the philosophy of temporary works design is different from that of permanent
works. Consequently, this would suggest the continuing need for specialist temporary works
designers.

81
8.5 CONCLUSIONS
At all levels there is a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of stability of falsework
and the basic principles involved.
Falsework in the UK is generally designed to the current UK minimum value for lateral
stability of 2% Pv , where Pv is the vertical load acting on the falsework at the time
considered. Wind loading is rarely considered.
The proprietary suppliers are almost exclusively carrying out the design of falsework. Only
a few of the specialist contractors have their own temporary works offices. The larger main
contractors retain a few specialist staff to carry out a "checking" service for their sites.
Contractors and specialist contractors predominately believe that the drawings and schemes
prepared by proprietary suppliers are "designed" and that they have incorporated in the
"design" all the correct assumptions necessary for the completion of the works and, in
particular, the assumptions made for stability of the falsework. Another area identified as
critical is the foundation support, which is not usually the suppliers' concern, and is liable to
be forgotten when using the suppliers drawing as the complete "design".
The Authors were particularly concerned to observe that none of the users of the aluminium
prop and frame systems were aware of the suppliers' assumptions that the top of the
falsework is restrained and that no horizontal stability or erection forces are transferred into
the falsework, it being tacitly assumed that these lateral forces are "taken by the permanent
works through the formwork". In nearly all cases the suppliers relevant drawing notes or
technical data sheet instructions did state the limitations of use.
The lack of checking of falsework designs12 prior to use, whether by suppliers, contractors
or specialists, is seen to be an industry-wide problem. This is compounded by the lack of
falsework design experience now evident in contracting, as the "design" process moves to
suppliers.

12
The UK course on the subject, organised by Thomas Telford Training and called "Falsework Design
and Checking" last ran in 1998, all subsequent courses having been cancelled due to lack of interest.

82
 9 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The appointment of the Temporary Works Co-ordinator at an early stage in procurement of
the falsework is recommended. This would ensure, inter alia, that the limits of the
suppliers responsibilities, such as for foundations and restraint, are adequately taken into
account at an early stage.
2. Formal training of Temporary Works Co-ordinators should be encouraged.
3. Codes of good practice should continue to include simple "rules of thumb" for stability that
are easily remembered by site staff. In particular, the BSI Technical Committee for
Falsework B/514/26 should be advised to continue the lateral stability rule of 2% P v.
4. Consideration should be given to the preparation of industry guidance on falsework for
building applications in order to update the Health and Safety Executive publication Safety
in falsework for in situ beams and slabs, HS(G) 32, to reflect current industry practice.
5. Proprietary suppliers should be encouraged to improve their in-house checking, possibly by
increasing the responsibility of checking signatories and for example by formal
certification.
6. The future paradox in prEN 12812 of the deliberate elimination of any information on the
most common method of lateral restraint, of top restraint using the formwork to transfer
lateral forces to the permanent works, must be addressed by any future revision of BS 5975.
7. The formulae in prEN 12812 for angular deviation of two components apply to components
that slide into each other, such as base jacks and spigots. Information should be included in
the code on the allowances to be made for components that have irregularly shaped cross
sections, such as extruded aluminium sections, or for connections that are end bolted.
8. The angular deviation, , between two components is a function of the geometry of the
interconnected components and varies between proprietary systems. This requires the
Temporary Works Designer to calculate values of tan when designing proprietary
falsework systems. To assist the Temporary Works Designer, suppliers of proprietary
falsework systems should ensure that the data sheets issued give clear and sufficient
information on their products, preferably using the nomenclature of prEN 12812.
9. Method statements for use of systems should be given greater consideration by Temporary
Works Co-ordinators in discussion with suppliers in order to highlight safety issues on site.
These would include provision of edge protection at all stages of the operation of the
system, access for the operatives to fit and strike make-up pieces, and suitable working
platforms for adjusting and stripping the head jacks.

83
84
 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The University of Birmingham would like to thank the following individuals and organisations
for their assistance in the preparation of this report.

Eur Ing Tim Pope, Mr Ray Filip, Mr Ian Fryer, Mr Martin Hale, Mr Dugie Smith, Mr John
Pickering, Mr Harold Burn, Mr Paul Leach, Mr John Payne, Mr Peter Goring, Mr Bill Hewlett,
Mr Roger Hassell, Mr Barry McGlade, Mr Jimmy Read, Mr Chris Carey, Mr Ian Bowes, Mr
Mick Gamble, Mr Mark Fitt, Mr Steve Bowyer, Mr Chris Shepherd and Mr Mike Daley.

PERI Ltd., RMD-Kwikform Ltd., Carillion Infrastructure Management, Ischebeck Titan Ltd.,
Edmund Nuttall Ltd., HBG Construction Ltd., Kier Engineering Services, John Doyle
Construction Ltd., O'Rourke Group, Try Construction, Tilbury Douglas Construction Ltd.,
Balfour Beatty Ltd., Bryant Construction, SGB Formwork, A Plant Acrow Ltd., O'Boyle
Formwork Ltd., Thames Formwork Ltd., Metropolitan Developments Ltd. (MDL), Doka
Systems, Norwest Holst Construction Ltd., J.J. Cafferkey Ltd. and Kendrick Construction.

85
86
 11 REFERENCE LIST

1. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY and THE INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL

ENGINEERS, Falsework, a joint report, TRCS 4, July 1971, London, 52 pp ISBN 7210
0815 1.
2. BRAGG, S.L., Final report of the Advisory Committee on Falsework, Her Majestys
Stationery Office, London, June 1975, 151 pp.
3. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, BS 5975: 1996: Code of Practice for
Falsework, London, March 1996, 134pp. ISBN 0 580 24949 2 including AMD 9289
December 1996.
4. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY, Formwork - a guide to good practice, Second Edition,
Special Publication CS 030, The Concrete Society, Slough, June 1995, 292 pp. Third
reprint 1997, ISBN 0946691 52 5.
5. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, BS EN 1065: 1999 : Adjustable Telescopic
steel props - product specifications, design and assessment by calculation and test,
London, November 1999, 35pp, ISBN 0 580 32838 4.
6. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, Draft prEN 12812 Falsework - Performance
requirements and general design, Draft for Public Comment 97/102975DC, London,
April 1997, 40 pp.
7. CONCRETE STRUCTURES GROUP, Guide to Flat Slab Formwork and Falsework,
CONSTRUCT report, Crowthorne, due to be published in July 2001, 120 pp.
8. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, Committee Draft prEN 12812 , English
Version Falsework - Performance requirements and general design, Committee
document N 283 (BSI Ref: 01/102644 Status: Clean draft after 14 December 2000
meeting), January 2001, 52 pp.
9. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE, Formwork for Concrete, M.K. Hurd, ACI
Publication Ref. SP4, CT98, April 1995, 6th Edition, 500 pp.
10. DEUTSCHES INSTITUT FUR NORMUNG, Falsework - Calculation, design and
construction, DIN 4421 :1982, Beuth Veriag GmbH, Berlin 30, August 1982, 20 pp.
11. STANDARDS AUSTRALIA, Formwork for concrete, AS 3610 : 1995, Standards
Association of Australia, Sydney, 1995, 72 pp.
12. PREFABRICATED ACCESS SUPPLIERS' AND MANUFACTURERS'
ASSOCIATION, Operators code of practice for PASMA Aluminium Alloy Towers, New
Edition (7th revision), West Mersea, June 2000 28 pp.
13. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE, Guide to Formwork for Concrete, ACI 347R,
Report by ACI Committee 347, America.
14. WILSHERE, C.J., Falsework, ICE Works Construction Guide, Thomas Telford Limited,
London, 1983, 40 pp.
15. BRAND, R E., Falsework and access scaffolds in tubular steel. McGraw-Hill Book
Company (UK) Ltd., London, 1975, 237 pp.
16. AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, Construction and Demolition
Operations - Concrete and Masonry Work, ANSI A 10.9, 1983.
17. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA), Safety and
Health Regulations for Construction, Federal Register, V.53, No. 16, Washington, 1988.

87
18. BIRCH, N., BOOTH, J.G., and WALKER, M.B.A., Effects of site factors on the load
capabilities of adjustable steel props, Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, CIRIA Report 27. London, 1971, 48 pp.
19. BIRCH, N., WALKER, M.B.A. and LEE, C.T., Safe working loads for adjustable steel
props; the influence of prop conditions and site workmanship, Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, CIRIA Technical Note 79. London, 1977, 32 pp.
20. BURROWS, B., The Organisation and Quality of Falsework Construction - A Socio
Economic Study, PhD Thesis, University of Warwick, UK, 1989.
21. WEISS, N.A., Elementary Statistics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Reading, Massachusetts. U.S.A., 1989.

88
 GLOSSARY
Adjustable prop: A compression structural member used as a temporary support capable of
coarse and fine adjustment of its overall length. (Also known as a telescopic prop).
Back propping: The propping installed at levels below the slab supporting the falsework to
distribute the load applied to the uppermost slab to suitable supports, such as lower slabs or to
the foundations. They can be required at more than one level.
Base plate: A metal plate with a spigot for distributing the load from a standard, raker or
other load-bearing member.
Bay length: The distance between the centres of two adjacent standards measured
horizontally.
Bow: The initial out of straightness before loading. An initial bow imperfection can occur
both in an individual member and in the complete tower assembly. It arises because the
member is manufactured imperfectly and is not straight. It is not as a result of the
deformation of the actual member or structure due to load.
Brace: A tube placed diagonally with respect to the vertical or horizontal members of a
scaffold and fixed to them to provide stability.
Bracing: Secondary structural members which normally do not support gravity loads but are
required to provide lateral stability to other structural members or to transfer horizontal loads
to supports.
Camber: The curvature of a beam, slab or formwork member either formed initially to
compensate for subsequent deflection under load, or produced as a permanent effect for
aesthetic reasons.
Constructor: Any organisation carrying out the construction operations on the site.
Coupler: A component used to fix scaffold tubes together or to connect frictionally a tube
with other building components.
Deviation: The linear or angular divergence from the ideal. An example is the angle created
when the connection between two members has some play, which allows an angular
divergence between the two centre lines. See also tolerance.
Diagonal brace with telescopic device: A telescopically extensible tension or compression
bar for securing and aligning structural members.
Erection tolerance: The limit of initial misalignment or sway imperfections permitted on
site.
Falsework: Any temporary structure used to support the permanent structure until it can
support itself.
Flat slab: A slab with or without drops and supported, generally without beams, by columns
preferably without column heads. It may be solid or may have recesses formed on the soffit
so that the soffit comprises a series of ribs in two directions. (waffle or coffered slab)
Floor centre: A beam of adjustable length, usually a metal lattice or sheet metal box beam,
used to support decking for a floor slab.
Foot tie: A member close to the ground, stabilising two or more standards.
Fork head: A "U"-shaped housing used to support joists or the lie.
Formwork: A structure, usually temporary, used to contain poured concrete to mould it to
the required dimensions and support it until it is able to support itself. It consists primarily of
face contact material and the bearers directly supporting the face contact material.
Frame supports: Multi-strut supports assembled from prefabricated truss panels or frame
panels, or assembled from such panels and bracing components.
Frame: The principle panel unit of a prefabricated falsework structure formed from welded,
bolted or clamped tubular or rolled steel sections.
Girder clamp: A device designed for frictionally connecting structural members made from
sectional steel or flat steel.
Imperfection: A general term used to indicate a divergence from the ideal in manufacture or
erection.

89
Jack: A device designed to provide variable alteration to the length of the upright usually
comprising a screwed member which fits partly inside the upright, and the adjusted by a
rotating collar nut.
Joint pin: An expanding fitting placed in the bore of a tube to connect one tube to another co-
axially.
Joist: A horizontal or sloping beam, for example the horizontal timbers that carry decking for
a suspended concrete slab.
Lacing: The horizontal members that connect together and reduce the unsupported length of
columns.
Mounting bracket: An individual component of bracket scaffolds which supports formwork
elements and which can at the same time serve as work scaffolding and guard scaffolding.
Prop: A compression structural member used as a temporary support and incorporating a
means for varying and fixing its length.
Plumb line: A line with a heavy weight (bob) attached to it, used to determine the verticality
of an upright member or structure.
Scaffold: A temporarily provided structure that provides access on, or from which, people
work, or that is used to support material, plant or equipment.
Slop: The play between two nominally vertical connected members of a falsework system,
such as a standard and spigot tube, due to the differences in diameter of the two members.
The slop may lead to deviations and eccentricities at joints in the falsework.
Soffit formwork: The formwork supporting the undersides of slabs, beams and the like,
usually mounted on falsework.
Sole plate (or sill): A timber, concrete or metal spreader used to distribute the load from a
standard or base plate to the ground.
Spigot: an internal fitting used to join one tube to another coaxially.
Spigot pin: A pin placed transversely through the spigot and the scaffold tube or frame to
prevent the two from coming apart.
Standard: A vertical or near vertical tube.
Strut: A member in compression.
Supports: The formwork/falsework components that transmit all or part of the loads to a
lower level. This term includes undisturbed supports, back props and re-shores.
Sway: The angular movement of a column or other upright structure caused by the
application of load both vertical and horizontal.
Sway imperfection: The out of true in an unloaded erected structure, measured as an angular
imperfection. It is often referred to as initial out-of-plumb or 'lean' in English. This is the
value for design purposes and may be more than the erection tolerance.
Telescopic prop: See adjustable prop.
Temporary works: A structure used in the construction of the permanent structure. It is
usually removed on completion
Temporary works co-ordinator: The person appointed to have overall responsibility for
the technical and procedural aspects of the design, procurement, erection and use of the
formwork, falsework and scaffolding.
Tolerance: Acceptable limits of deviation.
Tower: A tall composite structure, used principally to carry vertical loading.
Wedge: A piece of strong timber or metal that tapers in its length and is used to adjust
elevation or line or to tighten falsework. Folding wedges comprise a pair of wedges laid one
above the other so that their outer faces are parallel.

90
 ABBREVIATIONS
ACOP Approved Code of Practice
BCA British Cement Association
BRE Building Research Establishment
BS British Standard
BSI British Standards Institution
C(HSW) Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996
CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association
CONSTRUCT Concrete Structures Group
CPD Continuous Professional Development
DETR Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
ECBP European Concrete Building Project
GRP Glass reinforced plastic
HSE Health and Safety Executive
HSW Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
MHSW Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
NSCS National Structural Concrete Specification for Building Structures
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PASMA Prefabricated Access Suppliers' and Manufacturers' Association
PWD Permanent Works Designer
RC Reinforced concrete
RCC Reinforced Concrete Council
SGB Scaffolding (Great Britain)
TW Temporary works
TWC Temporary works co-ordinator
TWD Temporary works designer
ULS Ultimate limit state

91
 HSE
Health & Safety
Executive

Investigation into aspects of falsework

Volume 2: Detailed results of site measurements
and stability interviews

Eur Ing P F Pallett, Dr M P N Burrow,

Professor L A Clark and Mr R T Ward
School of Civil Engineering
The University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
West Midlands
B15 2TT
United Kingdom
 A. DETAILED RESULTS FROM SITE MEASUREMENTS
This Section presents, in Tables 24 to 45 below, detailed results from the site measurements (cf.
Chapter 7). Each table contains the results obtained from different visits to different sites. For
example Table 23 presents data for the first visit made to Site A, whilst Table 24 refers to the
second visit to the Site.
For each visit, the measured out-of-verticality of nominally vertical members is given in
millimetres together with the angular deviations at the joints of members and the angular
imperfection over the overall height of the falsework. Mean values of these measures are also
presented where members are connected by ledger frames. For each measurement appropriate
design tolerances, as specified in prEN 12812, are given (see Section 7.3.1.1). Where
measurements exceed the tolerances specified in prEN 12812 they are shown highlighted in
grey.

Table 23
Index of Site Measurement Tables

Site Table
Visit 1 Visit 2
A 24 (p 94) 25 (p 100)
B 26 (p 106) 27 (p 111)
C 28 (p 115) 29 (p 119)
D 30 (p 122) 31 (p 125)
D2 32 (p 128) 33 (p 129)
E 34 (p 130) 35 (p 133)
F 36 (p 136) 37 (p 140)
G 38 (p 143) 39 (p 148)
H 40 (p 154) 41 (p 161)
J 42 (p 167) 43 (p 172)
K 44 (p 176) 45 (p 180)

93
 Table 24
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 1

Site A

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

1 1 3 -4 -0.0076 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01

2 15 28 -0.0023 0.01 43 0.0215 0.01
MEAN 9.00 12.00 -0.0050 0.01 21.00 0.0105 0.01

3 -11 -27 -0.0031 0.01 -38 -0.0190 0.01

4 -6 -2 0.0077 0.01 -8 -0.0040 0.01
MEAN -8.50 -14.50 0.0023 0.01 -23.00 -0.0115 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

1 1 3 1 -0.0039 0.01 4 0.0020 0.01

4 -2 -2 0.0016 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN 0.50 -0.50 -0.0011 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.01
2 -8 -4 0.0093 0.01 -12 -0.0060 0.01
3 5 1 -0.0070 0.01 6 0.0030 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -1.50 0.0012 0.01 -3.00 -0.0015 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

2 5 -1 0 0.0015 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01

6 4 4 -0.0032 0.01 8 0.0040 0.01
MEAN 1.50 2.00 -0.0008 0.01 3.50 0.0018 0.01
7 -6 -7 0.0040 0.01 -13 -0.0065 0.01
8 6 5 -0.0055 0.01 11 0.0055 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -1.00 -0.0007 0.01 -1.00 -0.0005 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

2 5 0 3 0.0022 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01

8 1 1 -0.0008 0.01 2 0.0010 0.01
MEAN 0.50 2.00 0.0007 0.01 2.50 0.0013 0.01
6 2 1 -0.0023 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
7 -4 0 0.0062 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -1.00 0.50 0.0019 0.01 -0.50 -0.0003 0.01

94
 Table 24
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 1

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)
3 9 7 10 -0.0034 0.01 17 0.0085 0.01
10 4 0 -0.0062 0.01 4 0.0020 0.01
11 -3 -10 -0.0028 0.01 -13 -0.0065 0.01
MEAN 2.67 0.00 -0.0041 0.01 2.67 0.0013 0.01
12 -5 -6 0.0032 0.01 -11 -0.0055 0.01
13 -3 -1 0.0039 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01
14 5 6 -0.0032 0.01 11 0.0055 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -0.33 0.0013 0.01 -1.33 -0.0007 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

3 9 -1 0 0.0015 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01

14 4 1 -0.0054 0.01 5 0.0025 0.01
MEAN 1.50 0.50 -0.0019 0.01 2.00 0.0010 0.01
10 -4 3 0.0084 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01
13 4 1 -0.0054 0.01 5 0.0025 0.01
MEAN 0.00 2.00 0.0015 0.01 2.00 0.0010 0.01
11 -3 6 0.0091 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
12 -1 2 0.0030 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01
MEAN -2.00 4.00 0.0060 0.01 2.00 0.0010 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

4 15 3 7 0.0006 0.01 10 0.0050 0.01

16 -7 3 0.0130 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -2.00 5.00 0.0068 0.01 3.00 0.0015 0.01
17 1 0 -0.0015 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01
18 4 6 -0.0017 0.01 10 0.0050 0.01
MEAN 2.50 3.00 -0.0016 0.01 5.50 0.0028 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

4 16 5 7 -0.0025 0.01 12 0.0060 0.01

17 5 4 -0.0047 0.01 9 0.0045 0.01
MEAN 5.00 5.50 -0.0036 0.01 10.50 0.0053 0.01
15 -1 4 0.0045 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
18 5 6 -0.0032 0.01 11 0.0055 0.01
MEAN 2.00 5.00 0.0006 0.01 7.00 0.0035 0.01

95
 Table 24
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 1

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

5 19 -1 -1 0.0008 0.01 -2 -0.0010 0.01

20 0 -4 -0.0030 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -2.50 -0.0011 0.01 -3.00 -0.0015 0.01
22 1 5 0.0022 0.01 6 0.0030 0.01
21 -4 3 0.0084 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01
MEAN -1.50 4.00 0.0053 0.01 2.50 0.0013 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

5 19 -1 2 0.0030 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01

22 -2 -2 0.0016 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -1.50 0.00 0.0023 0.01 -1.50 -0.0008 0.01
20 3 6 -0.0002 0.01 9 0.0045 0.01
21 -6 -6 0.0048 0.01 -12 -0.0060 0.01
MEAN -1.50 0.00 0.0023 0.01 -1.50 -0.0008 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

6 26 -2 2 0.0046 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01

25 6 -4 -0.0122 0.01 2 0.0010 0.01
MEAN 2 -1 -0.0038 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01
23 2 1 -0.0023 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
24 10 1 -0.0146 0.01 11 0.0055 0.01
MEAN 6 1 -0.0085 0.01 7 0.0035 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

6 24 -6 -2 0.0077 0.01 -8 -0.0040 0.01

25 -3 -2 0.0031 0.01 -5 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN -4.50 -2.00 0.0054 0.01 -6.50 -0.0033 0.01
23 2 -4 -0.0060 0.01 -2 -0.0010 0.01
26 -5 -4 0.0047 0.01 -9 -0.0045 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -4.00 -0.0007 0.01 -5.50 -0.0028 0.01

96
 Table 24
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 1

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

7 29 -1 1 0.0023 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01

30 3 4 -0.0017 0.01 7 0.0035 0.01
MEAN 1.00 2.50 0.0003 0.01 3.50 0.0018 0.01
28 3 1 -0.0039 0.01 4 0.0020 0.01
27 -1 1 0.0023 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN 1.00 1.00 -0.0008 0.01 2.00 0.0010 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

7 29 -7 -1 0.0100 0.01 -8 -0.0040 0.01

28 4 1 -0.0054 0.01 5 0.0025 0.01
MEAN -1.50 0.00 0.0023 0.01 -1.50 -0.0008 0.01
27 3 -1 -0.0054 0.01 2 0.0010 0.01
30 -8 -8 0.0064 0.01 -16 -0.0080 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -4.50 0.0005 0.01 -7.00 -0.0035 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

8 31 -6 0 0.0092 0.01 -6 -0.0030 0.01

32 -2 2 0.0046 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -4.00 1.00 0.0069 0.01 -3.00 -0.0015 0.01
34 2 5 0.0006 0.01 7 0.0035 0.01
33 18 30 -0.0055 0.01 48 0.0240 0.01
MEAN 10.00 17.50 -0.0024 0.01 27.50 0.0138 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

8 31 4 0 -0.0062 0.01 4 0.0020 0.01

34 6 2 -0.0077 0.01 8 0.0040 0.01
MEAN 5.00 1.00 -0.0070 0.01 6.00 0.0030 0.01
32 15 26 -0.0038 0.01 41 0.0205 0.01
33 6 -5 -0.0129 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01
MEAN 10.5 10.5 -0.0084 0.01 21.00 0.0105 0.01

97
 Table 24
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 1

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

9 37 12 21 -0.0029 0.01 33 0.0165 0.01

38 -3 -9 -0.0021 0.01 -12 -0.0060 0.01
MEAN 4.50 6.00 -0.0025 0.01 10.5 0.0053 0.01
36 15 3 -0.0209 0.01 18 0.0090 0.01
35 2 8 0.0028 0.01 10 0.0050 0.01
MEAN 8.50 5.50 -0.0090 0.01 14 0.0070 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

9 35 4 -6 -0.0106 0.01 -2 -0.0010 0.01

38 0 4 0.0030 0.01 4 0.0020 0.01
MEAN 2.00 -1.00 -0.0038 0.01 1.00 0.0005 0.01
36 23 20 -0.0206 0.01 43 0.0215 0.01
37 1 14 0.0088 0.01 15 0.0075 0.01
MEAN 12.00 17.00 -0.0059 0.01 29.00 0.0145 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

10 41 5 0 -0.0077 0.01 5 0.0025 0.01

42 9 -1 -0.0146 0.01 8 0.0040 0.01
MEAN 7.00 -0.50 -0.0111 0.01 6.50 0.0033 0.01
40 -12 4 0.0214 0.01 -8 -0.0040 0.01
39 0 -1 -0.0007 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01
MEAN -6.00 1.50 0.0103 0.01 -4.50 -0.0023 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

10 39 8 6 -0.0079 0.01 14 0.0070 0.01

42 -9 6 0.0183 0.01 -3 -0.0015 0.01
MEAN -0.50 6.00 0.0052 0.01 5.50 0.0028 0.01
40 -11 4 0.0199 0.01 -7 -0.0035 0.01
41 21 0 -0.0323 0.01 21 0.0105 0.01
MEAN 5.00 2.00 -0.0062 0.01 7.00 0.0035 0.01

98
 Table 24
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 1

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

11 43 4 6 -0.0017 0.01 10 0.0050 0.01

44 5 4 -0.0047 0.01 9 0.0045 0.01
MEAN 4.50 5.00 -0.0032 0.01 9.50 0.0048 0.01
46 1 2 -0.0001 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
45 8 8 -0.0064 0.01 16 0.0080 0.01
MEAN 4.50 5.00 -0.0032 0.01 9.50 0.0048 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

11 43 1 8 0.0044 0.01 9 0.0045 0.01

46 7 9 -0.0041 0.01 16 0.0080 0.01
MEAN 4.00 8.50 0.0001 0.01 12.50 0.0063 0.01
44 8 25 0.0062 0.01 33 0.0165 0.01
45 19 30 -0.0070 0.01 49 0.0245 0.01
MEAN 13.5 27.5 -0.0004 0.01 41.00 0.0205 0.01

99
 Table 25
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 2

Site A

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

1 1 -1 -3 -0.0007 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01

2 -18 -21 0.0121 0.01 -39 -0.0195 0.01
MEAN -9.50 -12.00 0.0057 0.01 -21.50 -0.0108 0.01

3 11 30 0.0053 0.01 41 0.0205 0.01

4 -4 -19 -0.0079 0.01 -23 -0.0115 0.01
MEAN 3.50 5.50 -0.0013 0.01 9.00 0.0045 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

1 1 -8 -8 0.0064 0.01 -16 -0.0080 0.01

4 -2 -2 0.0016 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -5.00 -5.00 0.0040 0.01 -10.00 -0.0050 0.01
2 1 10 0.0059 0.01 11 0.0055 0.01
3 -18 19 0.0418 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01
MEAN -8.50 14.50 0.0238 0.01 6.00 0.0030 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

2 5 5 13 0.0019 0.01 18 0.0090 0.01

6 -4 -4 0.0032 0.01 -8 -0.0040 0.01
MEAN 0.50 4.50 0.0026 0.01 5.00 0.0025 0.01
7 -8 -1 0.0116 0.01 -9 -0.0045 0.01
8 2 8 0.0028 0.01 10 0.0050 0.01
MEAN -3.00 3.50 0.0072 0.01 0.50 0.0003 0.01

100
 Table 25
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 2

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

2 5 1 1 -0.0008 0.01 2 0.0010 0.01

8 -8 6 0.0168 0.01 -2 -0.0010 0.01
MEAN -3.50 3.50 0.0080 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.01
6 5 4 -0.0047 0.01 9 0.0045 0.01
7 -13 1 0.0207 0.01 -12 -0.0060 0.01
MEAN -4.00 2.50 0.0080 0.01 -1.50 -0.0008 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

3 9 8 6 -0.0079 0.01 14 0.0070 0.01

10 0 -5 -0.0037 0.01 -5 -0.0025 0.01
11 -7 -13 0.0011 0.01 -20 -0.0100 0.01
MEAN 0.33 -4.00 -0.0035 0.01 -3.67 -0.0018 0.01

12 -3 -1 0.0039 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01

13 11 -7 -0.0221 0.01 4 0.0020 0.01
14 -3 -4 0.0017 0.01 -7 -0.0035 0.01
MEAN 1.67 -4.00 -0.0055 0.01 -2.33 -0.0012 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

3 9 2 -4 -0.0060 0.01 -2 -0.0010 0.01

14 4 1 -0.0054 0.01 5 0.0025 0.01
MEAN 3 -1.50 -0.0057 0.01 1.50 0.0008 0.01
10 -1 -2 0.0001 0.01 -3 -0.0015 0.01
13 5 -7 -0.0129 0.01 -2 -0.0010 0.01
MEAN 2.00 -4.50 -0.0064 0.01 -2.50 -0.0013 0.01
11 -6 -1 0.0085 0.01 -7 -0.0035 0.01
12 4 12 0.0027 0.01 16 0.0080 0.01
MEAN -1.00 5.50 0.0056 0.01 4.50 0.0023 0.01

101
 Table 25
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 2

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

4 15 -1 8 0.0075 0.01 7 0.0035 0.01

16 -14 11 0.0297 0.01 -3 -0.0015 0.01
MEAN -7.50 9.50 0.0186 0.01 2.00 0.0010 0.01
17 15 18 -0.0097 0.01 33 0.0165 0.01
18 1 3 0.0007 0.01 4 0.0020 0.01
MEAN 8.00 10.50 -0.0045 0.01 18.50 0.0093 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

4 16 6 11 -0.0011 0.01 17 0.0085 0.01

17 5 11 0.0005 0.01 16 0.0080 0.01
MEAN 5.50 11.00 -0.0003 0.01 16.50 0.0083 0.01
15 5 1 -0.0070 0.01 6 0.0030 0.01
18 -2 0 0.0031 0.01 -2 -0.0010 0.01
MEAN 1.50 0.50 -0.0019 0.01 2.00 0.0010 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

5 19 3 -1 -0.0054 0.01 2 0.0010 0.01

20 -8 -9 0.0056 0.01 -17 -0.0085 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -5.00 0.0001 0.01 -7.50 -0.0038 0.01
22 6 -9 -0.0159 0.01 -3 -0.0015 0.01
21 6 -9 -0.0159 0.01 -3 -0.0015 0.01
MEAN 6.00 -9.00 -0.0159 0.01 -3.00 -0.0015 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

5 19 -4 1 0.0069 0.01 -3 -0.0015 0.01

22 -5 5 0.0114 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -4.50 3.00 0.0091 0.01 -1.50 -0.0008 0.01
20 8 -5 -0.0160 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
21 6 -2 -0.0107 0.01 4 0.0020 0.01
MEAN 7.00 -3.5 -0.0134 0.01 3.50 0.0018 0.01

102
 Table 25
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 2

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

6 26 -1 -5 -0.0022 0.01 -6 -0.0030 0.01

25 -6 1 0.0100 0.01 -5 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN -3.50 -2.00 0.0039 0.01 -5.50 -0.0028 0.01
23 -1 0 0.0015 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01
24 -4 -4 0.0032 0.01 -8 -0.0040 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -2.00 0.0024 0.01 -4.50 -0.0023 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

6 24 1 -4 -0.0045 0.01 -3 -0.0015 0.01

25 -18 -3 0.0255 0.01 -21 -0.0105 0.01
MEAN -8.50 -3.50 0.0105 0.01 -12.00 -0.0060 0.01
23 3 0 -0.0046 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
26 -5 -3 0.0055 0.01 -8 -0.0040 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -1.50 0.0004 0.01 -2.50 -0.0013 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

7 29 13 -4 -0.0230 0.01 9 0.0045 0.01

30 -1 3 0.0038 0.01 2 0.0010 0.01
MEAN 6.00 -0.50 -0.0096 0.01 5.50 0.0028 0.01
28 7 6 -0.0063 0.01 13 0.0065 0.01
27 3 6 -0.0002 0.01 9 0.0045 0.01
MEAN 5.00 6.00 -0.0032 0.01 11.00 0.0055 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

7 29 17 4 -0.0232 0.01 21 0.0105 0.01

28 11 15 -0.0058 0.01 26 0.0130 0.01
MEAN 14.00 9.50 -0.0145 0.01 23.50 0.0118 0.01
27 -1 1 0.0023 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
30 6 -3 -0.0115 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -1.00 -0.0046 0.01 1.50 0.0008 0.01

103
 Table 25
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 2

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

8 31 2 0 -0.0031 0.01 2 0.0010 0.01

32 3 -6 -0.0091 0.01 -3 -0.0015 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -3.00 -0.0061 0.01 -0.50 -0.0003 0.01
34 4 6 -0.0017 0.01 10 0.0050 0.01
33 23 37 -0.0080 0.01 60 0.0300 0.01
MEAN 13.50 21.50 -0.0048 0.01 35.00 0.0175 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

8 31 1 3 0.0007 0.01 4 0.0020 0.01

34 6 6 -0.0048 0.01 12 0.0060 0.01
MEAN 3.50 4.50 -0.0021 0.01 8.00 0.0040 0.01
32 8 36 0.0144 0.01 44 0.0220 0.01
33 0 -2 -0.0015 0.01 -2 -0.0010 0.01
MEAN 4.00 17.00 0.0064 0.01 21.00 0.0105 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)
Base Jack Spec.

9 37 1 28 0.0192 0.01 29 0.0145 0.01

38 -3 -7 -0.0006 0.01 -10 -0.0050 0.01
MEAN -1.00 10.50 0.0093 0.01 9.50 0.0048 0.01
36 8 -8 -0.0182 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
35 4 -8 -0.0121 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN 6.00 -8.00 -0.0152 0.01 -2.00 -0.0010 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

9 35 6 9 -0.0026 0.01 15 0.0075 0.01

38 1 4 0.0014 0.01 5 0.0025 0.01
MEAN 3.50 6.50 -0.0006 0.01 10.00 0.0050 0.01
36 25 32 -0.0147 0.01 57 0.0285 0.01
37 6 7 -0.0040 0.01 13 0.0065 0.01
MEAN 15.50 19.50 -0.0094 0.01 35.00 0.0175 0.01

104
 Table 25
Verticality Results for Site A - Visit 2

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

10 41 -2 8 0.0090 0.01 6 0.0030 0.01

42 0 -4 -0.0030 0.01 -4 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -1.00 2.00 0.0030 0.01 1.00 0.0005 0.01
40 -5 -4 0.0047 0.01 -9 -0.0045 0.01
39 -1 -5 -0.0022 0.01 -6 -0.0030 0.01
MEAN -3.00 -4.50 0.0013 0.01 -7.50 -0.0038 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

10 39 8 9 -0.0056 0.01 17 0.0085 0.01

42 0 6 0.0044 0.01 6 0.0030 0.01
MEAN 4.00 7.50 -0.0006 0.01 11.50 0.0058 0.01
40 2 1 -0.0023 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
41 -2 -6 -0.0014 0.01 -8 -0.0040 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -2.50 -0.0019 0.01 -2.50 -0.0013 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

11 43 -5 5 0.0114 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01

44 5 4 -0.0047 0.01 9 0.0045 0.01
MEAN 0.00 4.50 0.0033 0.01 4.50 0.0023 0.01
46 -2 -1 0.0023 0.01 -3 -0.0015 0.01
45 3 0 -0.0046 0.01 3 0.0015 0.01
MEAN 0.50 -0.50 -0.0011 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Table Leg Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
(650 mm high) (1350 mm high) (2000mm high)

11 43 6 4 -0.0063 0.01 10 0.0050 0.01

46 6 6 -0.0048 0.01 12 0.0060 0.01
MEAN 6.00 5.00 -0.0055 0.01 11.00 0.0055 0.01
44 4 22 0.0101 0.01 26 0.0130 0.01
45 13 28 0.0007 0.01 41 0.0205 0.01
MEAN 8.50 25.00 0.0054 0.01 33.50 0.0168 0.01

105
 Table 26
Verticality Results for Site B - Visit 1

Site B
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

1 1 5 9 -0.0171 0.021 4 0.0229 0.021 18 0.0065 0.01

3 1 -41 -0.0213 0.021 4 0.0438 0.021 -36 -0.0129 0.01
5 1 5 -0.0021 0.021 -2 -0.0154 0.021 4 0.0014 0.01
7 -1 -1 0.0037 0.021 20 0.1338 0.021 18 0.0065 0.01
MEAN 1.50 -7.00 -0.0092 0.0182 6.50 0.0463 0.018 1.00 0.0004 0.01
2 -2 4 0.0100 0.021 1 0.0050 0.021 3 0.0011 0.01
4 -1 -4 0.0025 0.021 -6 -0.0383 0.021 -11 -0.0039 0.01
6 1 16 0.0025 0.021 -20 -0.1401 0.021 -3 -0.0011 0.01
8 -2 -13 0.0029 0.021 -1 -0.0012 0.021 -16 -0.0057 0.01
MEAN -1.00 0.75 0.0045 0.0182 -6.50 -0.0436 0.018 -6.75 -0.0024 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

1 1 -4 9 0.0204 0.021 -2 -0.0171 0.021 3 0.0011 0.01

2 4 69 0.0121 0.021 3 -0.0087 0.021 76 0.0272 0.01
MEAN 0.00 39.00 0.0163 0.021 0.50 -0.0129 0.021 39.50 0.0142 0.01
3 2 -41 -0.0254 0.021 1 0.0238 0.021 -38 -0.0136 0.01
4 1 27 0.0071 0.021 9 0.0487 0.021 37 0.0133 0.01
MEAN 1.50 -7.00 -0.0092 0.021 5.00 0.0363 0.021 -0.50 -0.0002 0.01
5 3 33 0.0012 0.021 -10 -0.0805 0.021 26 0.0093 0.01
6 1 -61 -0.0296 0.021 20 0.1593 0.021 -40 -0.0143 0.01
MEAN 2.00 -14.00 -0.0142 0.021 5.00 0.0392 0.021 -7.00 -0.0025 0.01
7 5 64 0.0058 0.021 2 -0.0133 0.021 71 0.0254 0.01
8 -2 -40 -0.0083 0.021 0 0.0167 0.021 -42 -0.0151 0.01
MEAN 1.50 12.00 -0.0012 0.021 1.00 0.0017 0.021 14.50 0.0052 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

2 9 71 14 -0.2895 0.021 -71 -0.4805 0.021 14 0.0050 0.01

11 1 -13 -0.0096 0.021 -1 -0.0012 0.021 -13 -0.0047 0.01
MEAN 36.00 0.50 -0.1498 0.021 -36.00 -0.2402 0.021 0.50 0.0002 0.01
10 4 3 -0.0154 0.021 0 -0.0013 0.021 7 0.0025 0.01
12 1 6 -0.0017 0.021 -3 -0.0225 0.021 4 0.0014 0.01
MEAN 2.50 4.50 -0.0085 0.021 -1.50 -0.0119 0.021 5.50 0.0020 0.01

106
 Table 26
Verticality Results for Site B - Visit 1
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

2 9 72 14 -0.2937 0.021 -70 -0.4738 0.021 16 0.0057 0.01

10 1 3 -0.0029 0.021 1 0.0054 0.021 5 0.0018 0.01
MEAN 36.50 8.50 -0.1485 0.021 -34.50 -0.2337 0.021 10.50 0.0038 0.01
11 -2 -13 0.0029 0.021 4 0.0321 0.021 -11 -0.0039 0.01
12 -1 6 0.0067 0.021 1 0.0042 0.021 6 0.0022 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -3.50 0.0048 0.021 2.50 0.0181 0.021 -2.50 -0.0009 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

3 13 -1 1 0.0046 0.021 -2 -0.0138 0.021 -2 -0.0007 0.01

15 -2 -11 0.0037 0.021 -12 -0.0754 0.021 -25 -0.0090 0.01
17 16 -17 -0.0738 0.021 -3 -0.0129 0.021 -4 -0.0014 0.01
19 -5 -15 0.0146 0.021 -3 -0.0137 0.021 -23 -0.0082 0.01
MEAN 2.00 -10.50 -0.0127 0.0182 -5.00 -0.0290 0.018 -13.50 -0.0048 0.01
14 1 -8 -0.0075 0.021 -4 -0.0233 0.021 -11 -0.0039 0.01
16 -1 12 0.0092 0.021 4 0.0217 0.021 15 0.0054 0.01
18 2 8 -0.0050 0.021 1 0.0033 0.021 11 0.0039 0.01
20 -1 -11 -0.0004 0.021 -5 -0.0287 0.021 -17 -0.0061 0.01
MEAN 0.25 0.25 -0.0009 0.0182 -1.00 -0.0068 0.018 -0.50 -0.0002 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

3 13 2 7 -0.0054 0.021 -2 -0.0163 0.021 7 0.0025 0.01

14 -2 -12 0.0033 0.021 -2 -0.0083 0.021 -16 -0.0057 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -2.50 -0.0010 0.021 -2.00 -0.0123 0.021 -4.50 -0.0016 0.01
15 0 13 0.0054 0.021 -6 -0.0454 0.021 7 0.0025 0.01
16 4 2 -0.0158 0.021 0 -0.0008 0.021 6 0.0022 0.01
MEAN 2.00 7.50 -0.0052 0.021 -3.00 -0.0231 0.021 6.50 0.0023 0.01
17 18 -3 -0.0763 0.021 2 0.0146 0.021 17 0.0061 0.01
18 0 4 0.0017 0.021 -2 -0.0150 0.021 2 0.0007 0.01
MEAN 9.00 0.50 -0.0373 0.021 0.00 -0.0002 0.021 9.50 0.0034 0.01
19 -3 -5 0.0104 0.021 -3 -0.0179 0.021 -11 -0.0039 0.01
20 -3 6 0.0150 0.021 -1 -0.0092 0.021 2 0.0007 0.01
MEAN -3.00 0.50 0.0127 0.021 -2.00 -0.0135 0.021 -4.50 -0.0016 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

4 21 2 12 -0.0033 0.021 1 0.0017 0.021 15 0.0054 0.01

23 4 6 -0.0142 0.021 -6 -0.0425 0.021 4 0.0014 0.01
MEAN 3.00 9.00 -0.0087 0.021 -2.50 -0.0204 0.021 9.50 0.0034 0.01
22 -45 -12 0.1823 0.021 -6 -0.0350 0.021 -63 -0.0226 0.01
24 0 0 0.0000 0.021 6 0.0400 0.021 6 0.0022 0.01
MEAN -22.50 -6.00 0.0912 0.021 0.00 0.0025 0.021 -28.50 -0.0102 0.01

107
 Table 26
Verticality Results for Site B - Visit 1
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

4 21 -1 11 0.0088 0.021 -6 -0.0446 0.021 4 0.0014 0.01

22 -42 -5 0.1729 0.021 0 0.0021 0.021 -47 -0.0168 0.01
MEAN -21.50 3.00 0.0908 0.021 -3.00 -0.0213 0.021 -21.50 -0.0077 0.01
23 1 8 -0.0008 0.021 5 0.0300 0.021 14 0.0050 0.01
24 0 14 0.0058 0.021 5 0.0275 0.021 19 0.0068 0.01
MEAN 0.50 11.00 0.0025 0.021 5.00 0.0287 0.021 16.50 0.0059 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN
Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

5 25 -71 44 0.3159 0.021 -4 -0.0450 0.021 -31 -0.0111 0.01

26 1 31 0.0087 0.021 -21 -0.1532 0.021 11 0.0039 0.01
MEAN -35.00 37.50 0.1618 0.021 -12.50 -0.0991 0.021 -10.00 -0.0036 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

5 25 -70 41 0.3103 0.021 4 0.0096 0.021 -25 -0.0090 0.01

26 -4 -61 -0.0087 0.021 33 0.2468 0.021 -32 -0.0115 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

6 27 -69 66 0.3175 0.021 3 -0.0075 0.021 0 0.0000 0.01

28 -61 57 0.2796 0.021 -3 -0.0438 0.021 -7 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN -65 61.50 0.2985 0.021 0.00 -0.0256 0.021 -3.5 -0.0013 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN
Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

6 27 75 -69 -0.3443 0.021 -5 -0.0046 0.021 1 0.0004 0.01

28 79 -42 -0.3487 0.021 2 0.0308 0.021 39 0.0140 0.01

108
 Table 26
Verticality Results for Site B - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

7 29 -2 -23 -0.0012 0.021 -8 -0.0437 0.021 -33 -0.0118 0.01

30 11 -16 -0.0525 0.021 -3 -0.0133 0.021 -8 -0.0029 0.01
31 1 25 0.0062 0.021 -5 -0.0438 0.021 21 0.0075 0.01
32 0 -30 -0.0125 0.021 1 0.019168 0.021 -29 -0.0104 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -11.00 -0.0150 0.0182 -3.75 -0.0204 0.018 -12.25 -0.0044 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

7 29 0 10 0.0042 0.021 -4 -0.0308 0.021 6 0.0022 0.01

30 -4 43 0.0346 0.021 -1 -0.0246 0.021 38 0.0136 0.01

31 -2 -4 0.0067 0.021 0 0.0017 0.021 -6 -0.0022 0.01

32 -4 -13 0.0112 0.021 2 0.0188 0.021 -15 -0.0054 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

8 33 -1 -25 -0.0062 0.021 -2 -0.0029 0.021 -28 -0.0100 0.01

34 -2 -24 -0.0017 0.019 11 0.0834 0.019 -15 -0.0054 0.01
35 5 0 -0.0208 0.019 2 0.0133 0.019 7 0.0025 0.01
36 -4 11 0.0213 0.019 -8 -0.0579 0.019 -1 -0.0004 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -9.50 -0.0019 0.0182 0.75 0.0090 0.018 -9.25 -0.0033 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Total Tan Spec.
Table Leg No. (240 mm) (2400 mm high) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2790mm)

8 33 -2 21 0.0171 0.021 0 -0.0088 0.021 19 0.0068 0.01

34 -4 8 0.0200 0.021 -3 -0.0233 0.021 1 0.0004 0.01

35 2 16 -0.0017 0.021 4 0.0200 0.021 22 0.0079 0.01

36 1 -39 -0.0204 0.021 10 0.0830 0.021 -28 -0.0100 0.01

109
 Table 27
Verticality Results for Site B - Visit 2

Site B

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (215 mm) (2400 mm) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2765mm)

1 1 -1 -1 0.0042 0.021 3 0.0204 0.021 1 0.0004 0.01

2 -1 9 0.0084 0.021 -6 -0.0438 0.021 2 0.0007 0.01
3 74 -3 -0.3456 0.021 -1 -0.0054 0.021 70 0.0253 0.01
4 -1 -4 0.0030 0.021 3 0.0217 0.021 -2 -0.0007 0.01
MEAN 17.75 0.25 -0.0825 0.0182 -0.25 -0.0018 0.018 17.75 0.0064 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (215 mm) (2400 mm) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2765mm)

2 5 -68 25 0.3278 0.021 -4 -0.0371 0.021 -47 -0.0170 0.01

6 3 30 -0.0015 0.021 2 0.0008 0.021 35 0.0127 0.01
7 2 43 0.0086 0.021 0 -0.0179 0.021 45 0.0163 0.01
8 71 -35 -0.3465 0.021 -3 -0.0054 0.021 33 0.0119 0.01
MEAN 2.00 15.75 -0.0027 0.0182 -1.25 -0.0149 0.0182 16.50 0.0059 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (215 mm) (2400 mm) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2765mm)

3 9 -4 18 0.0261 0.021 -3 -0.0275 0.021 11 0.0040 0.01

10 -4 3 0.0199 0.021 1 0.0054 0.021 0 0.0000 0.01
11 0 -1 -0.0004 0.021 4 0.0271 0.021 3 0.0011 0.01
12 1 -1 -0.0051 0.021 -7 -0.0462 0.021 -7 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN -1.75 4.75 0.0101 0.0182 -1.25 -0.0103 0.0182 1.75 0.0006 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (215 mm) (2400 mm) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2765mm)

4 13 2 -10 -0.0135 0.021 0 0.0042 0.021 -8 -0.0029 0.01

14 2 7 -0.0064 0.021 4 0.0237 0.021 13 0.0047 0.01
15 3 35 0.0006 0.021 4 0.0121 0.021 42 0.0152 0.01
16 -1 0 0.0047 0.021 32 0.2133 0.021 31 0.0112 0.01
MEAN 1.50 8.00 -0.0036 0.0182 10.00 0.0633 0.0182 19.50 0.0070 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (215 mm) (2400 mm) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2765mm)

5 17 5 11 -0.0187 0.021 -2 -0.0179 0.021 14 0.0051 0.01

18 1 28 0.0070 0.021 -12 -0.0918 0.021 17 0.0061 0.01
19 2 14 -0.0035 0.021 1 0.0008 0.021 17 0.0061 0.01
MEAN 2.67 17.67 -0.0050 0.0192 -4.33 -0.0363 0.019 16.00 0.0057 0.01

110
 Table 27
Verticality Results for Site B - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (215 mm) (2400 mm) Angle (150 mm) Angle (2765mm)

1 1 -1 -11 0.0001 0.021 -1 -0.0021 0.021 -13 -0.0047 0.01

1 2 2 -2 -0.0101 0.021 3 0.0208 0.021 3 0.0011 0.01

1 3 -68 -10 0.3117 0.021 1 0.0108 0.021 -77 -0.0278 0.01

1 4 2 8 -0.0060 0.021 2 0.0100 0.021 12 0.0043 0.01

2 5 -72 -3 0.3335 0.021 -3 -0.0187 0.021 -78 -0.0282 0.01

2 6 -2 -23 -0.0003 0.021 4 0.0363 0.021 -21 -0.0076 0.01

2 7 0 -56 -0.0233 0.021 -1 0.0167 0.021 -57 -0.0206 0.01

2 8 -68 89 0.3576 0.021 -1 -0.0438 0.021 20 0.0072 0.01

3 9 -9 -51 0.0206 0.021 -5 -0.0121 0.021 -65 -0.0235 0.01

3 10 -6 -30 0.0154 0.021 -4 -0.0142 0.021 -40 -0.0145 0.01

3 11 5 -3 -0.0245 0.021 1 0.0079 0.021 3 0.0011 0.01

3 12 0 -13 -0.0054 0.021 -2 -0.0079 0.021 -15 -0.0054 0.01

4 13 3 4 -0.0123 0.021 -4 -0.0283 0.021 3 0.0011 0.01

4 14 3 -14 -0.0198 0.021 1 0.0125 0.021 -10 -0.0036 0.01

4 15 0 -33 -0.0138 0.021 -1 0.0071 0.021 -34 -0.0123 0.01

4 16 -1 -35 -0.0099 0.021 34 0.2421 0.021 -2 -0.0007 0.01

5 17 7 45 -0.0138 0.021 -9 -0.0788 0.021 43 0.0156 0.01

5 18 2 -18 -0.0168 0.021 10 0.0742 0.021 -6 -0.0022 0.01

5 19 2 -18 -0.0168 0.021 0 0.0075 0.021 -16 -0.0058 0.01

111
 Table 27
Verticality Results for Site B - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Spigot PrEN Head Jack Head Jack PrEN Total Tan PrEN
(500 or (1800 or Base Jack Spec. Standard Angle Spec. (140 mm or Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg 140mm) 1250mm) Angle (1250 mm) 395mm)

6 31 -4 -7 0.0230 0.021 16 0.0184 0.021 5 -0.0001 0.021 10 0.0033 0.01

32 2 1 -0.0135 0.021 -6 -0.0056 0.021 -3 -0.0028 0.021 -6 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -3 0.0047 0.021 5 0.0020 0.021 1.00 0.0088 0.021 2.00 0.0008 0.01
6 20 -21 -8 0.0375 0.021 - - - -4 -0.0241 0.021 -29 -0.0119 0.01
21 -13 -16 0.0171 0.021 - - - -1 0.0017 0.021 -29 -0.0119 0.01
MEAN -17.00 -12 0.0740 0.021 - - - -2.50 -0.0112 0.021 -29 -0.0119 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg Jack Standard Base Jack PrEN Standard Spigot PrEN Head Jack Head Jack PrEN Total Tan PrEN
(500 or (1800 or Angle Spec. (1250 mm) Angle Spec. (140 mm or Angle Spec. Spec.
140mm) 1250mm) 395mm)

6 31 1 7 -0.0015 0.021 7 0.0000 0.021 2 -0.0005 0.021 17 0.0056 0.01

20 4 -13 -0.0152 0.021 - - - -6 -0.0356 0.021 -15 -0.0061 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -3.00 -0.0129 0.021 - - - -2.00 -0.0126 0.021 1.00 0.0004 0.01
6 32 0 -3 -0.0024 0.021 11 0.0112 0.021 -1 -0.0113 0.021 7 0.0023 0.01
21 23 7 -0.0421 0.021 - - - 0 -0.0039 0.021 30 0.0123 0.01
MEAN 11.50 2.00 -0.0527 0.021 - - - -0.50 -0.0047 0.021 18.50 0.0076 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg Jack Standard Base Jack PrEN Standard Spigot PrEN Head Jack Head Jack PrEN Total Tan PrEN
(500 or (1800 or Angle Spec. (1250 mm) Angle Spec. (140 mm or Angle Spec. Spec.
140mm) 1250mm) 395mm)

7 22 18 3 -0.0343 0.021 - - - -1 -0.0088 0.021 20 0.0082 0.01

23 5 -4 -0.0122 0.021 - - - 1 0.0094 0.021 2 0.0008 0.01
MEAN 11.50 -0.50 -0.0537 0.021 - - - 0.00 0.0003 0.021 11.00 0.0045 0.01

33 -2 4 0.0175 0.021 -7 -0.0088 0.021 6 0.0208 0.021 1 0.0003 0.01

34 4 -3 -0.0310 0.021 -5 -0.0016 0.021 -8 -0.0163 0.021 -12 -0.0040 0.01
35 -3 -6 0.0166 0.021 -4 0.0016 0.021 4 0.0133 0.021 -9 -0.0030 0.01
MEAN -0.33 -1.67 0.0009 0.019 -5.33 -0.0029 0.019 0.67 0.0057 0.019 -6.67 -0.0027 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg Jack Standard Base Jack PrEN Standard Spigot PrEN Head Jack Head Jack PrEN Total Tan PrEN
(500 or (1800 or Angle Spec. (1250 mm) Angle Spec. (140 mm or Angle Spec. Spec.
140mm) 1250mm) 395mm)

7 33 0 4 0.0032 0.021 -8 -0.0096 0.021 -1 0.0039 0.021 -5 -0.0016 0.01

22 23 -3 -0.0477 0.021 - - - 0 0.0017 0.021 20 0.0082 0.01
MEAN 11.50 0.50 -0.0533 0.021 - - - -0.50 -0.0038 0.021 7.50 0.0031 0.01
34 -3 1 0.0222 0.021 1 0.0000 0.021 -19 -0.0489 0.021 -20 -0.0066 0.01
23 22 18 -0.0340 0.021 - - - 4 0.0186 0.021 44 0.0180 0.01
MEAN 9.50 9.50 -0.0402 0.021 - - - -7.50 -0.0589 0.021 12.00 0.0049 0.01
35 0 6 0.0048 0.021 6 0.0000 0.021 -2 -0.0176 0.021 10 0.0033 0.01

112
 Table 27
Verticality Results for Site B - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg Jack Standard Base Jack PrEN Standard Spigot PrEN Head Jack Head Jack PrEN Total Tan PrEN
(500 or (1800 or Angle Spec. (1250 mm) Angle Spec. (140 mm or Angle Spec. Spec.
140mm) 1250mm) 395mm)

8 36 -3 0 0.0214 0.021 -4 -0.0032 0.021 4 0.0133 0.021 -3 -0.0010 0.01

37 1 3 -0.0047 0.021 1 -0.0016 0.021 2 0.0043 0.021 7 0.0023 0.01
38 1 0 -0.0071 0.021 -6 -0.0048 0.021 -1 0.0023 0.021 -6 -0.0020 0.01
39 -2 -3 0.0119 0.021 -3 0.0000 0.021 17 0.0454 0.021 9 0.0030 0.01
MEAN -0.75 0.00 0.0035 0.018 -3.00 -0.0024 0.0182 5.50 0.0393 0.0182 1.75 0.0007 0.01
24 -1 9 0.0070 0.021 - - - -1 -0.0121 0.021 7 0.0029 0.01
25 3 17 0.0034 0.021 - - - 4 0.0191 0.021 24 0.0098 0.01
26 12 -12 -0.0307 0.021 - - - 3 0.0281 0.021 3 0.0012 0.01
27 1 4 0.0002 0.021 - - - -13 -0.0951 0.021 -8 -0.0033 0.01
MEAN 3.75 4.50 -0.0156 0.018 - - - -1.75 -0.0150 0.0182 6.50 0.0027 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg Jack Standard Base Jack PrEN Standard Spigot PrEN Head Jack Head Jack PrEN Total Tan PrEN
(500 or (1800 or Angle Spec. (1250 mm) Angle Spec. (140 mm or Angle Spec. Spec.
140mm) 1250mm) 395mm)
8 36 -3 7 0.0270 0.021 0 -0.0056 0.021 0 0.0000 0.021 4 0.0013 0.01
24 -6 -8 0.0076 0.021 - - - 3 0.0259 0.021 -11 -0.0045 0.01
MEAN -4.50 -0.50 0.0207 0.021 - - - 1.50 0.0110 0.021 -3.50 -0.0014 0.01
37 1 -1 -0.0079 0.021 -18 -0.0136 0.021 -3 0.0068 0.021 -21 -0.0069 0.01
25 3 0 -0.0060 0.021 - - - -2 -0.0143 0.021 1 0.0004 0.01
MEAN 2.00 -0.50 -0.0095 0.021 - - - -2.50 -0.0176 0.021 -10.00 -0.0041 0.01
38 0 4 0.0032 0.021 -35 -0.0312 0.021 -7 0.0103 0.021 -38 -0.0125 0.01
26 7 -46 -0.0396 0.021 - - - 1 0.0327 0.021 -38 -0.0156 0.01
MEAN 3.50 -21.00 -0.0250 0.021 - - - -3.00 0.0092 0.021 -20.50 -0.0073 0.01
39 6 10 -0.0348 0.021 -21 -0.0248 0.021 -27 -0.0515 0.021 -32 -0.0105 0.01
22 23 -3 -0.0477 0.021 - - - 0 0.0017 0.021 20 0.0082 0.01
MEAN 14.50 3.50 -0.0660 0.021 - - - -13.50 -0.0370 0.021 4.50 0.0016 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg Jack Standard Base Jack PrEN Standard Spigot PrEN Head Jack Head Jack PrEN Total Tan PrEN
(500 or (1800 or Angle Spec. (1250 mm) Angle Spec. (140 mm or Angle Spec. Spec.
140mm) 1250mm) 395mm)
9 40 3 -8 -0.0278 0.021 -6 0.0016 0.021 1 0.0073 0.021 -10 -0.0033 0.01
41 -1 6 0.0119 0.021 -8 -0.0112 0.021 -11 -0.0214 0.021 -14 -0.0046 0.01
42 2 4 -0.0111 0.021 -1 -0.0040 0.021 1 0.0033 0.021 6 0.0020 0.01
MEAN 1.33 0.67 -0.0059 0.019 -5 -0.0045 0.019 -3.00 -0.0036 0.019 -6.00 -0.0022 0.01
28 6 8 -0.0076 0.021 - - - 0 -0.0044 0.021 14 0.0057 0.01
29 -5 11 0.0161 0.021 - - - 1 0.0010 0.021 7 0.0029 0.01
30 1 1 -0.0014 0.021 - - - 1 0.0066 0.021 3 0.0012 0.01
MEAN 0.67 6.67 0.0024 0.019 - - - 0.67 0.0011 0.019 8.00 0.0033 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg Jack Standard Base Jack PrEN Standard Spigot Spec. Head Jack Head Jack PrEN Total Tan Spec.
(500 or (1800 or Angle Spec. (1250 mm) Angle (140 mm or Angle Spec.
140mm) 1250mm) 395mm)
9 40 1 11 0.0017 0.021 -15 -0.0208 0.021 -2 0.0069 0.021 -5 -0.0016 0.01
28 -14 -24 0.0147 0.021 - - - 2 0.0276 0.021 -36 -0.0148 0.01
MEAN -6.50 -6.50 0.0275 0.021 - - - 0.00 0.0036 0.021 -13.00 -0.0053 0.01
41 1 11 0.0017 0.021 -13 -0.0192 0.021 -6 -0.0048 0.021 -7 -0.0023 0.01
29 -6 -13 0.0048 0.021 - - - 0 0.0072 0.021 -19 -0.0078 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -1.00 0.0112 0.021 - - - -3.00 -0.0209 0.021 -6.50 -0.0027 0.01
42 0 6 0.0048 0.021 -30 -0.0288 0.021 -7 0.0063 0.021 -31 -0.0102 0.01
30 14 -8 -0.0324 0.021 - - - -2 -0.0098 0.021 4 0.0016 0.01
MEAN 7.00 -1.00 -0.0330 0.021 - - - -4.50 -0.0316 0.021 1.50 0.0006 0.01

113
 Table 28
Verticality Results for Site C - Visit 1

Site C

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Table Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mm) (2325mm)

1 1 -13 -40 -0.0062 0.01 -53 -0.0228 -0.0192 -0.0036 0.01

2 -11 -31 -0.0035 0.01 -42 -0.0181 -0.0192 0.0012 0.01

3 -13 -33 -0.0019 0.01 -46 -0.0198 -0.0192 -0.0006 0.01

MEAN -12.33 -34.67 -0.0039 0.01 -47 -0.0202 -0.0192 -0.0010 0.01

4 0 6 0.0037 0.01 6 0.0026 -0.0192 0.0218 0.01

5 0 -21 -0.0130 0.01 -21 -0.0090 -0.0192 0.0102 0.01

6 0 -26 -0.0160 0.01 -26 -0.0112 -0.0192 0.0080 0.01

MEAN 0.00 -13.67 -0.0084 0.01 -13.67 -0.0059 -0.0192 0.0134 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Table Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mm) (2325mm)

1 1 2 25 0.0126 0.01 27 0.0116 0.0000 0.0116 0.01

6 -25 33 0.0559 0.01 8 0.0034 0.0000 0.0034 0.01

MEAN -11.50 29.00 0.0342 0.01 17.5 0.0075 0.0000 0.0075 0.01

2 -6 3 0.0104 0.01 -3 -0.0013 0.0000 -0.0013 0.01

5 -25 7 0.0398 0.01 -18 -0.0077 0.0000 -0.0077 0.01

MEAN -15.50 5.00 0.0251 0.01 -10.5 -0.0045 0.0000 -0.0045 0.01

3 -26 -7 0.0326 0.01 -33 -0.0142 0.0000 -0.0142 0.01

4 -25 18 0.0466 0.01 -7 -0.0030 0.0000 -0.0030 0.01

MEAN -25.50 5.50 0.0396 0.01 -20 -0.0086 0.0000 -0.0086 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Table Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mm) (2325mm)

2 1 0 41 0.0253 0.01 41 0.0176 -0.0192 0.0369 0.01

2 0 -23 -0.0142 0.01 -23 -0.0099 -0.0192 0.0093 0.01

3 0 -28 -0.0173 0.01 -28 -0.0120 -0.0192 0.0072 0.01

MEAN 0.00 -3.33 -0.0021 0.01 -3.33 -0.0014 -0.0192 0.0178 0.01

4 28 16 -0.0298 0.01 44 0.0189 -0.0192 0.0382 0.01

5 2 -21 -0.0158 0.01 -19 -0.0082 -0.0192 0.0111 0.01

6 -18 -2 0.0243 0.01 -20 -0.0086 -0.0192 0.0106 0.01

MEAN 4.00 -2.33 -0.0071 0.01 1.67 0.0007 -0.0192 0.0199 0.01

114
 Table 28
Verticality Results for Site C - Visit 1
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Table Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mM) (2325mm)

2 1 -25 69 0.0782 0.01 44 0.0189 0.0000 0.0189 0.01

6 -45 26 0.0800 0.01 -19 -0.0082 0.0000 -0.0082 0.01

MEAN -35.00 47.50 0.0791 0.01 12.50 0.0054 0.0000 0.0054 0.01

2 -25 19 0.0472 0.01 -6 -0.0026 0.0000 -0.0026 0.01

5 -29 28 0.0585 0.01 -1 -0.0004 0.0000 -0.0004 0.01

MEAN -27.00 23.50 0.0528 0.01 -3.50 -0.0015 0.0000 -0.0015 0.01

3 -25 14 0.0441 0.01 -11 -0.0047 0.0000 -0.0047 0.01

4 2 33 0.0175 0.01 35 0.0151 0.0000 0.0151 0.01

MEAN -11.50 23.50 0.0308 0.01 12 0.0052 0.0000 0.0052 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Table Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mm) (2325mm)

3 1 12 -62 -0.0553 0.01 -50 -0.0215 -0.0192 -0.0023 0.01

2 -4 -54 -0.0277 0.01 -58 -0.0249 -0.0192 -0.0057 0.01

3 -11 -31 -0.0035 0.01 -42 -0.0181 -0.0192 0.0012 0.01

4 -11 -1 0.0150 0.01 -12 -0.0052 -0.0192 0.0141 0.01

MEAN -3.50 -37.00 -0.0179 0.01 -40.50 -0.0174 -0.0192 0.0018 0.01

5 25 -1 -0.0361 0.01 24 0.0103 -0.0192 0.0296 0.01

6 -9 -30 -0.0058 0.01 -39 -0.0168 -0.0192 0.0025 0.01

7 -21 -26 0.0137 0.01 -47 -0.0202 -0.0192 -0.0010 0.01

8 -15 -37 -0.0016 0.01 -52 -0.0224 -0.0192 -0.0031 0.01

MEAN -5.00 -23.50 -0.0074 0.01 -28.50 -0.0123 -0.0192 0.0070 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Table Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mm) (2325mm)

3 1 19 -23 -0.0412 0.01 -4 -0.0017 0.0000 -0.0017 0.01

5 37 19 -0.0407 0.01 56 0.0241 0.0000 0.0241 0.01

MEAN 28.00 -2.00 -0.0410 0.01 26 0.0112 0.0000 0.0112 0.01

2 -19 13 0.0350 0.01 -6 -0.0026 0.0000 -0.0026 0.01

6 12 18 -0.0059 0.01 30 0.0129 0.0000 0.0129 0.01

MEAN -3.50 15.50 0.0145 0.01 12 0.0052 0.0000 0.0052 0.01

3 -12 3 0.0189 0.01 -9 -0.0039 0.0000 -0.0039 0.01

7 8 5 -0.0083 0.01 13 0.0056 0.0000 0.0056 0.01

MEAN -2.00 4.00 0.0053 0.01 2 0.0009 0.0000 0.0009 0.01

4 -12 -19 0.0053 0.01 -31 -0.0133 0.0000 -0.0133 0.01

8 25 8 -0.0305 0.01 33 0.0142 0.0000 0.0142 0.01

MEAN 6.50 -5.50 -0.0126 0.01 1 0.0004 0.0000 0.0004 0.01

115
 Table 28
Verticality Results for Site C - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mm) (2325mm)

Table

4 1 -3 16 0.0141 0.01 13 0.0056 -0.0128 0.0184 0.01

2 -4 -13 -0.0024 0.01 -17 -0.0073 -0.0128 0.0055 0.01

3 6 4 -0.0060 0.01 10 0.0043 -0.0128 0.0171 0.01

4 -14 -3 0.0180 0.01 -17 -0.0073 -0.0128 0.0055 0.01

MEAN -3.75 1.00 0.0059 0.01 -2.75 -0.0012 -0.0128 0.0116 0.01

5 25 25 -0.0200 0.01 50 0.0215 -0.0128 0.0343 0.01

6 -4 -12 -0.0017 0.01 -16 -0.0069 -0.0128 0.0059 0.01

7 -6 -3 0.0067 0.01 -9 -0.0039 -0.0128 0.0089 0.01

8 -1 -11 -0.0054 0.01 -12 -0.0052 -0.0128 0.0077 0.01

MEAN 3.50 -0.25 -0.0051 0.01 3.25 0.0014 -0.0128 0.0142 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mm) (2325mm)

Table

4 1 -7 25 0.0254 0.01 18 0.0077 0.0000 0.0077 0.01

5 46 -1 -0.0659 0.01 45 0.0194 0.0000 0.0194 0.01

MEAN 19.50 12.00 -0.0202 0.01 31.50 0.0135 0.0000 0.0135 0.01

2 -7 1 0.0105 0.01 -6 -0.0026 0.0000 -0.0026 0.01

6 12 -15 -0.0263 0.01 -3 -0.0013 0.0000 -0.0013 0.01

MEAN 2.50 -7.00 -0.0079 0.01 -4.50 -0.0019 0.0000 -0.0019 0.01

3 -14 -4 0.0174 0.01 -18 -0.0077 0.0000 -0.0077 0.01

7 5 11 -0.0003 0.01 16 0.0069 0.0000 0.0069 0.01

MEAN -4.50 3.50 0.0085 0.01 -1 -0.0004 0.0000 -0.0004 0.01

4 2 20 0.0095 0.01 22 0.0095 0.0000 0.0095 0.01

8 11 18 -0.0045 0.01 29 0.0125 0.0000 0.0125 0.01

MEAN 6.50 19.00 0.0025 0.01 25.50 0.0110 0.0000 0.0110 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mm) (2325mm)

Table

5 1 -98 44 0.1668 0.01 -54 -0.0232 -0.0192 -0.0040 0.01

2 -20 -21 0.0154 0.01 -41 -0.0176 -0.0192 0.0016 0.01

3 -53 16 0.0851 0.01 -37 -0.0159 -0.0192 0.0033 0.01

4 -27 -29 0.0204 0.01 -56 -0.0241 -0.0192 -0.0049 0.01

MEAN -49.50 2.50 0.0718 0.01 -47 -0.0202 -0.0192 -0.0010 0.01

5 19 7 -0.0226 0.01 26 0.0112 -0.0192 0.0304 0.01

6 -14 -23 0.0057 0.01 -37 -0.0159 -0.0192 0.0033 0.01

7 -30 4 0.0450 0.01 -26 -0.0112 -0.0192 0.0080 0.01

8 -40 3 0.0586 0.01 -37 -0.0159 -0.0192 0.0033 0.01

MEAN -16.25 -2.25 0.0217 0.01 -18.50 -0.0080 -0.0192 0.0113 0.01

116
 Table 28
Verticality Results for Site C - Visit 1
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan Spec.

Leg No. (705 mm) (1620 mm) (2325mm)

Table

5 1 -81 58 0.1513 0.01 -23 -0.0099 0.0000 -0.0099 0.01

5 41 14 -0.0495 0.01 55 0.0237 0.0000 0.0237 0.01

MEAN -20.00 36.00 0.0506 0.01 16 0.0069 0.0000 0.0069 0.01

2 -7 13 0.0180 0.01 6 0.0026 0.0000 0.0026 0.01

6 17 11 -0.0173 0.01 28 0.0120 0.0000 0.0120 0.01

MEAN 5.00 12.00 0.0003 0.01 17 0.0073 0.0000 0.0073 0.01

3 -49 48 0.0993 0.01 -1 -0.0004 0.0000 -0.0004 0.01

7 -15 32 0.0410 0.01 17 0.0073 0.0000 0.0073 0.01

MEAN -32.00 40.00 0.0702 0.01 8 0.0034 0.0000 0.0034 0.01

4 -2 21 0.0158 0.01 19 0.0082 0.0000 0.0082 0.01

8 -14 28 0.0372 0.01 14 0.0060 0.0000 0.0060 0.01

MEAN -8.00 24.50 0.0265 0.01 16.50 0.0071 0.0000 0.0071 0.01

117
 Table 29
Verticality Results for Site C - Visit 2

Site C
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)
Table
1 1 -10 -29 -0.0040 0.01 -39 -0.0167 -0.0192 0.0026 0.01
2 -9 -27 -0.0042 0.01 -36 -0.0154 -0.0192 0.0038 0.01
3 -6 -30 -0.0102 0.01 -36 -0.0154 -0.0192 0.0038 0.01
MEAN -8.33 -28.67 -0.0061 0.01 -37.00 -0.0158 -0.0192 0.0034 0.01
4 -11 -4 0.0128 0.01 -15 -0.0064 -0.0192 0.0128 0.01
5 -6 -4 0.0059 0.01 -10 -0.0043 -0.0192 0.0150 0.01
6 -8 -1 0.0105 0.01 -9 -0.0038 -0.0192 0.0154 0.01
MEAN -8.33 -3.00 0.0097 0.01 -11.33 -0.0048 -0.0192 0.0144 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Jack Standard Jack Angle PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) Spec. (2340 mm high) Spec.

1 1 -13 2 0.0193 0.01 -11 -0.0047 0.0000 -0.0047 0.01

6 2 27 0.0139 0.01 29 0.0124 0.0000 0.0124 0.01
MEAN -5.50 14.50 0.0166 0.01 9.00 0.0038 0.0000 0.0038 0.01
2 -12 -6 0.0130 0.01 -18 -0.0077 0.0000 -0.0077 0.01
5 10 29 0.0040 0.01 39 0.0167 0.0000 0.0167 0.01
MEAN -1.00 11.50 0.0085 0.01 10.50 0.0045 0.0000 0.0045 0.01
3 -20 -6 0.0241 0.01 -26 -0.0111 0.0000 -0.0111 0.01
4 12 31 0.0025 0.01 43 0.0184 0.0000 0.0184 0.01
MEAN -4.00 12.50 0.0133 0.01 8.50 0.0036 0.0000 0.0036 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)

2 1 -11 -34 -0.0057 0.01 -45 -0.0192 -0.0192 0.0000 0.01

2 -14 -27 0.0028 0.01 -41 -0.0175 -0.0192 0.0017 0.01
3 -17 -36 0.0014 0.01 -53 -0.0226 -0.0192 -0.0034 0.01
MEAN -14.00 -32.33 -0.0005 0.01 -46.33 -0.0198 -0.0192 -0.0006 0.01
4 -16 -31 0.0031 0.01 -47 -0.0201 -0.0192 -0.0009 0.01
5 -10 -30 -0.0046 0.01 -40 -0.0171 -0.0192 0.0021 0.01
6 -10 -25 -0.0015 0.01 -35 -0.0150 -0.0192 0.0043 0.01
MEAN -12.00 -28.67 -0.0010 0.01 -40.67 -0.0174 -0.0192 0.0019 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)

2 1 -16 1 0.0228 0.01 -15 -0.0064 0.0000 -0.0064 0.01

6 -12 -3 0.0148 0.01 -15 -0.0064 0.0000 -0.0064 0.01
MEAN -14.00 -1.00 0.0188 0.01 -15.00 -0.0064 0.0000 -0.0064 0.01
2 -12 -6 0.0130 0.01 -18 -0.0077 0.0000 -0.0077 0.01
5 -12 2 0.0179 0.01 -10 -0.0043 0.0000 -0.0043 0.01
MEAN -12.00 -2.00 0.0154 0.01 -14.00 -0.0060 0.0000 -0.0060 0.01
3 -17 -2 0.0224 0.01 -19 -0.0081 0.0000 -0.0081 0.01
4 14 -3 -0.0213 0.01 11 0.0047 0.0000 0.0047 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -2.50 0.0005 0.01 -4.00 -0.0017 0.0000 -0.0017 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)
3 1 -18 -35 0.0034 0.01 -53 -0.0226 -0.0192 -0.0034 0.01
2 -12 -35 -0.0049 0.01 -47 -0.0201 -0.0192 -0.0009 0.01
3 -9 -28 -0.0048 0.01 -37 -0.0158 -0.0192 0.0034 0.01
MEAN -13.00 -32.67 -0.0021 0.01 -45.67 -0.0195 -0.0192 -0.0003 0.01
4 -8 -25 -0.0043 0.01 -33 -0.0141 -0.0192 0.0051 0.01
5 -8 -25 -0.0043 0.01 -33 -0.0141 -0.0192 0.0051 0.01
6 -13 -28 0.0008 0.01 -41 -0.0175 -0.0192 0.0017 0.01
MEAN -9.67 -26.00 -0.0026 0.01 -35.67 -0.0152 -0.0192 0.0040 0.01

118
 Table 29
Verticality Results for Site C - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)
3 1 -7 -4 0.0073 0.01 -11 -0.0047 0.0000 -0.0047 0.01
6 15 4 -0.0184 0.01 19 0.0081 0.0000 0.0081 0.01
MEAN 4.00 0.00 -0.0056 0.01 4.00 0.0017 0.0000 0.0017 0.01
2 -5 -1 0.0063 0.01 -6 -0.0026 0.0000 -0.0026 0.01
5 19 -10 -0.0326 0.01 9 0.0038 0.0000 0.0038 0.01
MEAN 7.00 -5.50 -0.0131 0.01 1.50 0.0006 0.0000 0.0006 0.01
3 -12 -7 0.0123 0.01 -19 -0.0081 0.0000 -0.0081 0.01
4 11 -5 -0.0184 0.01 6 0.0026 0.0000 0.0026 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -6.00 -0.0030 0.01 -6.50 -0.0028 0.0000 -0.0028 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)
4 1 86 47 -0.0901 0.01 133 0.0568 0.0192 0.0376 0.01
2 0 19 0.0117 0.01 19 0.0081 0.0192 -0.0111 0.01
3 11 21 -0.0023 0.01 32 0.0137 0.0192 -0.0056 0.01
MEAN 32.33 29.00 -0.0270 0.01 61.33 0.0262 0.0192 0.0070 0.01
4 6 29 0.0096 0.01 35 0.0150 0.0192 -0.0043 0.01
5 15 30 -0.0023 0.01 45 0.0192 0.0192 0.0000 0.01
6 18 30 -0.0065 0.01 48 0.0205 0.0192 0.0013 0.01
MEAN 13.00 29.67 0.0003 0.01 42.67 0.0182 0.0192 -0.0010 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)
4 1 66 -74 -0.1379 0.01 -8 -0.0034 0.0000 -0.0034 0.01
6 -24 -16 0.0234 0.01 -40 -0.0171 0.0000 -0.0171 0.01
MEAN 21.00 -45.00 -0.0570 0.01 -24.00 -0.0103 0.0000 -0.0103 0.01
2 -19 -8 0.0214 0.01 -27 -0.0115 0.0000 -0.0115 0.01
5 2 2 -0.0015 0.01 4 0.0017 0.0000 0.0017 0.01
MEAN -8.50 -3.00 0.0100 0.01 -11.50 -0.0049 0.0000 -0.0049 0.01
3 -2 9 0.0083 0.01 7 0.0030 0.0000 0.0030 0.01
4 9 1 -0.0119 0.01 10 0.0043 0.0000 0.0043 0.01
MEAN 3.50 5.00 -0.0018 0.01 8.50 0.0036 0.0000 0.0036 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)
0.0000 0.01 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.01
5 1 13 25 -0.0026 0.01 38 0.0162 0.0192 -0.0030 0.01
2 8 27 0.0056 0.01 35 0.0150 0.0192 -0.0043 0.01
3 7 21 0.0032 0.01 28 0.0120 0.0192 -0.0073 0.01
MEAN 9.33 24.33 0.0021 0.01 33.67 0.0144 0.0192 -0.0048 0.01
4 15 38 0.0026 0.01 53 0.0226 0.0192 0.0034 0.01
5 15 2 -0.0196 0.01 17 0.0073 0.0192 -0.0120 0.01
6 8 32 0.0086 0.01 40 0.0171 0.0192 -0.0021 0.01
MEAN 12.67 24 -0.0028 0.01 36.67 0.0157 0.0192 -0.0036 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)
5 1 -9 -4 0.0100 0.01 -13 -0.0056 0.0000 -0.0056 0.01
6 10 -4 -0.0164 0.01 6 0.0026 0.0000 0.0026 0.01
MEAN 0.50 -4.00 -0.0032 0.01 -3.50 -0.0015 0.0000 -0.0015 0.01
2 -11 4 0.0177 0.01 -7 -0.0030 0.0000 -0.0030 0.01
5 7 -32 -0.0295 0.01 -25 -0.0107 0.0000 -0.0107 0.01
MEAN -2 -14 -0.0059 0.01 -16.00 -0.0068 0.0000 -0.0068 0.01
3 -7 0 0.0097 0.01 -7 -0.0030 0.0000 -0.0030 0.01
4 11 -1 -0.0159 0.01 10 0.0043 0.0000 0.0043 0.01
MEAN 2.00 -0.50 -0.0031 0.01 1.50 0.0006 0.0000 0.0006 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)
6 1 14 30 -0.0009 0.01 44 0.0188 0.0192 -0.0004 0.01
2 10 28 0.0034 0.01 38 0.0162 0.0192 -0.0030 0.01
3 9 29 0.0054 0.01 38 0.0162 0.0192 -0.0030 0.01
MEAN 9.50 29.00 0.0047 0.01 38.50 0.0165 0.0192 -0.0028 0.01
4 15 36 0.0014 0.01 51 0.0218 0.0192 0.0026 0.01
5 21 36 -0.0069 0.01 57 0.0244 0.0192 0.0051 0.01
6 49 36 -0.0458 0.01 85 0.0363 0.0192 0.0171 0.01
MEAN 28.33 36.00 -0.0171 0.01 64.33 0.0275 0.0192 0.0083 0.01
119
 Table 29
Verticality Results for Site C - Visit 2
Visit2 (Y-direction Im perfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)

6 1 -6 -6 0.0046 0.01 -12 -0.0051 0.0000 -0.0051 0.01

6 49 -4 -0.0705 0.01 45 0.0192 0.0000 0.0192 0.01
M EAN 21.50 -5.00 -0.0330 0.01 16.50 0.0071 0.0000 0.0071 0.01
2 10 0 -0.0139 0.01 10 0.0043 0.0000 0.0043 0.01
5 -19 -6 0.0227 0.01 -25 -0.0107 0.0000 -0.0107 0.01
M EAN -4.50 -3.00 0.0044 0.01 -7.50 -0.0032 0.0000 -0.0032 0.01
3 5 1 -0.0063 0.01 6 0.0026 0.0000 0.0026 0.01
4 -14 1 0.0201 0.01 -13 -0.0056 0.0000 -0.0056 0.01
M EAN -4.50 1.00 0.0069 0.01 -3.50 -0.0015 0.0000 -0.0015 0.01

Visit2 (X-direction Im perfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)
7 1 7 33 0.0106 0.01 40 0.0171 0.0192 -0.0021 0.01
2 6 29 0.0096 0.01 35 0.0150 0.0192 -0.0043 0.01
3 11 30 0.0032 0.01 41 0.0175 0.0192 -0.0017 0.01
M EAN 8.00 30.67 0.0078 0.01 38.67 0.0165 0.0192 -0.0027 0.01
4 14 32 0.0003 0.01 46 0.0197 0.0192 0.0004 0.01
5 6 31 0.0108 0.01 37 0.0158 0.0192 -0.0034 0.01
6 12 34 0.0043 0.01 46 0.0197 0.0192 0.0004 0.01
M EAN 10.67 32.33 0.0051 0.01 43.00 0.0184 0.0192 -0.0009 0.01

Visit2 (Y-direction Im perfection)

Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan Tan Slope Angle Modified Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (720 mm high) (1620 mm high) (2340 mm high)

7 1 9 6 -0.0088 0.01 15 0.0064 0.0000 0.0064 0.01

6 -5 -6 0.0032 0.01 -11 -0.0047 0.0000 -0.0047 0.01
M EAN 2 0 -0.0028 0.01 2.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0009 0.01
2 11 1 -0.0147 0.01 12 0.0051 0.0000 0.0051 0.01
5 -11 -4 0.0128 0.01 -15 -0.0064 0.0000 -0.0064 0.01
M EAN 0.00 -1.50 -0.0009 0.01 -1.50 -0.0006 0.0000 -0.0006 0.01
3 6 1 -0.0077 0.01 7 0.0030 0.0000 0.0030 0.01
4 -17 -4 0.0211 0.01 -21 -0.0090 0.0000 -0.0090 0.01
M EAN -5.50 -1.50 0.0067 0.01 -7.00 -0.0030 0.0000 -0.0030 0.01

120
 Table 30
Verticality Results for Site D - Visit 1

Site D

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

1 1 11 0 -0.0106 0.01 11 0.0039 0.01

3 -12 -15 0.0033 0.01 -27 -0.0095 0.01
5 10 23 0.0030 0.01 33 0.0116 0.01
MEAN 3.00 2.67 -0.0014 0.01 5.67 0.0020 0.01
2 -9 -11 0.0026 0.01 -20 -0.0070 0.01
4 71 -64 -0.1039 0.01 7 0.0025 0.01
6 -3 -4 0.0007 0.01 -7 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN 19.67 -26.33 -0.0334 0.01 -6.67 -0.0023 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

1 1 -35 -14 0.0261 0.01 -49 -0.0172 0.01

2 8 4 -0.0055 0.01 12 0.0042 0.01
MEAN -13.50 -5.00 0.0103 0.01 -18.50 -0.0065 0.01
3 2 11 0.0041 0.01 13 0.0046 0.01
4 -75 57 0.1039 0.01 -18 -0.0063 0.01
MEAN -36.50 34.00 0.0539 0.01 -2.50 -0.0009 0.01
5 -27 -8 0.0216 0.01 -35 -0.0123 0.01
6 -11 -21 -0.0009 0.01 -32 -0.0112 0.01
MEAN -19.00 -14.50 0.0104 0.01 -33.50 -0.0117 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

2 1 -19 1 0.0189 0.01 -18 -0.0063 0.01

3 -1 4 0.0032 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
5 4 -4 -0.0061 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -5.33 0.33 0.0053 0.01 -5.00 -0.0018 0.01
2 11 1 -0.0101 0.01 12 0.0042 0.01
4 7 5 -0.0040 0.01 12 0.0042 0.01
6 6 4 -0.0036 0.01 10 0.0035 0.01
MEAN 8.00 3.33 -0.0059 0.01 11.33 0.0040 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)
0.01
2 1 -4 8 0.0083 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01
2 10 7 -0.0058 0.01 17 0.0060 0.01
MEAN 3.00 7.50 0.0012 0.01 10.50 0.0037 0.01
3 0 11 0.0060 0.01 11 0.0039 0.01
4 -18 -12 0.0108 0.01 -30 -0.0105 0.01
MEAN -9.00 -0.50 0.0084 0.01 -9.50 -0.0033 0.01
5 -35 -8 0.0294 0.01 -43 -0.0151 0.01
6 17 4 -0.0142 0.01 21 0.0074 0.01
MEAN -9.00 -2.00 0.0076 0.01 -11.00 -0.0039 0.01

121
 Table 30
Verticality Results for Site D - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

3 1 4 8 0.0005 0.01 12 0.0042 0.01

3 5 -1 -0.0054 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01
5 11 -6 -0.0139 0.01 5 0.0018 0.01
MEAN 6.67 0.33 -0.0062 0.01 7.00 0.0025 0.01
2 8 -4 -0.0099 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01
4 -1 -3 -0.0007 0.01 -4 -0.0014 0.01
6 3 11 0.0032 0.01 14 0.0049 0.01
MEAN 3.33 1.33 -0.0025 0.01 4.67 0.0016 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

3 1 0 -6 -0.0033 0.01 -6 -0.0021 0.01

2 -25 -6 0.0208 0.01 -31 -0.0109 0.01
MEAN -12.5 -6.00 0.0088 0.01 -18.50 -0.0065 0.01
3 -1 1 0.0015 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
4 -1 0 0.0010 0.01 -1 -0.0004 0.01
MEAN -1.00 0.50 0.0012 0.01 -0.50 -0.0002 0.01
5 -15 2 0.0156 0.01 -13 -0.0046 0.01
6 12 3 -0.0099 0.01 15 0.0053 0.01
MEAN -1.50 2.50 0.0028 0.01 1.00 0.0004 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

4 1 -7 -3 0.0051 0.01 -10 -0.0035 0.01

3 5 8 -0.0004 0.01 13 0.0046 0.01
5 11 4 -0.0084 0.01 15 0.0053 0.01
MEAN 3 3.00 -0.0012 0.01 6.00 0.0021 0.01
2 0 3 0.0016 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
4 -13 -7 0.0087 0.01 -20 -0.0070 0.01
6 -9 -6 0.0054 0.01 -15 -0.0053 0.01
MEAN -7.33 -3.33 0.0052 0.01 -10.67 -0.0037 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

4 1 4 6 -0.0006 0.01 10 0.0035 0.01

2 14 -4 -0.0157 0.01 10 0.0035 0.01
MEAN 9.00 1.00 -0.0081 0.01 10.00 0.0035 0.01
3 -14 1 0.0141 0.01 -13 -0.0046 0.01
4 4 0 -0.0039 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01
MEAN -5.00 0.50 0.0051 0.01 -4.50 -0.0016 0.01
5 -14 4 0.0157 0.01 -10 -0.0035 0.01
6 8 -4 -0.0099 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01
MEAN -3.00 0.00 0.0029 0.01 -3.00 -0.0011 0.01

122
 Table 30
Verticality Results for Site D - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)
0.01
5 1 -10 -4 0.0074 0.01 -14 -0.0049 0.01
3 7 -4 -0.0089 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
5 23 16 -0.0134 0.01 39 0.0137 0.01
MEAN 6.67 2.67 -0.0050 0.01 9.33 0.0033 0.01

2 9 -4 -0.0109 0.01 5 0.0018 0.01

4 24 -4 -0.0253 0.01 20 0.0070 0.01
6 -37 13 0.0428 0.01 -24 -0.0084 0.01
MEAN -1.33 1.67 0.0022 0.01 0.33 0.0001 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

5 1 -27 -11 0.0200 0.01 -38 -0.0133 0.01

2 -2 7 0.0058 0.01 5 0.0018 0.01
MEAN -14.50 -2.00 0.0129 0.01 -16.5 -0.0058 0.01
3 -10 -4 0.0074 0.01 -14 -0.0049 0.01
4 20 -4 -0.0215 0.01 16 0.0056 0.01
MEAN 5.00 -4.00 -0.0070 0.01 1.00 0.0004 0.01
5 -1 1 0.0015 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
6 5 -1 -0.0054 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01
MEAN 2.00 0.00 -0.0019 0.01 2.00 0.0007 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

6 1 -8 -2 0.0066 0.01 -10 -0.0035 0.01

3 0 4 0.0022 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01
5 -7 4 0.0089 0.01 -3 -0.0011 0.01
MEAN -5.00 2.00 0.0059 0.01 -3.00 -0.0011 0.01
2 5 -1 -0.0054 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01
4 -21 11 0.0263 0.01 -10 -0.0035 0.01
6 13 3 -0.0109 0.01 16 0.0056 0.01
MEAN -1.00 4.33 0.0033 0.01 3.33 0.0012 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tangent of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1037 mm) (1820 mm) (2857mm)

6 1 -2 -5 -0.0008 0.01 -7 -0.0025 0.01

2 12 -1 -0.0121 0.01 11 0.0039 0.01
MEAN 5.00 -3.00 -0.0065 0.01 2.00 0.0007 0.01
3 -3 -4 0.0007 0.01 -7 -0.0025 0.01
4 -7 4 0.0089 0.01 -3 -0.0011 0.01
MEAN -5.00 0.00 0.0048 0.01 -5.00 -0.0018 0.01
5 -2 -1 0.0014 0.01 -3 -0.0011 0.01
6 2 3 -0.0003 0.01 5 0.0018 0.01
MEAN 0.00 1.00 0.0005 0.01 1.00 0.0004 0.01

123
 Table 31
Verticality Results for Site D - Visit 2
Site D

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

1 1 12 -7 -0.0147 0.01 5 0.0017 0.01

3 -4 -12 -0.0028 0.01 -16 -0.0054 0.01
5 -14 -13 0.0058 0.01 -27 -0.0092 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -10.67 -0.0039 0.01 -12.67 -0.0043 0.01

2 -5 -12 -0.0019 0.01 -17 -0.0058 0.01

4 -3 -8 -0.0016 0.01 -11 -0.0037 0.01
6 7 0 -0.0064 0.01 7 0.0024 0.01
MEAN -0.33 -6.67 -0.0033 0.01 -7.00 -0.0024 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

1 1 -22 -14 0.0125 0.01 -36 -0.0122 0.01

2 24 8 -0.0176 0.01 32 0.0109 0.01
MEAN 1.00 -3.00 -0.0025 0.01 -2.00 -0.0007 0.01
3 -7 11 0.0123 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01
4 5 10 0.0008 0.01 15 0.0051 0.01
MEAN -1.00 10.50 0.0066 0.01 9.50 0.0032 0.01
5 -37 -4 0.0316 0.01 -41 -0.0139 0.01
6 30 11 -0.0214 0.01 41 0.0139 0.01
MEAN -3.50 3.50 0.0051 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

2 1 22 0 -0.0201 0.01 22 0.0075 0.01

3 4 -3 -0.0053 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
5 -33 -16 0.0215 0.01 -49 -0.0166 0.01
MEAN -2.33 -6.33 -0.0013 0.01 -8.67 -0.0029 0.01
0.01
2 2 -7 -0.0056 0.01 -5 -0.0017 0.01
4 -6 -9 0.0006 0.01 -15 -0.0051 0.01
6 -6 -7 0.0017 0.01 -13 -0.0044 0.01
MEAN -3.33 -7.67 -0.0011 0.01 -11.00 -0.0037 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

2 1 -28 -14 0.0180 0.01 -42 -0.0143 0.01

2 8 11 -0.0014 0.01 19 0.0065 0.01
MEAN -10.00 -1.50 0.0083 0.01 -11.50 -0.0039 0.01
3 -12 -8 0.0066 0.01 -20 -0.0068 0.01
4 14 5 -0.0101 0.01 19 0.0065 0.01
MEAN 1.00 -1.50 -0.0017 0.01 -0.50 -0.0002 0.01
5 -7 9 0.0113 0.01 2 0.0007 0.01
6 3 -7 -0.0065 0.01 -4 -0.0014 0.01
MEAN -2.00 1.00 0.0024 0.01 -1.00 -0.0003 0.01

124
 Table 31
Verticality Results for Site D - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)
Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

3 1 -23 -19 0.0107 0.01 -42 -0.0143 0.01

3 8 6 -0.0041 0.01 14 0.0048 0.01
5 11 6 -0.0068 0.01 17 0.0058 0.01
MEAN -1.33 -2.33 0.0000 0.01 -3.67 -0.0012 0.01

2 -17 -20 0.0047 0.01 -37 -0.0126 0.01

4 -4 -5 0.0010 0.01 -9 -0.0031 0.01
6 -5 -7 0.0008 0.01 -12 -0.0041 0.01
MEAN -8.67 -10.67 0.0021 0.01 -19.33 -0.0066 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

3 1 0 -1 -0.0005 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01

2 14 -1 -0.0133 0.01 13 0.0044 0.01
MEAN 7.00 -1.00 -0.0069 0.01 6.00 0.0020 0.01
3 0 -3 -0.0016 0.01 -3 -0.0010 0.01
4 16 2 -0.0135 0.01 18 0.0061 0.01
MEAN 8.00 -0.50 -0.0076 0.01 7.50 0.0025 0.01
5 -32 4 0.0314 0.01 -28 -0.0095 0.01
6 5 6 -0.0013 0.01 11 0.0037 0.01
MEAN -13.50 5.00 0.0150 0.01 -8.50 -0.0029 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

4 1 -7 -9 0.0015 0.01 -16 -0.0054 0.01

3 1 2 0.0002 0.01 3 0.0010 0.01
5 -17 1 0.0161 0.01 -16 -0.0054 0.01
MEAN -7.67 -2.00 0.0059 0.01 -9.67 -0.0033 0.01
2 16 13 -0.0076 0.01 29 0.0098 0.01
4 -11 -8 0.0057 0.01 -19 -0.0065 0.01
6 -22 0 0.0201 0.01 -22 -0.0075 0.01
MEAN -5.67 1.67 0.0061 0.01 -4.00 -0.0014 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

4 1 -2 6 0.0051 0.01 4 0.0014 0.01

2 0 -6 -0.0032 0.01 -6 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -1.00 0.00 0.0009 0.01 -1.00 -0.0003 0.01
3 6 2 -0.0044 0.01 8 0.0027 0.01
4 0 -1 -0.0005 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
MEAN 3.00 0.50 -0.0025 0.01 3.50 0.0012 0.01
5 -16 -8 0.0103 0.01 -24 -0.0081 0.01
6 -3 0 0.0027 0.01 -3 -0.0010 0.01
MEAN -9.50 -4.00 0.0065 0.01 -13.50 -0.0046 0.01

125
 Table 31
Verticality Results for Site D - Visit 2
Visit2 (X-direction Im perfection)
Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

5 1 9 -4 -0.0104 0.01 5 0.0017 0.01

3 -2 -7 -0.0020 0.01 -9 -0.0031 0.01
5 12 4 -0.0088 0.01 16 0.0054 0.01
M EAN 6.33 -2.33 -0.0070 0.01 4.00 0.0014 0.01
2 -11 -3 0.0084 0.01 -14 -0.0048 0.01
4 0 -2 -0.0011 0.01 -2 -0.0007 0.01
6 6 1 -0.0049 0.01 7 0.0024 0.01
M EAN -1.67 -1.33 0.0008 0.01 -3.00 -0.0010 0.01

Visit2 (Y-direction tanfIm perfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

5 1 -10 -12 0.0026 0.01 -22 -0.0075 0.01

2 -14 -10 0.0074 0.01 -24 -0.0081 0.01
M EAN -12.00 -11.00 0.0050 0.01 -23.00 -0.0078 0.01
3 -11 -4 0.0079 0.01 -15 -0.0051 0.01
4 3 -5 -0.0054 0.01 -2 -0.0007 0.01
M EAN -4.00 -4.50 0.0012 0.01 -8.50 -0.0029 0.01
5 -27 -10 0.0192 0.01 -37 -0.0126 0.01
6 9 -9 -0.0131 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
M EAN -9.00 -9.50 0.0031 0.01 -18.50 -0.0063 0.01

Visit2(X-direction Im perfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

6 1 -4 -6 0.0004 0.01 -10 -0.0034 0.01

3 -1 0 0.0009 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
5 5 4 -0.0024 0.01 9 0.0031 0.01
M EAN 0.00 -0.67 -0.0004 0.01 -0.67 -0.0002 0.01
2 -11 4 0.0122 0.01 -7 -0.0024 0.01
4 1 4 0.0012 0.01 5 0.0017 0.01
6 9 -4 -0.0104 0.01 5 0.0017 0.01
M EAN -0.33 1.33 0.0010 0.01 1.00 0.0003 0.01

Visit2 (Y-direction Im perfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std. PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table (1095 mm) (1850 mm) (2945mm)

6 1 -8 -13 0.0003 0.01 -21 -0.0071 0.01

2 -4 -7 -0.0001 0.01 -11 -0.0037 0.01
M EAN -6.00 -10.00 0.0001 0.01 -16.00 -0.0054 0.01
3 -10 3 0.0108 0.01 -7 -0.0024 0.01
4 13 4 -0.0097 0.01 17 0.0058 0.01
M EAN 1.50 3.50 0.0005 0.01 5.00 0.0017 0.01
5 -10 10 0.0145 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
6 12 5 -0.0083 0.01 17 0.0058 0.01
M EAN 1.00 7.50 0.0031 0.01 8.50 0.0029 0.01

126
 Table 32
Verticality Results for Site D2 - Visit 1

Site D2
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (175 mm) (2500 mm) Angle (320 mm) Angle (2995 mm)

1 0 3 0.0012 0.01 1 0.0019 0.01 4 0.0013 0.01

2 0 -1 -0.0004 0.01 -1 -0.0027 0.01 -2 -0.0007 0.01
3 0 4 0.0016 0.01 -2 -0.0079 0.01 2 0.0007 0.01
4 0 -5 -0.0020 0.01 -4 -0.0105 0.01 -9 -0.0030 0.01
5 0 -6 -0.0024 0.01 2 0.0087 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01
6 0 -2 -0.0008 0.01 2 0.0071 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
7 0 6 0.0024 0.01 5 0.0132 0.01 11 0.0037 0.01
8 0 -4 -0.0016 0.01 0 0.0016 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01
9 0 7 0.0028 0.01 2 0.0034 0.01 9 0.0030 0.01

Visit 1(Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (175 mm) (2500 mm) Angle (320 mm) Angle (2995 mm)

1 0 -1 -0.0004 0.01 -1 -0.0027 0.01 -2 -0.0007 0.01

2 0 -9 -0.0036 0.01 -4 -0.0089 0.01 -13 -0.0043 0.01
3 0 8 0.0032 0.01 -5 -0.0188 0.01 3 0.0010 0.01
4 0 -9 -0.0036 0.01 4 0.0161 0.01 -5 -0.0017 0.01
5 0 1 0.0004 0.01 -2 -0.0067 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
6 0 -6 -0.0024 0.01 2 0.0087 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01
7 0 -2 -0.0008 0.01 2 0.0071 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
8 0 6 0.0024 0.01 5 0.0132 0.01 11 0.0037 0.01
9 0 -4 -0.0016 0.01 0 0.0016 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01

127
 Table 33
Verticality Results for Site D2 - Visit 2

Site D2

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (200 mm) (2500 mm) Angle (295mm) Angle (2995 mm)

1 -4 -13 0.0148 0.01 -4 -0.0084 0.01 -21 -0.0070 0.01

2 0 25 0.0100 0.01 4 0.0036 0.01 29 0.0097 0.01
3 2 11 -0.0056 0.01 4 0.0092 0.01 17 0.0057 0.01
4 1 12 -0.0002 0.01 1 -0.0014 0.01 14 0.0047 0.01
5 -1 -8 0.0018 0.01 -2 -0.0036 0.01 -11 -0.0037 0.01
6 3 -1 -0.0154 0.01 5 0.0173 0.01 7 0.0023 0.01
7 -11 -1 0.0546 0.01 1 0.0038 0.01 -11 -0.0037 0.01
8 1 -14 -0.0106 0.01 -1 0.0022 0.01 -14 -0.0047 0.01
9 0 -17 -0.0068 0.01 -3 -0.0034 0.01 -20 -0.0067 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (175 mm) (2500 mm) Angle (320 mm) Angle (2995 mm)

1 -6 -17 0.0275 0.01 -1 0.0037 0.01 -24 -0.0080 0.01

2 -1 -17 -0.0011 0.01 0 0.0068 0.01 -18 -0.0060 0.01
3 -2 2 0.0122 0.01 0 -0.0008 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
4 -2 13 0.0166 0.01 3 0.0042 0.01 14 0.0047 0.01
5 -1 12 0.0105 0.01 -2 -0.0111 0.01 9 0.0030 0.01
6 -1 4 0.0073 0.01 2 0.0046 0.01 5 0.0017 0.01
7 -9 -3 0.0502 0.01 0 0.0012 0.01 -12 -0.0040 0.01
8 1 -11 -0.0101 0.01 -1 0.0013 0.01 -11 -0.0037 0.01
9 1 -11 -0.0101 0.01 0 0.0044 0.01 -10 -0.0033 0.01

128
 Table 34
Verticality Results for Site E - Visit 1

Site E
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (750 mm) (2500 mm) Angle (3250mm)

1 1 4 14 0.0003 0.01 18 0.0055 0.01

2 11 20 -0.0067 0.01 31 0.0095 0.01
3 2 4 -0.0011 0.01 6 0.0018 0.01
4 9 16 -0.0056 0.01 25 0.0077 0.01
MEAN 6.50 13.50 -0.0033 0.01 20.00 0.0062 0.01
5 -1 6 0.0037 0.01 5 0.0015 0.01
6 4 8 -0.0021 0.01 12 0.0037 0.01
7 0 10 0.0040 0.01 10 0.0031 0.01
8 6 13 -0.0028 0.01 19 0.0058 0.01
MEAN 2.25 9.25 0.0007 0.01 11.50 0.0035 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (750 mm) (2500 mm) Angle (3250mm)

1 1 -1 -17 -0.0055 0.01 -18 -0.0055 0.01

5 -10 -11 0.0089 0.01 -21 -0.0065 0.01
MEAN -5.50 -14.00 0.0017 0.01 -19.50 -0.0060 0.01
2 6 -11 -0.0124 0.01 -5 -0.0015 0.01
6 -6 3 0.0092 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -4.00 -0.0016 0.01 -4.00 -0.0012 0.01
3 4 8 -0.0021 0.01 12 0.0037 0.01
7 -1 11 0.0057 0.01 10 0.0031 0.01
MEAN 1.50 9.50 0.0018 0.01 11.00 0.0034 0.01
4 11 13 -0.0095 0.01 24 0.0074 0.01
8 4 6 -0.0029 0.01 10 0.0031 0.01
MEAN 7.50 9.50 -0.0062 0.01 17.00 0.0052 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Mid & PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Jack Mid Section Base Jack Spec Top Section Top Sections Spec. Spec
Table Leg No. (610 mm) (1400 mm) Angle (2220 mm) Angle (4230mm)

2 9 3 1 -0.0042 0.01 -1 -0.0012 0.01 3 0.0007 0.01

10 0 1 0.0007 0.01 -3 -0.0021 0.01 -2 -0.0005 0.01
11 5 -1 -0.0089 0.01 0 0.0007 0.01 4 0.0009 0.01
12 4 -1 -0.0073 0.01 10 0.0052 0.01 13 0.0031 0.01
13 4 4 -0.0037 0.01 -4 -0.0047 0.01 4 0.0009 0.01
MEAN 3.20 0.80 -0.0047 0.01 0.40 -0.0004 0.01 4.40 0.0010 0.01
14 -3 -1 0.0042 0.01 -3 -0.0006 0.01 -7 -0.0017 0.01
15 -7 -2 0.0100 0.01 2 0.0023 0.01 -7 -0.0017 0.01
16 -4 -6 0.0023 0.01 1 0.0047 0.01 -9 -0.0021 0.01
17 2 -4 -0.0061 0.01 -6 0.0002 0.01 -8 -0.0019 0.01
18 -1 3 0.0038 0.01 -9 -0.0062 0.01 -7 -0.0017 0.01
MEAN -2.60 -2.00 0.0028 0.01 -3.00 0.0001 0.01 -7.60 -0.0018 0.01

129
 Table 34
Verticality Results for Site E - Visit 1
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Mid & PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Jack Mid Section Base Jack Spec Top Section Top Sections Spec. Spec
Table Leg No. (610 mm) (1400 mm) Angle (2220 mm) Angle (4230mm)

2 9 8 6 -0.0088 0.01 4 -0.0025 0.01 18 0.0043 0.01

14 -10 -20 0.0021 0.01 -42 -0.0046 0.01 -72 -0.0170 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -7.00 -0.0034 0.01 -19.00 -0.0036 0.01 -27.00 -0.0064 0.01
10 1 -8 -0.0074 0.01 -7 0.0026 0.01 -14 -0.0033 0.01
15 -8 -5 0.0095 0.01 9 0.0076 0.01 -4 -0.0009 0.01
MEAN -3.50 -6.50 0.0011 0.01 1.00 0.0051 0.01 -9.00 -0.0021 0.01
11 4 1 -0.0058 0.01 4 0.0011 0.01 9 0.0021 0.01
16 -6 -4 0.0070 0.01 8 0.0065 0.01 -2 -0.0005 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -1.50 0.0006 0.01 6.00 0.0038 0.01 3.50 0.0008 0.01
12 8 10 -0.0060 0.01 7 -0.0040 0.01 25 0.0059 0.01
17 -6 -4 0.0070 0.01 1 0.0033 0.01 -9 -0.0021 0.01
MEAN 1.00 3.00 0.0005 0.01 4.00 -0.0003 0.01 8.00 0.0019 0.01
13 6 -4 -0.0127 0.01 -10 -0.0016 0.01 -8 -0.0019 0.01
18 1 -1 -0.0024 0.01 5 0.0030 0.01 5 0.0012 0.01
MEAN 3.50 -2.50 -0.0075 0.01 -2.50 0.0007 0.01 -1.50 -0.0004 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Mid & PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Jack Mid Section Base Jack Spec Top Section Top Sections Spec. Spec
Table Leg No. (610 mm) (1400 mm) Angle (2220 mm) Angle (4230mm)
3 19 1 -4 -0.0045 0.01 -6 0.0002 0.01 -9 -0.0021 0.01
20 -3 -5 0.0013 0.01 -8 0.0000 0.01 -16 -0.0038 0.01
21 2 -1 -0.0040 0.01 -8 -0.0029 0.01 -7 -0.0017 0.01
22 -1 -1 0.0009 0.01 -5 -0.0015 0.01 -7 -0.0017 0.01
23 -2 -3 0.0011 0.01 0 0.0021 0.01 -5 -0.0012 0.01
24 4 1 -0.0058 0.01 0 -0.0007 0.01 5 0.0012 0.01
MEAN 0.17 -2.17 -0.0018 0.01 -4.50 -0.0005 0.01 -6.50 -0.0015 0.01
25 -1 -3 -0.0005 0.01 6 0.0048 0.01 2 0.0005 0.01
26 3 -3 -0.0071 0.01 2 0.0030 0.01 2 0.0005 0.01
27 -2 -8 -0.0024 0.01 4 0.0075 0.01 -6 -0.0014 0.01
28 -3 -2 0.0035 0.01 8 0.0050 0.01 3 0.0007 0.01
29 -7 1 0.0122 0.01 -8 -0.0043 0.01 -14 -0.0033 0.01
30 -4 9 0.0130 0.01 -23 -0.0168 0.01 -18 -0.0043 0.01
MEAN -2.33 -1.00 0.0031 0.01 -1.83 -0.0001 0.01 -5.17 -0.0012 0.01

130
 Table 34
Verticality Results for Site E - Visit 1
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Mid & PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Jack Mid Section Base Jack Spec Top Section Top Sections Spec. Spec
Table Leg No. (610 mm) (1400 mm) Angle (2220 mm) Angle (4230mm)

3 19 1 -7 -0.0066 0.01 -5 0.0027 0.01 -11 -0.0026 0.01

25 -3 4 0.0078 0.01 0 -0.0029 0.01 1 0.0002 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -1.50 0.0006 0.01 -2.50 -0.0001 0.01 -5.00 -0.0012 0.01
20 4 2 -0.0051 0.01 5 0.0008 0.01 11 0.0026 0.01
26 -7 -6 0.0072 0.01 5 0.0065 0.01 -8 -0.0019 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -2.00 0.0010 0.01 5.00 0.0037 0.01 1.50 0.0004 0.01
21 -1 -6 -0.0026 0.01 8 0.0079 0.01 1 0.0002 0.01
27 1 -5 -0.0052 0.01 2 0.0045 0.01 -2 -0.0005 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -5.50 -0.0039 0.01 5.00 0.0062 0.01 -0.50 -0.0001 0.01
22 8 2 -0.0117 0.01 2 -0.0005 0.01 12 0.0028 0.01
28 -8 5 0.0167 0.01 -6 -0.0063 0.01 -9 -0.0021 0.01
MEAN 0.00 3.50 0.0025 0.01 -2.00 -0.0034 0.01 1.50 0.0004 0.01
23 9 0 -0.0148 0.01 -4 -0.0018 0.01 5 0.0012 0.01
29 -8 -12 0.0045 0.01 -26 -0.0031 0.01 -46 -0.0109 0.01
MEAN 0.50 -6.00 -0.0051 0.01 -15.00 -0.0025 0.01 -20.50 -0.0048 0.01
24 5 6 -0.0039 0.01 -8 -0.0079 0.01 3 0.0007 0.01
30 -9 -8 0.0090 0.01 -45 -0.0146 0.01 -62 -0.0147 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -1.00 0.0026 0.01 -26.50 -0.0112 0.01 -29.50 -0.0070 0.01

131
 Table 35
Verticality Results for Site E - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (450 mm) (3000 mm) Angle (3450mm)

4 1 1 13 0.0021 0.01 14 0.0041 0.01

2 4 23 -0.0012 0.01 27 0.0078 0.01
3 0 8 0.0027 0.01 8 0.0023 0.01
4 1 -25 -0.0106 0.01 -24 -0.0070 0.01
MEAN 1.50 4.75 -0.0017 0.01 6.25 0.0018 0.01
5 0 11 0.0037 0.01 11 0.0032 0.01
6 7 24 -0.0076 0.01 31 0.0090 0.01
7 2 13 -0.0001 0.01 15 0.0043 0.01
8 -1 7 0.0046 0.01 6 0.0017 0.01
MEAN 2.00 13.75 0.0001 0.01 15.75 0.0046 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Spec.
Table Leg No. (450 mm) (3000 mm) Angle (3450mm)

4 1 1 -16 -0.0076 0.01 -15 -0.0043 0.01

5 -10 -18 0.0162 0.01 -28 -0.0081 0.01
MEAN -4.50 -17.00 0.0043 0.01 -21.50 -0.0062 0.01
2 1 -30 -0.0122 0.01 -29 -0.0084 0.01
6 4 28 0.0004 0.01 32 0.0093 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -1.00 -0.0059 0.01 1.50 0.0004 0.01
3 4 14 -0.0042 0.01 18 0.0052 0.01
7 -4 11 0.0126 0.01 7 0.0020 0.01
MEAN 0.00 12.50 0.0042 0.01 12.50 0.0036 0.01
4 9 4 -0.0187 0.01 13 0.0038 0.01
8 -7 -4 0.0142 0.01 -11 -0.0032 0.01
MEAN 1.00 0.00 -0.0022 0.01 1.00 0.0003 0.01

132
 Table 35
Verticality Results for Site E - Visit 2
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)
Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Mid & PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Jack Mid Section Base Jack Spec Top Section Top Sections Spec. Spec
Table Leg No. (650 mm) (1700 mm) Angle (1900 mm) Angle (4250mm)

5 9 4 -6 -0.0097 0.01 3 0.0051 0.01 1 0.0002 0.01

10 -1 -20 -0.0102 0.01 -59 -0.0193 0.01 -80 -0.0188 0.01
11 1 -16 -0.0110 0.01 -1 0.0089 0.01 -16 -0.0038 0.01
12 -3 -18 -0.0060 0.01 15 0.0185 0.01 -6 -0.0014 0.01
13 1 -24 -0.0157 0.01 14 0.0215 0.01 -9 -0.0021 0.01
14 6 -8 -0.0139 0.01 2 0.0058 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
15 -13 13 0.0277 0.01 -13 -0.0145 0.01 -13 -0.0031 0.01
16 1 -4 -0.0039 0.01 -5 -0.0003 0.01 -8 -0.0019 0.01
17 -5 -52 -0.0229 0.01 35 0.0490 0.01 -22 -0.0052 0.01
18 -2 -15 -0.0057 0.01 2 0.0099 0.01 -15 -0.0035 0.01
19 -6 1 0.0098 0.01 -13 -0.0074 0.01 -18 -0.0042 0.01
MEAN -1.55 -13.55 -0.0056 0.01 -1.82 0.0070 0.01 -16.91 -0.0040 0.01
30 0 27 0.0159 0.01 -29 -0.0312 0.01 -2 -0.0005 0.01
29 3 17 0.0054 0.01 -16 -0.0184 0.01 4 0.0009 0.01
28 1 -12 -0.0086 0.01 9 0.0118 0.01 -2 -0.0005 0.01
27 1 10 0.0043 0.01 -6 -0.0090 0.01 5 0.0012 0.01
26 1 -1 -0.0021 0.01 3 0.0022 0.01 3 0.0007 0.01
25 1 -2 -0.0027 0.01 13 0.0080 0.01 12 0.0028 0.01
24 2 2 -0.0019 0.01 10 0.0041 0.01 14 0.0033 0.01
23 -1 -26 -0.0138 0.01 18 0.0248 0.01 -9 -0.0021 0.01
22 -1 -7 -0.0026 0.01 1 0.0046 0.01 -7 -0.0016 0.01
21 -1 -8 -0.0032 0.01 -2 0.0037 0.01 -11 -0.0026 0.01
20 1 -18 -0.0121 0.01 8 0.0148 0.01 -9 -0.0021 0.01
MEAN 0.64 -1.64 -0.0019 0.01 0.82 0.0014 0.01 -0.18 0.0000 0.01

133
 Table 35
Verticality Results for Site E - Visit 2
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Mid & PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Jack Mid Section Base Jack Spec Top Section Top Sections Spec. Spec
Table Leg No. (650 mm) (1700 mm) Angle (1900 mm) Angle (4250mm)

5 9 9 19 -0.0027 0.01 -6 -0.0143 0.01 22 0.0052 0.01

30 -1 49 0.0304 0.01 -35 -0.0473 0.01 13 0.0031 0.01
MEAN 4.00 34.00 0.0138 0.01 -20.50 -0.0308 0.01 17.50 0.0041 0.01
10 12 10 -0.0126 0.01 62 0.0267 0.01 84 0.0198 0.01
29 3 25 0.0101 0.01 -15 -0.0226 0.01 13 0.0031 0.01
MEAN 7.50 17.50 -0.0012 0.01 23.50 0.0021 0.01 48.50 0.0114 0.01
11 9 -16 -0.0233 0.01 19 0.0194 0.01 12 0.0028 0.01
28 -1 9 0.0068 0.01 -16 -0.0137 0.01 -8 -0.0019 0.01
MEAN 4.00 -3.50 -0.0082 0.01 1.50 0.0028 0.01 2.00 0.0005 0.01
12 1 -14 -0.0098 0.01 8 0.0124 0.01 -5 -0.0012 0.01
27 -1 -1 0.0010 0.01 -3 -0.0010 0.01 -5 -0.0012 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -7.50 -0.0044 0.01 2.50 0.0057 0.01 -5.00 -0.0012 0.01
13 0 -10 -0.0059 0.01 -20 -0.0046 0.01 -30 -0.0071 0.01
26 -5 15 0.0165 0.01 -20 -0.0194 0.01 -10 -0.0024 0.01
MEAN -2.5 2.50 0.0053 0.01 -20.00 -0.0120 0.01 -20.00 -0.0047 0.01
14 5 -45 -0.0342 0.01 23 0.0386 0.01 -17 -0.0040 0.01
25 -12 -18 0.0079 0.01 -25 -0.0026 0.01 -55 -0.0129 0.01
MEAN -3.50 -31.50 -0.0131 0.01 -1.00 0.0180 0.01 -36.00 -0.0085 0.01
15 15 -19 -0.0343 0.01 -1 0.0107 0.01 -5 -0.0012 0.01
24 -12 -4 0.0161 0.01 -13 -0.0045 0.01 -29 -0.0068 0.01
MEAN 1.50 -11.50 -0.0091 0.01 -7.00 0.0031 0.01 -17.00 -0.0040 0.01
16 3 -4 -0.0070 0.01 -16 -0.0061 0.01 -17 -0.0040 0.01
23 -13 -22 0.0071 0.01 -1 0.0124 0.01 -36 -0.0085 0.01
MEAN -5.00 -13.00 0.0000 0.01 -8.50 0.0032 0.01 -26.50 -0.0062 0.01
17 8 17 -0.0023 0.01 -16 -0.0184 0.01 9 0.0021 0.01
22 0 18 0.0106 0.01 -18 -0.0201 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN 4.00 17.50 0.0041 0.01 -17.00 -0.0192 0.01 4.50 0.0011 0.01
18 2 22 0.0099 0.01 -16 -0.0214 0.01 8 0.0019 0.01
21 1 28 0.0149 0.01 -16 -0.0249 0.01 13 0.0031 0.01
MEAN 1.50 25.00 0.0124 0.01 -16.00 -0.0231 0.01 10.50 0.0025 0.01
19 3 -9 -0.0099 0.01 13 0.0121 0.01 7 0.0016 0.01
20 -8 13 0.0200 0.01 -7 -0.0113 0.01 -2 -0.0005 0.01
MEAN -2.50 2.00 0.0050 0.01 3.00 0.0004 0.01 2.50 0.0006 0.01

134
 Table 36
Verticality Results for Site F - Visit 1

Site F
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
(1300 mm) (1400 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (2700mm) Spec.

1 1 -1 -14 -0.0092 0.01 -15 -0.0056 0.01

2 -5 -11 -0.0040 0.01 -16 -0.0059 0.01
3 -3 -1 0.0016 0.01 -4 -0.0015 0.01
4 -4 3 0.0052 0.01 -1 -0.0004 0.01
5 -6 1 0.0053 0.01 -5 -0.0019 0.01
MEAN -3.80 -4.40 -0.0002 0.01 -8.20 -0.0030 0.01
6 6 4 -0.0018 0.01 10 0.0037 0.01
7 4 -2 -0.0045 0.01 2 0.0007 0.01
8 1 -4 -0.0036 0.01 -3 -0.0011 0.01
9 -8 -8 0.0004 0.01 -16 -0.0059 0.01
10 -3 2 0.0037 0.01 -1 -0.0004 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -1.60 -0.0011 0.01 -1.60 -0.0006 0.01
11 -6 -1 0.0039 0.01 -7 -0.0026 0.01
12 -10 -6 0.0034 0.01 -16 -0.0059 0.01
13 -6 -6 0.0003 0.01 -12 -0.0044 0.01
14 -1 4 0.0036 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
15 4 2 -0.0016 0.01 6 0.0022 0.01
MEAN -3.80 -1.40 0.0019 0.01 -5.20 -0.0019 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
(1300 mm) (1400 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (2700mm) Spec.

1 1 8 6 -0.0019 0.01 14 0.0052 0.01

10 -14 -15 0.0001 0.01 -29 -0.0107 0.01
11 -8 -8 0.0004 0.01 -16 -0.0059 0.01
MEAN -4.67 -5.67 -0.0005 0.01 -10.33 -0.0038 0.01
2 -5 -10 -0.0033 0.01 -15 -0.0056 0.01
9 1 7 0.0042 0.01 8 0.0030 0.01
12 -3 4 0.0052 0.01 1 0.0004 0.01
MEAN -2.33 0.33 0.0020 0.01 -2.00 -0.0007 0.01
3 4 -1 -0.0038 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
8 -4 -1 0.0024 0.01 -5 -0.0019 0.01
13 4 4 -0.0002 0.01 8 0.0030 0.01
MEAN 1.33 0.67 -0.0005 0.01 2.00 0.0007 0.01
4 2 7 0.0035 0.01 9 0.0033 0.01
7 -7 -6 0.0011 0.01 -13 -0.0048 0.01
14 -4 -2 0.0016 0.01 -6 -0.0022 0.01
MEAN -3.00 -0.33 0.0021 0.01 -3.33 -0.0012 0.01
5 7 -1 -0.0061 0.01 6 0.0022 0.01
6 -3 -4 -0.0005 0.01 -7 -0.0026 0.01
15 -8 -8 0.0004 0.01 -16 -0.0059 0.01
MEAN -1.33 -4.33 -0.0021 0.01 -5.67 -0.0021 0.01

135
 Table 36
Verticality Results for Site F - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
(1300 mm) (1400 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (2700mm) Spec.

2 1 -6 -6 0.0003 0.01 -12 -0.0044 0.01

2 -6 -1 0.0039 0.01 -7 -0.0026 0.01
3 4 -7 -0.0081 0.01 -3 -0.0011 0.01
4 -1 1 0.0015 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
5 -5 1 0.0046 0.01 -4 -0.0015 0.01
MEAN -2.80 -2.40 0.0004 0.01 -5.20 -0.0019 0.01
6 -3 1 0.0030 0.01 -2 -0.0007 0.01
7 -4 -1 0.0024 0.01 -5 -0.0019 0.01
8 -1 -3 -0.0014 0.01 -4 -0.0015 0.01
9 -6 -1 0.0039 0.01 -7 -0.0026 0.01
10 2 4 0.0013 0.01 6 0.0022 0.01
MEAN -2.40 0.00 0.0018 0.01 -2.40 -0.0009 0.01
11 2 1 -0.0008 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
12 -8 -6 0.0019 0.01 -14 -0.0052 0.01
13 8 -1 -0.0069 0.01 7 0.0026 0.01
14 -18 -10 0.0067 0.01 -28 -0.0104 0.01
15 -5 -1 0.0031 0.01 -6 -0.0022 0.01
MEAN -4.20 -3.40 0.0008 0.01 -7.60 -0.0028 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
(1300 mm) (1400 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (2700mm) Spec.

2 1 -6 1 0.0053 0.01 -5 -0.0019 0.01

10 -5 5 0.0074 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
11 2 0 -0.0015 0.01 2 0.0007 0.01
MEAN -3.00 2.00 0.0037 0.01 -1.00 -0.0004 0.01
2 4 -4 -0.0059 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
9 -15 -4 0.0087 0.01 -19 -0.0070 0.01
12 -1 -4 -0.0021 0.01 -5 -0.0019 0.01
MEAN -4.00 -4.00 0.0002 0.01 -8.00 -0.0030 0.01
3 6 -11 -0.0125 0.01 -5 -0.0019 0.01
8 -3 0 0.0023 0.01 -3 -0.0011 0.01
13 1 -1 -0.0015 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN 1.33 -4.00 -0.0039 0.01 -2.67 -0.0010 0.01
4 -1 4 0.0036 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
7 -13 -1 0.0093 0.01 -14 -0.0052 0.01
14 -5 2 0.0053 0.01 -3 -0.0011 0.01
MEAN -6.33 1.67 0.0061 0.01 -4.67 -0.0017 0.01
5 1 2 0.0007 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
6 -4 1 0.0038 0.01 -3 -0.0011 0.01
15 2 0 -0.0015 0.01 2 0.0007 0.01
MEAN -0.33 1.00 0.0010 0.01 0.67 0.0002 0.01

136
 Table 36
Verticality Results for Site F - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
(1300 mm) (1400 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (2700mm) Spec.

3 1 -6 4 0.0075 0.01 -2 -0.0007 0.01

2 -2 4 0.0044 0.01 2 0.0007 0.01
3 5 4 -0.0010 0.01 9 0.0033 0.01
4 1 1 -0.0001 0.01 2 0.0007 0.01
5 4 4 -0.0002 0.01 8 0.0030 0.01
MEAN 0.40 3.40 0.0021 0.01 3.80 0.0014 0.01
6 -10 0 0.0077 0.01 -10 -0.0037 0.01
7 2 1 -0.0008 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
8 0 4 0.0029 0.01 4 0.0015 0.01
9 1 2 0.0007 0.01 3 0.0011 0.01
10 14 -3 -0.0129 0.01 11 0.0041 0.01
MEAN 1.40 0.80 -0.0005 0.01 2.20 0.0008 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
(1300 mm) (1400 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (2700mm) Spec.

3 1 5 -6 -0.0081 0.01 -1 -0.0004 0.01

10 -16 -11 0.0045 0.01 -27 -0.0100 0.01
MEAN -5.50 -8.50 -0.0018 0.01 -14.00 -0.0052 0.01
2 2 3 0.0006 0.01 5 0.0019 0.01
9 -5 -4 0.0010 0.01 -9 -0.0033 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -0.50 0.0008 0.01 -2.00 -0.0007 0.01
3 -1 0 0.0008 0.01 -1 -0.0004 0.01
8 -1 -1 0.0001 0.01 -2 -0.0007 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -0.50 0.0004 0.01 -1.50 -0.0006 0.01
4 11 -7 -0.0135 0.01 4 0.0015 0.01
7 -12 -2 0.0078 0.01 -14 -0.0052 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -4.50 -0.0028 0.01 -5.00 -0.0019 0.01
5 8 -8 -0.0119 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
6 -7 -6 0.0011 0.01 -13 -0.0048 0.01
MEAN 0.50 -7.00 -0.0054 0.01 -6.50 -0.0024 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
(1300 mm) (1400 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (2700mm) Spec.

4 1 1 5 0.0028 0.01 6 0.0022 0.01

2 25 4 -0.0164 0.01 29 0.0107 0.01
3 -4 1 0.0038 0.01 -3 -0.0011 0.01
4 6 1 -0.0039 0.01 7 0.0026 0.01
MEAN 7.00 2.75 -0.0034 0.01 9.75 0.0036 0.01
5 0 2 0.0014 0.01 2 0.0007 0.01
6 4 6 0.0012 0.01 10 0.0037 0.01
7 -6 6 0.0089 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
8 -4 4 0.0059 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -1.50 4.50 0.0044 0.01 3.00 0.0011 0.01

137
 Table 36
Verticality Results for Site F - Visit 1
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Table Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
(1300 mm) (1400 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (2700mm) Spec.

4 1 7 2 -0.0040 0.01 9 0.0033 0.01

8 -13 -3 0.0079 0.01 -16 -0.0059 0.01
MEAN -3.00 -0.50 0.0020 0.01 -3.50 -0.0013 0.01
2 13 -1 -0.0107 0.01 12 0.0044 0.01
7 -1 1 0.0015 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN 6.00 0.00 -0.0046 0.01 6.00 0.0022 0.01
3 6 1 -0.0039 0.01 7 0.0026 0.01
6 4 2 -0.0016 0.01 6 0.0022 0.01
MEAN 5.00 1.50 -0.0028 0.01 6.50 0.0024 0.01
4 17 10 -0.0059 0.01 27 0.0100 0.01
5 4 2 -0.0016 0.01 6 0.0022 0.01
MEAN 10.50 6.00 -0.0038 0.01 16.50 0.0061 0.01

138
 Table 37
Verticality Results for Site F - Visit 2

Site F

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
Table (960 mm) (2500 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (3460mm) Spec.

1 1 -7 0 0.0073 0.01 -7 -0.0020 0.01

2 5 11 -0.0008 0.01 16 0.0046 0.01
3 1 8 0.0022 0.01 9 0.0026 0.01
4 -11 8 0.0147 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
5 -4 -6 0.0018 0.01 -10 -0.0029 0.01
MEAN -3.20 4.20 0.0050 0.01 1.00 0.0003 0.01
6 1 7 0.0018 0.01 8 0.0023 0.01
7 0 2 0.0008 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
8 -2 7 0.0049 0.01 5 0.0014 0.01
9 0 -4 -0.0016 0.01 -4 -0.0012 0.01
10 -3 -8 -0.0001 0.01 -11 -0.0032 0.01
MEAN -0.80 0.80 0.0012 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.01
11 -1 -6 -0.0014 0.01 -7 -0.0020 0.01
12 -9 -7 0.0066 0.01 -16 -0.0046 0.01
13 0 0 0.0000 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
14 0 0 0.0000 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
15 0 0 0.0000 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -2.60 0.0010 0.01 -4.60 -0.0013 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
Table (960 mm) (2500 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (3460mm) Spec.

1 1 3 4 -0.0015 0.01 7 0.0020 0.01

10 -18 -6 0.0163 0.01 -24 -0.0069 0.01
11 0 -14 -0.0056 0.01 -14 -0.0040 0.01
MEAN -5.00 -5.33 0.0031 0.01 -10.33 -0.0030 0.01
2 -5 -9 0.0016 0.01 -14 -0.0040 0.01
9 -7 -6 0.0049 0.01 -13 -0.0038 0.01
12 -1 7 0.0038 0.01 6 0.0017 0.01
MEAN -4.33 -2.67 0.0034 0.01 -7.00 -0.0020 0.01
3 7 -6 -0.0097 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
8 -4 -6 0.0018 0.01 -10 -0.0029 0.01
13 0 0 0.0000 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN 1.00 -4.00 -0.0026 0.01 -3.00 -0.0009 0.01
4 -2 -5 0.0001 0.01 -7 -0.0020 0.01
7 -6 9 0.0099 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
14 0 0 0.0000 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -2.67 1.33 0.0033 0.01 -1.33 -0.0004 0.01
5 7 -1 -0.0077 0.01 6 0.0017 0.01
6 -3 -4 0.0015 0.01 -7 -0.0020 0.01
15 -8 -8 0.0051 0.01 -16 -0.0046 0.01
MEAN -1.33 -4.33 -0.0003 0.01 -5.67 -0.0016 0.01

139
 Table 37
Verticality Results for Site F - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
Table (960 mm) (2500 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (3460mm) Spec.

2 1 -7 -2 0.0065 0.01 -9 -0.0026 0.01

2 0 4 0.0016 0.01 4 0.0012 0.01
3 -1 3 0.0022 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
4 4 3 -0.0030 0.01 7 0.0020 0.01
5 1 2 -0.0002 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
MEAN -0.60 2.00 0.0014 0.01 1.40 0.0004 0.01
6 1 3 0.0002 0.01 4 0.0012 0.01
7 6 9 -0.0026 0.01 15 0.0043 0.01
8 1 4 0.0006 0.01 5 0.0014 0.01
9 -9 -4 0.0078 0.01 -13 -0.0038 0.01
10 1 -10 -0.0050 0.01 -9 -0.0026 0.01
MEAN 0.00 0.40 0.0002 0.01 0.40 0.0001 0.01
11 2 1 -0.0017 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
12 -7 -10 0.0033 0.01 -17 -0.0049 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -4.50 0.0008 0.01 -7.00 -0.0020 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
Table (960 mm) (2500 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (3460mm) Spec.

2 1 4 -2 -0.0050 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01

10 -3 1 0.0035 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
11 -4 0 0.0042 0.01 -4 -0.0012 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -0.33 0.0009 0.01 -1.33 -0.0004 0.01
2 13 6 -0.0111 0.01 19 0.0055 0.01
9 9 12 -0.0046 0.01 21 0.0061 0.01
12 0 0 0.0000 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN 7.33 6.00 -0.0052 0.01 13.33 0.0039 0.01
3 14 6 -0.0122 0.01 20 0.0058 0.01
8 -6 -4 0.0046 0.01 -10 -0.0029 0.01
MEAN 4.00 1.00 -0.0038 0.01 5.00 0.0014 0.01
4 1 3 0.0002 0.01 4 0.0012 0.01
7 -12 -1 0.0121 0.01 -13 -0.0038 0.01
MEAN -5.50 1.00 0.0061 0.01 -4.50 -0.0013 0.01
5 11 6 -0.0091 0.01 17 0.0049 0.01
6 -6 -3 0.0050 0.01 -9 -0.0026 0.01
MEAN 2.50 1.50 -0.0020 0.01 4.00 0.0012 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
Table (960 mm) (2500 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (3460mm) Spec.

3 1 1 11 0.0034 0.01 12 0.0035 0.01

2 1 4 0.0006 0.01 5 0.0014 0.01
3 -6 9 0.0099 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
4 2 4 -0.0005 0.01 6 0.0017 0.01
5 0 4 0.0016 0.01 4 0.0012 0.01
MEAN -0.40 6.40 0.0030 0.01 6.00 0.0017 0.01
6 -4 -1 0.0038 0.01 -5 -0.0014 0.01
7 -2 -2 0.0013 0.01 -4 -0.0012 0.01
8 -1 1 0.0014 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
9 1 -4 -0.0026 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
10 6 -4 -0.0079 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -2.00 -0.0008 0.01 -2.00 -0.0006 0.01

140
 Table 37
Verticality Results for Site F - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
Table (960 mm) (2500 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (3460mm) Spec.

3 1 9 7 -0.0066 0.01 16 0.0046 0.01

10 -11 -6 0.0091 0.01 -17 -0.0049 0.01
MEAN -1.00 0.50 0.0012 0.01 -0.50 -0.0001 0.01
2 1 -5 -0.0030 0.01 -4 -0.0012 0.01
9 -7 5 0.0093 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
MEAN -3.00 0.00 0.0031 0.01 -3.00 -0.0009 0.01
3 1 -1 -0.0014 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
8 -6 -6 0.0038 0.01 -12 -0.0035 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -3.50 0.0012 0.01 -6.00 -0.0017 0.01
4 -5 -10 0.0012 0.01 -15 -0.0043 0.01
7 -1 1 0.0014 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -3.00 -4.50 0.0013 0.01 -7.50 -0.0022 0.01
5 16 14 -0.0111 0.01 30 0.0087 0.01
6 -4 -6 0.0018 0.01 -10 -0.0029 0.01
MEAN 6.00 4.00 -0.0046 0.01 10.00 0.0029 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
Table (960 mm) (2500 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (3460mm) Spec.

4 1 5 12 -0.0004 0.01 17 0.0049 0.01

2 3 14 0.0025 0.01 17 0.0049 0.01
3 -19 -5 0.0178 0.01 -24 -0.0069 0.01
4 1 5 0.0010 0.01 6 0.0017 0.01
MEAN -2.50 6.50 0.0052 0.01 4.00 0.0012 0.01
5 -4 17 0.0110 0.01 13 0.0038 0.01
6 11 13 -0.0063 0.01 24 0.0069 0.01
7 1 13 0.0042 0.01 14 0.0040 0.01
8 -4 4 0.0058 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN 1.00 11.75 0.0037 0.01 12.75 0.0037 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Leg No. Base Jack Standard Tan of Std PrEN Total Height Tan PrEN
Table (960 mm) (2500 mm) Jack Angle Spec. (3460mm) Spec.

4 1 6 4 -0.0046 0.01 10 0.0029 0.01

8 -8 1 0.0087 0.01 -7 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -1.00 2.50 0.0020 0.01 1.50 0.0004 0.01
2 7 4 -0.0057 0.01 11 0.0032 0.01
7 -4 5 0.0062 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
MEAN 1.50 4.50 0.0002 0.01 6.00 0.0017 0.01
3 11 4 -0.0099 0.01 15 0.0043 0.01
6 -1 -4 -0.0006 0.01 -5 -0.0014 0.01
MEAN 5.00 0.00 -0.0052 0.01 5.00 0.0014 0.01
4 11 11 -0.0071 0.01 22 0.0064 0.01
5 -4 4 0.0058 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN 3.50 7.50 -0.0006 0.01 11.00 0.0032 0.01

141
 Table 38
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 1

Site G

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

1 1 2 16 0.0035 0.01 18 0.0056 0.01

2 -2 0 0.0029 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
3 -4 -8 0.0026 0.01 -12 -0.0038 0.01
4 -2 -11 -0.0015 0.01 -13 -0.0041 0.01
5 -4 -12 0.0010 0.01 -16 -0.0050 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -3.00 0.0017 0.01 -5.00 -0.0016 0.01
6 -1 1 0.0018 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
7 -15 -9 0.0181 0.01 -24 -0.0075 0.01
8 -1 6 0.0038 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
9 -1 1 0.0018 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
10 0 -2 -0.0008 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
MEAN -3.60 -0.60 0.0050 0.01 -4.20 -0.0013 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

1 1 2 -11 -0.0073 0.01 -9 -0.0028 0.01

10 -6 -15 0.0027 0.01 -21 -0.0066 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -13.00 -0.0023 0.01 -15.00 -0.0047 0.01
2 5 6 -0.0048 0.01 11 0.0034 0.01
9 -1 6 0.0038 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
MEAN 2.00 6.00 -0.0005 0.01 8.00 0.0025 0.01
3 6 12 -0.0039 0.01 18 0.0056 0.01
8 -5 8 0.0104 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
MEAN 0.50 10.00 0.0033 0.01 10.50 0.0033 0.01
4 9 6 -0.0106 0.01 15 0.0047 0.01
7 -5 11 0.0116 0.01 6 0.0019 0.01
MEAN 2.00 8.50 0.0005 0.01 10.50 0.0033 0.01
5 8 -1 -0.0120 0.01 7 0.0022 0.01
6 -4 7 0.0086 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
MEAN 2.00 3.00 -0.0017 0.01 5.00 0.0016 0.01

142
 Table 38
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

2 1 1 14 0.0042 0.01 15 0.0047 0.01

2 -6 9 0.0123 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
3 1 3 -0.0002 0.01 4 0.0013 0.01
4 1 9 0.0022 0.01 10 0.0031 0.01
5 1 10 0.0026 0.01 11 0.0034 0.01
MEAN -0.40 9.00 0.0042 0.01 8.60 0.0027 0.01
6 0 7 0.0028 0.01 7 0.0022 0.01
7 3 6 -0.0019 0.01 9 0.0028 0.01
8 1 -1 -0.0018 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
9 0 8 0.0032 0.01 8 0.0025 0.01
10 10 13 -0.0093 0.01 23 0.0072 0.01
MEAN 2.80 6.60 -0.0014 0.01 9.40 0.0029 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

2 1 6 3 -0.0075 0.01 9 0.0028 0.01

10 -14 -12 0.0155 0.01 -26 -0.0082 0.01
MEAN -4.00 -4.50 0.0040 0.01 -8.50 -0.0027 0.01
2 -4 5 0.0078 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
9 -6 6 0.0111 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -5.00 5.50 0.0094 0.01 0.50 0.0002 0.01
3 5 17 -0.0004 0.01 22 0.0069 0.01
8 4 18 0.0014 0.01 22 0.0069 0.01
MEAN 4.50 17.5 0.0005 0.01 22.00 0.0069 0.01
4 2 -8 -0.0061 0.01 -6 -0.0019 0.01
7 -7 -4 0.0085 0.01 -11 -0.0034 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -6.00 0.0012 0.01 -8.50 -0.0027 0.01
5 1 -3 -0.0026 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
6 -6 -3 0.0075 0.01 -9 -0.0028 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -3.00 0.0024 0.01 -5.50 -0.0017 0.01

143
 Table 38
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

3 1 6 11 -0.0043 0.01 17 0.0053 0.01

2 1 2 -0.0006 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
3 1 -4 -0.0030 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
4 10 6 -0.0121 0.01 16 0.0050 0.01
5 -3 -5 0.0023 0.01 -8 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN 3.00 2.00 -0.0035 0.01 5.00 0.0016 0.01
6 -3 -16 -0.0021 0.01 -19 -0.0060 0.01
7 0 -4 -0.0016 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01
8 -6 -12 0.0039 0.01 -18 -0.0056 0.01
9 4 -1 -0.0062 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
10 -10 -11 0.0101 0.01 -21 -0.0066 0.01
MEAN -3.00 -8.80 0.0008 0.01 -11.80 -0.0037 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

3 1 15 26 -0.0113 0.01 41 0.0129 0.01

10 -10 9 0.0181 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
MEAN 2.50 17.50 0.0034 0.01 20.00 0.0063 0.01
2 9 -1 -0.0134 0.01 8 0.0025 0.01
9 -11 -4 0.0143 0.01 -15 -0.0047 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -2.50 0.0004 0.01 -3.50 -0.0011 0.01
3 6 0 -0.0087 0.01 6 0.0019 0.01
8 -8 -6 0.0092 0.01 -14 -0.0044 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -3.00 0.0002 0.01 -4.00 -0.0013 0.01
4 3 -8 -0.0075 0.01 -5 -0.0016 0.01
7 -6 -6 0.0063 0.01 -12 -0.0038 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -7.00 -0.0006 0.01 -8.50 -0.0027 0.01
5 8 6 -0.0092 0.01 14 0.0044 0.01
6 -14 2 0.0211 0.01 -12 -0.0038 0.01
MEAN -3.00 4.00 0.0059 0.01 1.00 0.0003 0.01

144
 Table 38
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan ofStd PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack A ngle Spec. H eight Spec.
Table Leg (690 m m ) (2500 m m ) (3190m m )

4 1 2 11 0.0015 0.01 13 0.0041 0.01

2 1 5 0.0006 0.01 6 0.0019 0.01
3 4 8 -0.0026 0.01 12 0.0038 0.01
4 -1 11 0.0058 0.01 10 0.0031 0.01
MEAN 1.50 8.75 0.0013 0.01 10.25 0.0032 0.01
5 -1 4 0.0030 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
6 -1 11 0.0058 0.01 10 0.0031 0.01
7 7 9 -0.0065 0.01 16 0.0050 0.01
8 6 8 -0.0055 0.01 14 0.0044 0.01
MEAN 2.75 8.00 -0.0008 0.01 10.75 0.0034 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan ofStd PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack A ngle Spec. H eight Spec.
Table Leg (690 m m ) (2500 m m ) (3190m m )

4 1 5 2 -0.0064 0.01 7 0.0022 0.01

8 0 5 0.0020 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
MEAN 2.50 3.50 -0.0022 0.01 6.00 0.0019 0.01
2 2 -6 -0.0053 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01
7 -6 -2 0.0079 0.01 -8 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -4.00 0.0013 0.01 -6.00 -0.0019 0.01
3 0 11 0.0044 0.01 11 0.0034 0.01
6 1 1 -0.0010 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
MEAN 0.50 6.00 0.0017 0.01 6.50 0.0020 0.01
4 4 1 -0.0054 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
5 -3 0 0.0043 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
MEAN 0.50 0.50 -0.0005 0.01 1.00 0.0003 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan ofStd PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack A ngle Spec. H eight Spec.
Table Leg (690 m m ) (2500 m m ) (3190m m )

5 1 -1 1 0.0018 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01

2 -2 -8 -0.0003 0.01 -10 -0.0031 0.01
3 -7 -6 0.0077 0.01 -13 -0.0041 0.01
4 1 7 0.0014 0.01 8 0.0025 0.01
MEAN -2.25 -1.50 0.0027 0.01 -3.75 -0.0012 0.01

5 2 1 -0.0025 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01

6 1 6 0.0010 0.01 7 0.0022 0.01
7 -1 1 0.0018 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
8 -1 -5 -0.0006 0.01 -6 -0.0019 0.01
MEAN 0.25 0.75 -0.0001 0.01 1.00 0.0003 0.01

145
 Table 38
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 1
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

5 1 4 -8 -0.0090 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01

8 5 -9 -0.0108 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01
MEAN 4.50 -8.50 -0.0099 0.01 -4.00 -0.0013 0.01
2 -1 -9 -0.0022 0.01 -10 -0.0031 0.01
7 -2 1 0.0033 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -4.00 0.0006 0.01 -5.50 -0.0017 0.01
3 -6 -18 0.0015 0.01 -24 -0.0075 0.01
6 -3 -5 0.0023 0.01 -8 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN -4.50 -11.50 0.0019 0.01 -16.00 -0.0050 0.01
4 -4 -10 0.0018 0.01 -14 -0.0044 0.01
5 -5 -10 0.0032 0.01 -15 -0.0047 0.01
MEAN -4.50 -10.00 0.0025 0.01 -14.50 -0.0045 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Random Leg (920 mm) (2500 mm) (3420mm)

1 -4 -6 0.0019 0.01 -10 -0.0029 0.01

2 -7 4 0.0092 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
3 -3 8 0.0065 0.01 5 0.0015 0.01
4 11 30 0.0000 0.01 41 0.0120 0.01
5 -2 -3 0.0010 0.01 -5 -0.0015 0.01
6 7 25 0.0024 0.01 32 0.0094 0.01
7 -6 -11 0.0021 0.01 -17 -0.0050 0.01
8 8 25 0.0013 0.01 33 0.0096 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Leg (920 mm) (2500 mm) (3420mm)

1 21 32 -0.0100 0.01 53 0.0155 0.01

2 7 17 -0.0008 0.01 24 0.0070 0.01
3 13 42 0.0027 0.01 55 0.0161 0.01
4 13 15 -0.0081 0.01 28 0.0082 0.01
5 8 13 -0.0035 0.01 21 0.0061 0.01
6 8 21 -0.0003 0.01 29 0.0085 0.01
7 10 29 0.0007 0.01 39 0.0114 0.01
8 8 4 -0.0071 0.01 12 0.0035 0.01

146
 Table 39
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 2

Site G

Visit 2(X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

1 1 2 15 0.0031 0.01 17 0.0053 0.01

2 0 -1 -0.0004 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
3 -3 -1 0.0039 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01
4 2 -4 -0.0045 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
5 -1 -5 -0.0006 0.01 -6 -0.0019 0.01
MEAN 0.00 0.80 0.0003 0.01 0.80 0.0003 0.01
6 -1 5 0.0034 0.01 4 0.0013 0.01
7 -9 -2 0.0122 0.01 -11 -0.0034 0.01
8 -2 9 0.0065 0.01 7 0.0022 0.01
9 2 6 -0.0005 0.01 8 0.0025 0.01
10 4 6 -0.0034 0.01 10 0.0031 0.01
MEAN -1.20 4.80 0.0037 0.01 3.60 0.0011 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

1 1 -8 -13 0.0064 0.01 -21 -0.0066 0.01

10 -6 -9 0.0051 0.01 -15 -0.0047 0.01
MEAN -7.00 -11.00 0.0057 0.01 -18.00 -0.0056 0.01
2 -1 1 0.0018 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
9 -6 1 0.0091 0.01 -5 -0.0016 0.01
MEAN -3.50 1.00 0.0055 0.01 -2.50 -0.0008 0.01
3 4 6 -0.0034 0.01 10 0.0031 0.01
8 -4 9 0.0094 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
MEAN 0.00 7.50 0.0030 0.01 7.50 0.0024 0.01
4 5 1 -0.0068 0.01 6 0.0019 0.01
7 -15 -12 0.0169 0.01 -27 -0.0085 0.01
MEAN -5.00 -5.50 0.0050 0.01 -10.50 -0.0033 0.01
5 2 4 -0.0013 0.01 6 0.0019 0.01
6 -1 6 0.0038 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
MEAN 0.50 5.00 0.0013 0.01 5.50 0.0017 0.01

147
 Table 39
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

2 1 8 20 -0.0036 0.01 28 0.0088 0.01

2 6 20 -0.0007 0.01 26 0.0082 0.01
3 13 22 -0.0100 0.01 35 0.0110 0.01
4 1 11 0.0030 0.01 12 0.0038 0.01
5 1 16 0.0050 0.01 17 0.0053 0.01
MEAN 5.80 17.80 -0.0013 0.01 23.60 0.0074 0.01
6 -2 7 0.0057 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
7 -5 9 0.0108 0.01 4 0.0013 0.01
8 1 9 0.0022 0.01 10 0.0031 0.01
9 -1 8 0.0046 0.01 7 0.0022 0.01
10 3 5 -0.0023 0.01 8 0.0025 0.01
MEAN -0.80 7.60 0.0042 0.01 6.80 0.0021 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

2 1 -3 -1 0.0039 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01

10 -7 5 0.0121 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
MEAN -5.00 2.00 0.0080 0.01 -3.00 -0.0009 0.01
2 4 4 -0.0042 0.01 8 0.0025 0.01
9 -9 -12 0.0082 0.01 -21 -0.0066 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -4.00 0.0020 0.01 -6.50 -0.0020 0.01
3 8 18 -0.0044 0.01 26 0.0082 0.01
8 1 13 0.0038 0.01 14 0.0044 0.01
MEAN 4.50 15.5 -0.0003 0.01 20.00 0.0063 0.01
4 6 -6 -0.0111 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
7 -6 -19 0.0011 0.01 -25 -0.0078 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -12.50 -0.0050 0.01 -12.50 -0.0039 0.01
5 -3 1 0.0047 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
6 4 8 -0.0026 0.01 12 0.0038 0.01
MEAN 0.50 4.50 0.0011 0.01 5.00 0.0016 0.01

148
 Table 39
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

3 1 -1 1 0.0018 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01

2 1 1 -0.0010 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
3 0 0 0.0000 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
4 -2 0 0.0029 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
5 1 11 0.0030 0.01 12 0.0038 0.01
MEAN -0.20 2.60 0.0013 0.01 2.40 0.0008 0.01
6 -2 0 0.0029 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
7 -6 -6 0.0063 0.01 -12 -0.0038 0.01
8 -4 6 0.0082 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
9 3 -1 -0.0047 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
10 4 1 -0.0054 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
MEAN -1.00 0.00 0.0014 0.01 -1.00 -0.0003 0.01

149
 Table 39
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)
Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

3 1 -1 -2 0.0006 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01

10 -10 -1 0.0141 0.01 -11 -0.0034 0.01
MEAN -5.50 -1.50 0.0074 0.01 -7.00 -0.0022 0.01
2 4 1 -0.0054 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
9 -11 0 0.0159 0.01 -11 -0.0034 0.01
MEAN -3.50 0.50 0.0053 0.01 -3.00 -0.0009 0.01
3 4 0 -0.0058 0.01 4 0.0013 0.01
8 -5 6 0.0096 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
MEAN -0.50 3.00 0.0019 0.01 2.50 0.0008 0.01
4 9 0 -0.0130 0.01 9 0.0028 0.01
7 -6 -6 0.0063 0.01 -12 -0.0038 0.01
MEAN 1.50 -3.00 -0.0034 0.01 -1.50 -0.0005 0.01
5 8 11 -0.0072 0.01 19 0.0060 0.01
6 5 -15 -0.0132 0.01 -10 -0.0031 0.01
MEAN 6.50 -2.00 -0.0102 0.01 4.50 0.0014 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

4 1 4 13 -0.0006 0.01 17 0.0053 0.01

2 1 10 0.0026 0.01 11 0.0034 0.01
3 1 13 0.0038 0.01 14 0.0044 0.01
4 2 26 0.0075 0.01 28 0.0088 0.01
MEAN 2.00 15.50 0.0033 0.01 17.50 0.0055 0.01
5 -2 13 0.0081 0.01 11 0.0034 0.01
6 -1 21 0.0098 0.01 20 0.0063 0.01
7 1 11 0.0030 0.01 12 0.0038 0.01
8 3 10 -0.0003 0.01 13 0.0041 0.01
MEAN 0.25 13.75 0.0051 0.01 14.00 0.0044 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

4 1 -11 -18 0.0087 0.01 -29 -0.0091 0.01

8 -7 1 0.0105 0.01 -6 -0.0019 0.01
MEAN -9.00 -8.50 0.0096 0.01 -17.50 -0.0055 0.01
2 5 -4 -0.0088 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
7 0 -1 -0.0004 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -2.50 -0.0046 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.01
3 3 -2 -0.0051 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
6 -11 -14 0.0103 0.01 -25 -0.0078 0.01
MEAN -4.00 -8.00 0.0026 0.01 -12.00 -0.0038 0.01
4 2 11 0.0015 0.01 13 0.0041 0.01
5 -8 -7 0.0088 0.01 -15 -0.0047 0.01
MEAN -3.00 2.00 0.0051 0.01 -1.00 -0.0003 0.01

150
 Table 39
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

5 1 0 9 0.0036 0.01 9 0.0028 0.01

2 4 11 -0.0014 0.01 15 0.0047 0.01
3 -2 9 0.0065 0.01 7 0.0022 0.01
4 -3 16 0.0107 0.01 13 0.0041 0.01
MEAN -0.25 11.25 0.0049 0.01 11.00 0.0034 0.01

5 -2 -7 0.0001 0.01 -9 -0.0028 0.01

6 -3 9 0.0079 0.01 6 0.0019 0.01
7 0 3 0.0012 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
8 -4 -4 0.0042 0.01 -8 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN -2.25 0.25 0.0034 0.01 -2.00 -0.0006 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (690 mm) (2500 mm) (3190mm)

5 1 -3 -23 -0.0049 0.01 -26 -0.0082 0.01

8 -8 -15 0.0056 0.01 -23 -0.0072 0.01
MEAN -5.50 -19.00 0.0004 0.01 -24.50 -0.0077 0.01
2 -9 -23 0.0038 0.01 -32 -0.0100 0.01
7 -6 1 0.0091 0.01 -5 -0.0016 0.01
MEAN -7.50 -11.00 0.0065 0.01 -18.50 -0.0058 0.01
3 1 -6 -0.0038 0.01 -5 -0.0016 0.01
6 13 -12 -0.0236 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
MEAN 7.00 -9.00 -0.0137 0.01 -2.00 -0.0006 0.01
4 1 -10 -0.0054 0.01 -9 -0.0028 0.01
5 -4 -6 0.0034 0.01 -10 -0.0031 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -8.00 -0.0010 0.01 -9.50 -0.0030 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Random Leg (920 mm) (2500 mm) (3420mm)

1 2 1 -0.0018 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01

2 -1 -3 -0.0001 0.01 -4 -0.0012 0.01
3 -14 -1 0.0148 0.01 -15 -0.0044 0.01
4 3 15 0.0027 0.01 18 0.0053 0.01
5 -1 3 0.0023 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
6 4 43 0.0129 0.01 47 0.0137 0.01
7 3 1 -0.0029 0.01 4 0.0012 0.01
8 -11 -51 -0.0084 0.01 -62 -0.0181 0.01

151
 Table 39
Verticality Results for Site G - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Random Leg (920 mm) (2500 mm) (3420mm)

1 4 15 0.0017 0.01 19 0.0056 0.01

2 -1 -4 -0.0005 0.01 -5 -0.0015 0.01
3 0 -24 -0.0096 0.01 -24 -0.0070 0.01
4 4 -6 -0.0067 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
5 7 1 -0.0072 0.01 8 0.0023 0.01
6 -4 -9 0.0007 0.01 -13 -0.0038 0.01
7 -4 13 0.0095 0.01 9 0.0026 0.01
8 -1 -10 -0.0029 0.01 -11 -0.0032 0.01

152
 Table 40
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 1

Site H

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

1 2 8 -0.0046 0.021 -2 -0.0100 0.021 8 0.0034 0.01

2 -2 6 0.0124 0.021 1 -0.0006 0.021 5 0.0021 0.01
MEAN 0.00 7.00 0.0039 0.021 -0.50 -0.0053 0.021 6.50 0.0027 0.01
50 6 12 -0.0206 0.021 3 0.0017 0.021 21 0.0088 0.01
49 4 -1 -0.0187 0.021 -1 -0.0022 0.021 2 0.0008 0.01
MEAN 5.00 5.50 -0.0197 0.021 1.00 -0.0003 0.021 11.50 0.0048 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

1 -9 -8 0.0365 0.021 -1 0.0017 0.021 -18 -0.0076 0.01

50 4 -18 -0.0282 0.021 4 0.0211 0.021 -10 -0.0042 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -13.00 0.0041 0.021 1.50 0.0114 0.021 -14.00 -0.0059 0.01
2 -6 12 0.0339 0.021 1 -0.0039 0.021 7 0.0029 0.01
49 10 8 -0.0410 0.021 -5 -0.0183 0.021 13 0.0055 0.01
MEAN 2.00 10.00 -0.0035 0.021 -2.00 -0.0111 0.021 10.00 0.0042 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

3 4 -1 -0.0187 0.021 -1 -0.0022 0.021 2 0.0008 0.01

4 0 0 0.0000 0.021 3 0.0083 0.021 3 0.0013 0.01
MEAN 2.00 -0.50 -0.0094 0.021 1.00 0.0031 0.021 2.50 0.0011 0.01
48 2 -11 -0.0152 0.021 -1 0.0033 0.021 -10 -0.0042 0.01
47 -1 -9 -0.0005 0.021 4 0.0161 0.021 -6 -0.0025 0.01
MEAN 0.50 -10.00 -0.0078 0.021 1.50 0.0097 0.021 -8.00 -0.0034 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

3 -6 -8 0.0228 0.021 6 0.0211 0.021 -8 -0.0034 0.01

48 6 5 -0.0245 0.021 -5 -0.0167 0.021 6 0.0025 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -1.50 -0.0008 0.021 0.50 0.0022 0.021 -1.00 -0.0004 0.01
4 -1 7 0.0084 0.021 3 0.0044 0.021 9 0.0038 0.01
47 -1 -9 -0.0005 0.021 -1 0.0022 0.021 -11 -0.0046 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -1.00 0.0040 0.021 1.00 0.0033 0.021 -1.00 -0.0004 0.01

153
 Table 40
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

5 -2 6 0.0124 0.021 1 -0.0006 0.021 5 0.0021 0.01

6 2 3 -0.0074 0.021 -1 -0.0044 0.021 4 0.0017 0.01
MEAN 0.00 4.50 0.0025 0.021 0.00 -0.0025 0.021 4.50 0.0019 0.01
46 4 -11 -0.0243 0.021 1 0.0089 0.021 -6 -0.0025 0.01
45 4 -1 -0.0187 0.021 -1 -0.0022 0.021 2 0.0008 0.01
MEAN 4.00 -6.00 -0.0215 0.021 0.00 0.0033 0.021 -2.00 -0.0008 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

5 2 -10 -0.0146 0.021 5 0.0194 0.021 -3 -0.0013 0.01

46 4 -11 -0.0243 0.021 -10 -0.0217 0.021 -17 -0.0071 0.01
MEAN 3.00 -10.50 -0.0195 0.021 -2.50 -0.0011 0.021 -10.00 -0.0042 0.01
6 -2 11 0.0152 0.021 5 0.0078 0.021 14 0.0059 0.01
45 3 -4 -0.0159 0.021 -13 -0.0339 0.021 -14 -0.0059 0.01
MEAN 0.50 3.50 -0.0003 0.021 -4.00 -0.0131 0.021 0.00 0.0000 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

7 2 -7 -0.0130 0.021 -3 -0.0044 0.021 -8 -0.0034 0.01

8 0 -3 -0.0017 0.021 -2 -0.0039 0.021 -5 -0.0021 0.01
MEAN 1.00 -5.00 -0.0073 0.021 -2.50 -0.0042 0.021 -6.50 -0.0027 0.01
44 -6 1 0.0278 0.021 -6 -0.0172 0.021 -11 -0.0046 0.01
43 -2 0 0.0091 0.021 1 0.0028 0.021 -1 -0.0004 0.01
MEAN -4.00 0.50 0.0185 0.021 -2.50 -0.0072 0.021 -6.00 -0.0025 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

7 -9 10 0.0465 0.021 -6 -0.0222 0.021 -5 -0.0021 0.01

44 0 -4 -0.0022 0.021 -11 -0.0283 0.021 -15 -0.0063 0.01
MEAN -4.50 3.00 0.0221 0.021 -8.50 -0.0253 0.021 -10.00 -0.0042 0.01
8 6 8 -0.0228 0.021 -4 -0.0156 0.021 10 0.0042 0.01
43 -2 0 0.0091 0.021 -10 -0.0278 0.021 -12 -0.0050 0.01
MEAN 2.00 4.00 -0.0069 0.021 -7.00 -0.0217 0.021 -1.00 -0.0004 0.01

154
 Table 40
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

9 -3 -55 -0.0169 0.021 6 0.0472 0.021 -52 -0.0218 0.01

10 -6 -8 0.0228 0.021 -3 -0.0039 0.021 -17 -0.0071 0.01
MEAN -4.50 -31.50 0.0030 0.021 1.50 0.0217 0.021 -34.50 -0.0145 0.01
42 -1 -3 0.0029 0.021 -3 -0.0067 0.021 -7 -0.0029 0.01
41 -1 -3 0.0029 0.021 -1 -0.0011 0.021 -5 -0.0021 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -3.00 0.0029 0.021 -2.00 -0.0039 0.021 -6.00 -0.0025 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

9 -6 2 0.0284 0.021 0 -0.0011 0.021 -4 -0.0017 0.01

42 8 -6 -0.0397 0.021 -10 -0.0244 0.021 -8 -0.0034 0.01
MEAN 1.00 -2.00 -0.0057 0.021 -5.00 -0.0128 0.021 -6.00 -0.0025 0.01
10 -6 -4 0.0250 0.021 3 0.0106 0.021 -7 -0.0029 0.01
41 11 -3 -0.0517 0.021 -11 -0.0289 0.021 -3 -0.0013 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -3.50 -0.0133 0.021 -4.00 -0.0092 0.021 -5.00 -0.0021 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

11 6 -4 -0.0295 0.021 -2 -0.0033 0.021 0 0.0000 0.01

12 2 1 -0.0085 0.021 1 0.0022 0.021 4 0.0017 0.01
MEAN 4.00 -1.50 -0.0190 0.021 -0.50 -0.0006 0.021 2.00 0.0008 0.01
40 5 -16 -0.0316 0.021 -1 0.0061 0.021 -12 -0.0050 0.01
39 -6 -12 0.0206 0.021 11 0.0372 0.021 -7 -0.0029 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -14.00 -0.0055 0.021 5.00 0.0217 0.021 -9.50 -0.0040 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

11 -7 6 0.0352 0.021 4 0.0078 0.021 3 0.0013 0.01

40 4 -9 -0.0232 0.021 -5 -0.0089 0.021 -10 -0.0042 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -1.50 0.0060 0.021 -0.50 -0.0006 0.021 -3.50 -0.0015 0.01
12 -2 -6 0.0058 0.021 1 0.0061 0.021 -7 -0.0029 0.01
39 6 -5 -0.0301 0.021 -5 -0.0111 0.021 -4 -0.0017 0.01
MEAN 2.00 -5.50 -0.0121 0.021 -2.00 -0.0025 0.021 -5.50 -0.0023 0.01

155
 Table 40
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

13 -5 -16 0.0138 0.021 -10 -0.0189 0.021 -31 -0.0130 0.01

14 -4 1 0.0187 0.021 0 -0.0006 0.021 -3 -0.0013 0.01
MEAN -4.50 -7.50 0.0163 0.021 -5.00 -0.0097 0.021 -17.00 -0.0071 0.01
38 1 1 -0.0040 0.021 11 0.0300 0.021 13 0.0055 0.01
37 6 24 -0.0139 0.021 -15 -0.0550 0.021 15 0.0063 0.01
MEAN 3.50 12.50 -0.0090 0.021 -2.00 -0.0125 0.021 14.00 0.0059 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

13 -5 -16 0.0138 0.021 0 0.0089 0.021 -21 -0.0088 0.01

38 1 1 -0.0040 0.021 -5 -0.0144 0.021 -3 -0.0013 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -7.50 0.0049 0.021 -2.50 -0.0028 0.021 -12.00 -0.0050 0.01
14 7 14 -0.0240 0.021 6 0.0089 0.021 27 0.0113 0.01
37 13 -1 -0.0596 0.021 8 0.0228 0.021 20 0.0084 0.01
MEAN 10.00 6.50 -0.0418 0.021 7.00 0.0158 0.021 23.50 0.0099 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

15 3 1 -0.0131 0.021 2 0.0050 0.021 6 0.0025 0.01

16 11 11 -0.0439 0.021 4 0.0050 0.021 26 0.0109 0.01
MEAN 7.00 6.00 -0.0285 0.021 3.00 0.0050 0.021 16.00 0.0067 0.01
36 2 1 -0.0085 0.021 3 0.0078 0.021 6 0.0025 0.01
35 1 7 -0.0007 0.021 2 0.0017 0.021 10 0.0042 0.01
MEAN 1.50 4.00 -0.0046 0.021 2.50 0.0047 0.021 8.00 0.0034 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

15 0 15 0.0083 0.021 5 0.0056 0.021 20 0.0084 0.01

36 6 12 -0.0206 0.021 -6 -0.0233 0.021 12 0.0050 0.01
MEAN 3.00 13.50 -0.0061 0.021 -0.50 -0.0089 0.021 16.00 0.0067 0.01
16 -4 8 0.0226 0.021 6 0.0122 0.021 10 0.0042 0.01
35 5 0 -0.0227 0.021 -15 -0.0417 0.021 -10 -0.0042 0.01
MEAN 0.50 4.00 -0.0001 0.021 -4.50 -0.0147 0.021 0.00 0.0000 0.01

156
 Table 40
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

17 4 -2 -0.0193 0.021 -6 -0.0156 0.021 -4 -0.0017 0.01

18 -5 -3 0.0211 0.021 4 0.0128 0.021 -4 -0.0017 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -2.50 0.0009 0.021 -1.00 -0.0014 0.021 -4.00 -0.0017 0.01
34 4 6 -0.0148 0.021 1 -0.0006 0.021 11 0.0046 0.01
33 4 1 -0.0176 0.021 5 0.0133 0.021 10 0.0042 0.01
MEAN 4.00 3.50 -0.0162 0.021 3.00 0.0064 0.021 10.50 0.0044 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

17 -8 -4 0.0341 0.021 6 0.0189 0.021 -6 -0.0025 0.01

34 8 5 -0.0336 0.021 1 0.0000 0.021 14 0.0059 0.01
MEAN 0.00 0.50 0.0003 0.021 3.50 0.0094 0.021 4.00 0.0017 0.01
18 -6 0 0.0273 0.021 9 0.0250 0.021 3 0.0013 0.01
33 5 -10 -0.0283 0.021 -9 -0.0194 0.021 -14 -0.0059 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -5.00 -0.0005 0.021 0.00 0.0028 0.021 -5.50 -0.0023 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

19 -1 2 0.0057 0.021 4 0.0100 0.021 5 0.0021 0.01

20 -4 4 0.0204 0.021 4 0.0089 0.021 4 0.0017 0.01
MEAN -2.50 3.00 0.0130 0.021 4.00 0.0094 0.021 4.50 0.0019 0.01
32 -1 -5 0.0018 0.021 4 0.0139 0.021 -2 -0.0008 0.01
31 -1 -1 0.0040 0.021 1 0.0033 0.021 -1 -0.0004 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -3.00 0.0029 0.021 2.50 0.0086 0.021 -1.50 -0.0006 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

19 -8 -22 0.0241 0.021 4 0.0233 0.021 -26 -0.0109 0.01

32 8 -6 -0.0397 0.021 -2 -0.0022 0.021 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -14.00 -0.0078 0.021 1.00 0.0106 0.021 -13.00 -0.0055 0.01
20 -5 1 0.0233 0.021 4 0.0106 0.021 0 0.0000 0.01
31 7 -6 -0.0352 0.021 -6 -0.0133 0.021 -5 -0.0021 0.01
MEAN 1.00 -2.50 -0.0059 0.021 -1.00 -0.0014 0.021 -2.50 -0.0011 0.01

157
 Table 40
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

21 1 7 -0.0007 0.021 -3 -0.0122 0.021 5 0.0021 0.01

22 -8 6 0.0397 0.021 1 -0.0006 0.021 -1 -0.0004 0.01
MEAN -3.50 6.50 0.0195 0.021 -1.00 -0.0064 0.021 2.00 0.0008 0.01
30 8 0 -0.0364 0.021 1 0.0028 0.021 9 0.0038 0.01
29 4 0 -0.0182 0.021 2 0.0056 0.021 6 0.0025 0.01
MEAN 6.00 0.00 -0.0273 0.021 1.50 0.0042 0.021 7.50 0.0032 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

21 -6 3 0.0289 0.021 11 0.0289 0.021 8 0.0034 0.01

30 9 7 -0.0370 0.021 -6 -0.0206 0.021 10 0.0042 0.01
MEAN 1.50 5.00 -0.0040 0.021 2.50 0.0042 0.021 9.00 0.0038 0.01
22 -8 6 0.0397 0.021 5 0.0106 0.021 3 0.0013 0.01
29 11 4 -0.0478 0.021 -11 -0.0328 0.021 4 0.0017 0.01
MEAN 1.50 5.00 -0.0040 0.021 -3.00 -0.0111 0.021 3.50 0.0015 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

23 -5 1 0.0233 0.021 4 0.0106 0.021 0 0.0000 0.01

24 -3 2 0.0147 0.021 1 0.0017 0.021 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -4.00 1.50 0.0190 0.021 2.50 0.0061 0.021 0.00 0.0000 0.01
28 -1 -16 -0.0043 0.021 -3 0.0006 0.021 -20 -0.0084 0.01
27 1 -13 -0.0118 0.021 0 0.0072 0.021 -12 -0.0050 0.01
MEAN 0 -14.50 -0.0081 0.021 -1.50 0.0039 0.021 -16.00 -0.0067 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

23 -6 -4 0.0250 0.021 5 0.0161 0.021 -5 -0.0021 0.01

28 11 -4 -0.0522 0.021 -11 -0.0283 0.021 -4 -0.0017 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -4.00 -0.0136 0.021 -3.00 -0.0061 0.021 -4.50 -0.0019 0.01
24 -6 -2 0.0262 0.021 9 0.0261 0.021 1 0.0004 0.01
27 1 -25 -0.0184 0.021 -11 -0.0167 0.021 -35 -0.0147 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -13.50 0.0039 0.021 -1.00 0.0047 0.021 -17.00 -0.0071 0.01

158
 Table 40
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

25 6 -1 -0.0278 0.021 -2 -0.0050 0.021 3 0.0013 0.01

26 4 15 -0.0098 0.021 14 0.0305 0.021 33 0.0139 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Base Tan of Std PrEN Head Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (220 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (360 mm) Angle (2380mm)

25 -4 -6 0.0148 0.021 8 0.0256 0.021 -2 -0.0008 0.01

26 13 26 -0.0446 0.021 -4 -0.0256 0.021 35 0.0147 0.01
MEAN 4.50 10.00 -0.0149 0.021 2.00 0.0000 0.021 16.50 0.0069 0.01

159
 Table 41
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 2

Site H

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

1 -9 -1 0.0300 0.021 -3 -0.0100 0.021 -13 -0.0055 0.01

2 -2 1 0.0073 0.021 -6 -0.0216 0.021 -7 -0.0029 0.01
3 4 -7 -0.0174 0.021 2 0.0109 0.021 -1 -0.0004 0.01
MEAN -2.33 -2.33 0.0066 0.019 -2.33 -0.0069 0.019 -7.00 -0.0029 0.01
50 1 4 -0.0012 0.021 0 -0.0022 0.021 5 0.0021 0.01
49 1 4 -0.0012 0.021 0 -0.0022 0.021 5 0.0021 0.01
48 1 6 -0.0001 0.021 9 0.0282 0.021 16 0.0067 0.01
MEAN 1.00 4.67 -0.0008 0.019 3.00 0.0079 0.019 8.67 0.0036 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

1 -9 6 0.0338 0.021 10 0.0318 0.021 7 0.0029 0.01

50 8 3 -0.0255 0.021 -3 -0.0122 0.021 8 0.0034 0.01
MEAN -0.50 4.50 0.0042 0.021 3.50 0.0098 0.021 7.50 0.0032 0.01
2 -5 -9 0.0119 0.021 -1 0.0015 0.021 -15 -0.0063 0.01
49 8 3 -0.0255 0.021 -3 -0.0122 0.021 8 0.0034 0.01
MEAN 1.50 -3.00 -0.0068 0.021 -2.00 -0.0054 0.021 -3.50 -0.0015 0.01
3 -4 -4 0.0113 0.01 4 0.0163 0.021 -4 -0.0017 0.01
48 9 1 -0.0300 0.01 -8 -0.0286 0.021 2 0.0008 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -1.50 -0.0093 0.01 0.021 0.0009 0.021 1.02 0.0004 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

4 3 -2 -0.0113 0.021 1 0.0046 0.021 2 0.0008 0.01

5 -6 15 0.0287 0.021 0 -0.0083 0.021 9 0.0038 0.01
6 -3 -7 0.0063 0.021 0 0.0039 0.021 -10 -0.0042 0.01
MEAN -2.00 2.00 0.0079 0.019 0.33 0.0001 0.019 0.33 0.0001 0.01
47 5 8 -0.0125 0.021 -1 -0.0080 0.021 12 0.0050 0.01
46 -1 -7 -0.0005 0.021 -3 -0.0066 0.021 -11 -0.0046 0.01
45 -1 -14 -0.0044 0.021 -1 0.0043 0.021 -16 -0.0067 0.01
MEAN 1.00 -4.33 -0.0058 0.019 -1.67 -0.0034 0.019 -5.00 -0.0021 0.01

160
 Table 41
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 2
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

4 -3 13 0.0174 0.021 11 0.0314 0.021 21 0.0088 0.01

47 8 -3 -0.0288 0.021 -3 -0.0089 0.021 2 0.0008 0.01
MEAN 2.50 5.00 -0.0057 0.021 4.00 0.0113 0.021 11.50 0.0048 0.01
5 -6 15 0.0287 0.021 7 0.0162 0.021 16 0.0067 0.01
46 9 0 -0.0305 0.021 -6 -0.0211 0.021 3 0.0013 0.01
MEAN 1.50 7.50 -0.0009 0.021 0.50 -0.0024 0.021 9.50 0.0040 0.01
6 -3 -7 0.0063 0.021 3 0.0144 0.021 -7 -0.0029 0.01
45 9 38 -0.0094 0.021 4 -0.0071 0.021 51 0.0214 0.01
MEAN 3.00 15.50 -0.0016 0.021 3.50 0.0037 0.021 22.00 0.0092 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

7 0 3 0.0017 0.021 4 0.0124 0.021 7 0.0029 0.01

8 0 13 0.0072 0.021 -1 -0.0107 0.021 12 0.0050 0.01
9 0 1 0.0006 0.021 -6 -0.0216 0.021 -5 -0.0021 0.01
MEAN 0 5.67 0.0031 0.019 -1.00 -0.0067 0.019 4.67 0.0020 0.01
44 -2 15 0.0151 0.021 -3 -0.0189 0.021 10 0.0042 0.01
43 3 -8 -0.0146 0.021 2 0.0115 0.021 -3 -0.0013 0.01
42 6 43 0.0035 0.021 -1 -0.0274 0.021 48 0.0202 0.01
MEAN 2.33 16.67 0.0013 0.019 -0.67 -0.0116 0.019 18.33 0.0077 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

7 -7 3 0.0254 0.021 5 0.0159 0.021 1 0.0004 0.01

44 5 -18 -0.0270 0.021 -14 -0.0391 0.021 -27 -0.0113 0.01
MEAN -1 -7.5 -0.0008 0.021 -4.5 -0.0116 0.021 -13 -0.0055 0.01
8 -8 -17 0.0177 0.021 0 0.0094 0.021 -25 -0.0105 0.01
43 4 -38 -0.0347 0.021 -4 0.0071 0.021 -38 -0.0160 0.01
MEAN -2 -27.5 -0.0085 0.021 -2 0.0083 0.021 -31.5 -0.0132 0.01
9 -7 -7 0.0198 0.021 -2 -0.0031 0.021 -16 -0.0067 0.01
42 1 18 0.0066 0.021 -1 -0.0135 0.021 18 0.0076 0.01
MEAN -3.00 5.50 0.0132 0.021 -1.50 -0.0083 0.021 1.00 0.0004 0.01

161
 Table 41
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 2
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

10 -9 -17 0.0211 0.021 -3 -0.0011 0.021 -29 -0.0122 0.01

11 0 1 0.0006 0.021 -8 -0.0286 0.021 -7 -0.0029 0.01
12 3 6 -0.0068 0.021 7 0.0212 0.021 16 0.0067 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -3.33 0.0049 0.019 -1.33 -0.0028 0.019 -6.67 -0.0028 0.01
41 2 25 0.0071 0.021 5 0.0037 0.021 32 0.0134 0.01
40 -1 -7 -0.0005 0.021 -1 0.0004 0.021 -9 -0.0038 0.01
39 -3 -10 0.0046 0.021 3 0.0161 0.021 -10 -0.0042 0.01
MEAN -0.67 2.67 0.0037 0.019 2.33 0.0067 0.019 4.33 0.0018 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

10 -9 -17 0.0211 0.021 4 0.0235 0.021 -22 -0.0092 0.01

41 6 11 -0.0142 0.021 -5 -0.0237 0.021 12 0.0050 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -3.00 0.0034 0.021 -0.50 -0.0001 0.021 -5.00 -0.0021 0.01
11 -4 -6 0.0102 0.021 -9 -0.0282 0.021 -19 -0.0080 0.01
40 13 52 -0.0152 0.021 -1 -0.0324 0.021 64 0.0269 0.01
MEAN 4.50 23.00 -0.0025 0.021 -5.00 -0.0303 0.021 22.50 0.0095 0.01
12 -4 13 0.0208 0.021 16 0.0489 0.021 25 0.0105 0.01
39 -3 -10 0.0046 0.021 3 0.0161 0.021 -10 -0.0042 0.01
MEAN -3.50 1.50 0.0127 0.021 9.50 0.0325 0.021 7.50 0.0032 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

13 -1 3 0.0051 0.021 -1 -0.0052 0.021 1 0.0004 0.01

14 -1 -7 -0.0005 0.021 3 0.0144 0.021 -5 -0.0021 0.01
15 -1 -1 0.0028 0.021 1 0.0041 0.021 -1 -0.0004 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -1.67 0.0025 0.019 1.00 0.0044 0.019 -1.67 -0.0007 0.01
38 1 6 -0.0001 0.021 6 0.0177 0.021 13 0.0055 0.01
37 -2 8 0.0112 0.021 -1 -0.0080 0.021 5 0.0021 0.01
36 2 -6 -0.0101 0.021 1 0.0068 0.021 -3 -0.0013 0.01
MEAN 0.33 2.67 0.0004 0.019 2.00 0.0055 0.019 5.00 0.0021 0.01

162
 Table 41
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 2
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

13 -4 16 0.0225 0.021 11 0.0297 0.021 23 0.0097 0.01

38 7 -4 -0.0260 0.021 -8 -0.0258 0.021 -5 -0.0021 0.01
MEAN 1.50 6.00 -0.0018 0.021 1.50 0.0019 0.021 9.00 0.0038 0.01
14 -8 6 0.0305 0.021 4 0.0107 0.021 2 0.0008 0.01
37 2 -5 -0.0096 0.021 -12 -0.0393 0.021 -15 -0.0063 0.01
MEAN -3.00 0.50 0.0104 0.021 -4.00 -0.0143 0.021 -6.50 -0.0027 0.01
15 -5 12 0.0236 0.021 8 0.0214 0.021 15 0.0063 0.01
36 2 -8 -0.0112 0.021 -16 -0.0517 0.021 -22 -0.0092 0.01
MEAN -1.50 2.00 0.0062 0.021 -4.00 -0.0151 0.021 -3.50 -0.0015 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

16 1 5 -0.0006 0.021 4 0.0113 0.021 10 0.0042 0.01

17 2 20 0.0043 0.021 -1 -0.0146 0.021 21 0.0088 0.01
18 0 21 0.0117 0.021 3 -0.0011 0.021 24 0.0101 0.01
MEAN 1.00 15.33 0.0051 0.019 2.00 -0.0015 0.019 18.33 0.0077 0.01
35 4 -5 -0.0163 0.021 -1 -0.0007 0.021 -2 -0.0008 0.01
34 4 1 -0.0130 0.021 -4 -0.0146 0.021 1 0.0004 0.01
33 4 -3 -0.0152 0.021 0 0.0017 0.021 1 0.0004 0.01
MEAN 4.00 -2.33 -0.0149 0.019 -1.67 -0.0046 0.019 0.00 0.0000 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

16 -7 -19 0.0132 0.021 8 0.0386 0.021 -18 -0.0076 0.01

35 2 4 -0.0046 0.021 -7 -0.0268 0.021 -1 -0.0004 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -7.50 0.0043 0.021 0.50 0.0059 0.021 -9.50 -0.0040 0.01
17 -6 -17 0.0109 0.021 2 0.0165 0.021 -21 -0.0088 0.01
34 4 6 -0.0102 0.021 -4 -0.0174 0.021 6 0.0025 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -5.50 0.0003 0.021 -1.00 -0.0005 0.021 -7.50 -0.0032 0.01
18 -1 6 0.0067 0.021 6 0.0177 0.021 11 0.0046 0.01
33 4 11 -0.0074 0.021 -3 -0.0166 0.021 12 0.0050 0.01
MEAN 1.50 8.50 -0.0004 0.021 1.50 0.0005 0.021 11.50 0.0048 0.01

163
 Table 41
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 2
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

19 0 -7 -0.0039 0.021 -1 0.0004 0.021 -8 -0.0034 0.01

20 -10 -7 0.0300 0.021 2 0.0109 0.021 -15 -0.0063 0.01
21 -8 -45 0.0021 0.021 -7 0.0004 0.021 -60 -0.0252 0.01
M EA N -6.00 -19.67 0.0094 0.019 -2.00 0.0039 0.019 -27.67 -0.0116 0.01
32 -11 16 0.0462 0.021 -8 -0.0370 0.021 -3 -0.0013 0.01
31 -1 5 0.0062 0.021 -4 -0.0168 0.021 0 0.0000 0.01
30 0 7 0.0039 0.021 -4 -0.0179 0.021 3 0.0013 0.01
M EA N -4.00 9.33 0.0187 0.019 -5.33 -0.0239 0.019 0.00 0.0000 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

19 0 10 0.0056 0.021 1 -0.0020 0.021 11 0.0046 0.01

32 26 13 -0.0809 0.021 -4 -0.0213 0.021 35 0.0147 0.01
M EA N 13.00 11.50 -0.0377 0.021 -1.50 -0.0117 0.021 23.00 0.0097 0.01
20 -10 -7 0.0300 0.021 2 0.0109 0.021 -15 -0.0063 0.01
31 8 18 -0.0171 0.021 -4 -0.0240 0.021 22 0.0092 0.01
M EA N -1.00 5.50 0.0064 0.021 -1.00 -0.0066 0.021 3.50 0.0015 0.01
21 -4 42 0.0369 0.021 6 -0.0023 0.021 44 0.0185 0.01
30 8 11 -0.0210 0.021 -8 -0.0342 0.021 11 0.0046 0.01
M EA N 2.00 26.50 0.0079 0.021 -1.00 -0.0182 0.021 27.50 0.0116 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

22 -4 -36 -0.0064 0.021 -3 0.0095 0.021 -43 -0.0181 0.01

23 0 7 0.0039 0.021 -1 -0.0074 0.021 6 0.0025 0.01
24 1 4 -0.0012 0.021 1 0.0013 0.021 6 0.0025 0.01
M EA N -1.00 -8.33 -0.0012 0.019 -1.00 0.0011 0.019 -10.33 -0.0043 0.01
28 2 6 -0.0034 0.021 5 0.0142 0.021 13 0.0055 0.01
27 1 4 -0.0012 0.021 5 0.0153 0.021 10 0.0042 0.01
29 6 11 -0.0142 0.021 5 0.0114 0.021 22 0.0092 0.01
M EA N 3.00 7.00 -0.0063 0.019 5.00 0.0137 0.019 15.00 0.0063 0.01

164
 Table 41
Verticality Results for Site H - Visit 2
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

22 -8 -2 0.0260 0.021 7 0.0257 0.021 -3 -0.0013 0.01

29 16 -10 -0.0598 0.021 -9 -0.0260 0.021 -3 -0.0013 0.01
MEAN 4.00 -6.00 -0.0169 0.021 -1.00 -0.0002 0.021 -3.00 -0.0013 0.01
23 -8 0 0.0271 0.021 8 0.0281 0.021 0 0.0000 0.01
28 9 -13 -0.0377 0.021 -16 -0.0489 0.021 -20 -0.0084 0.01
MEAN 0.50 -6.50 -0.0053 0.021 -4.00 -0.0104 0.021 -10.00 -0.0042 0.01
24 -8 -4 0.0249 0.021 7 0.0268 0.021 -5 -0.0021 0.01
27 5 -20 -0.0281 0.021 -4 -0.0029 0.021 -19 -0.0080 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -12.00 -0.0016 0.021 1.50 0.0119 0.021 -12.00 -0.0050 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

25 1 0 -0.0034 0.021 -2 -0.0070 0.021 -1 -0.0004 0.01

26 0 1 0.0006 0.021 4 0.0135 0.021 5 0.0021 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Jack Standard Base Jack Spec. Head Jack Head Jack Spec. Spec.
Leg (295 mm) (1800 mm) Angle (285 mm high Angle (2380mm)

25 -9 -8 0.0261 0.021 2 0.0115 0.021 -15 -0.0063 0.01

26 8 -2 -0.0282 0.021 -4 -0.0129 0.021 2 0.0008 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -5.00 -0.0011 0.021 -1.00 -0.0007 0.021 -6.50 -0.0027 0.01

165
 Table 42
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 1

Site J

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

1 1 1 -1 -0.0023 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01

2 -2 0 0.0034 0.01 -2 -0.0009 0.01
3 -4 1 0.0074 0.01 -3 -0.0014 0.01
4 3 -3 -0.0070 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -0.75 0.0004 0.01 -1.25 -0.0006 0.01
5 -1 0 0.0017 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01
6 2 -3 -0.0053 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01
7 -1 1 0.0023 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
8 4 3 -0.0049 0.01 7 0.0032 0.01
MEAN 1.00 0.25 -0.0015 0.01 1.25 0.0006 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

1 1 -19 -10 0.0259 0.01 -29 -0.0132 0.01

8 7 -4 -0.0144 0.01 3 0.0014 0.01
MEAN -6.00 -7.00 0.0058 0.01 -13.00 -0.0059 0.01
2 -12 -7 0.0160 0.01 -19 -0.0087 0.01
7 7 -7 -0.0162 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -7.00 -0.0001 0.01 -9.50 -0.0043 0.01
3 -10 -9 0.0113 0.01 -19 -0.0087 0.01
6 2 -7 -0.0078 0.01 -5 -0.0023 0.01
MEAN -4.00 -8.00 0.0018 0.01 -12.00 -0.0055 0.01
4 -9 -14 0.0065 0.01 -23 -0.0105 0.01
5 0 -16 -0.0100 0.01 -16 -0.0073 0.01
MEAN -4.50 -15.00 -0.0017 0.01 -19.50 -0.0089 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

2 1 7 5 -0.0087 0.01 12 0.0055 0.01

2 2 1 -0.0028 0.01 3 0.0014 0.01
3 0 2 0.0013 0.01 2 0.0009 0.01
4 1 4 0.0008 0.01 5 0.0023 0.01
MEAN 2.50 3.00 -0.0024 0.01 5.50 0.0025 0.01
5 4 2 -0.0055 0.01 6 0.0027 0.01
6 4 1 -0.0062 0.01 5 0.0023 0.01
7 5 -1 -0.0091 0.01 4 0.0018 0.01
8 -6 -4 0.0077 0.01 -10 -0.0046 0.01
MEAN 1.75 -0.50 -0.0033 0.01 1.25 0.0006 0.01

166
 Table 42
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 1
Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

2 1 -16 -15 0.0177 0.01 -31 -0.0142 0.01

8 5 -14 -0.0172 0.01 -9 -0.0041 0.01
MEAN -5.50 -14.50 0.0003 0.01 -20.00 -0.0091 0.01
2 -14 -3 0.0219 0.01 -17 -0.0078 0.01
7 12 -1 -0.0210 0.01 11 0.0050 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -2.00 0.0004 0.01 -3.00 -0.0014 0.01
3 -16 -6 0.0234 0.01 -22 -0.0100 0.01
6 8 -6 -0.0173 0.01 2 0.0009 0.01
MEAN -4.00 -6.00 0.0030 0.01 -10.00 -0.0046 0.01
4 -10 2 0.0182 0.01 -8 -0.0037 0.01
5 12 4 -0.0178 0.01 16 0.0073 0.01
MEAN 1.00 3.00 0.0002 0.01 4.00 0.0018 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

3 1 -11 6 0.0224 0.01 -5 -0.0023 0.01

2 -12 3 0.0222 0.01 -9 -0.0041 0.01
3 -10 4 0.0194 0.01 -6 -0.0027 0.01
4 -6 4 0.0127 0.01 -2 -0.0009 0.01
MEAN -9.75 4.25 0.0192 0.01 -5.50 -0.0025 0.01
5 8 4 -0.0111 0.01 12 0.0055 0.01
6 7 5 -0.0087 0.01 12 0.0055 0.01
7 6 1 -0.0095 0.01 7 0.0032 0.01
8 14 4 -0.0212 0.01 18 0.0082 0.01
MEAN 8.75 3.50 -0.0126 0.01 12.25 0.0056 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

3 1 6 0 -0.0102 0.01 6 0.0027 0.01

8 3 1 -0.0045 0.01 4 0.0018 0.01
MEAN 4.50 0.50 -0.0073 0.01 5.00 0.0023 0.01
2 2 0 -0.0034 0.01 2 0.0009 0.01
7 7 -3 -0.0137 0.01 4 0.0018 0.01
MEAN 4.50 -1.50 -0.0086 0.01 3.00 0.0014 0.01
3 0 1 0.0006 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01
6 4 -1 -0.0074 0.01 3 0.0014 0.01
MEAN 2.00 0.00 -0.0034 0.01 2.00 0.0009 0.01
4 8 -5 -0.0167 0.01 3 0.0014 0.01
5 8 -4 -0.0161 0.01 4 0.0018 0.01
MEAN 8.00 -4.50 -0.0164 0.01 3.50 0.0016 0.01

167
 Table 42
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

4 1 1 -1 -0.0023 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01

2 -1 -3 -0.0002 0.01 -4 -0.0018 0.01
3 2 -1 -0.0040 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01
MEAN 0.67 -1.25 -0.0019 0.01 -0.58 -0.0003 0.01
4 -4 -2 0.0055 0.01 -6 -0.0027 0.01
5 1 -2 -0.0029 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01
6 -4 2 0.0080 0.01 -2 -0.0009 0.01
MEAN -2.33 -0.81 0.0034 0.01 -3.15 -0.0014 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

4 1 -9 -5 0.0121 0.01 -14 -0.0064 0.01

6 7 -4 -0.0144 0.01 3 0.0014 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -4.50 -0.0011 0.01 -5.50 -0.0025 0.01
2 -9 -4 0.0128 0.01 -13 -0.0059 0.01
5 12 4 -0.0178 0.01 16 0.0073 0.01
MEAN 1.50 0.00 -0.0025 0.01 1.50 0.0007 0.01
3 -12 -1 0.0197 0.01 -13 -0.0059 0.01
4 15 2 -0.0242 0.01 17 0.0078 0.01
MEAN 1.50 0.50 -0.0022 0.01 2.00 0.0009 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

5 1 -2 6 0.0071 0.01 4 0.0018 0.01

2 -2 -3 0.0015 0.01 -5 -0.0023 0.01
3 -6 -4 0.0077 0.01 -10 -0.0046 0.01
MEAN -3.33 -0.33 0.0054 0.01 -3.67 -0.0017 0.01
4 -4 1 0.0074 0.01 -3 -0.0014 0.01
5 -5 -5 0.0053 0.01 -10 -0.0046 0.01
6 -5 -4 0.0060 0.01 -9 -0.0041 0.01
MEAN -4.67 -2.67 0.0062 0.01 -7.33 -0.0033 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

5 1 -14 3 0.0256 0.01 -11 -0.0050 0.01

6 11 0 -0.0186 0.01 11 0.0050 0.01
MEAN -1.50 1.50 0.0035 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.01
2 -10 3 0.0188 0.01 -7 -0.0032 0.01
5 8 1 -0.0129 0.01 9 0.0041 0.01
MEAN -1.00 2.00 0.0029 0.01 1.00 0.0005 0.01
3 -14 8 0.0287 0.01 -6 -0.0027 0.01
4 14 6 -0.0200 0.01 20 0.0091 0.01
MEAN 0.00 7.00 0.0044 0.01 7.00 0.0032 0.01

168
 Table 42
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)
6 1 -4 -2 0.0055 0.01 -6 -0.0027 0.01
2 -3 -4 0.0026 0.01 -7 -0.0032 0.01
3 -4 -8 0.0018 0.01 -12 -0.0055 0.01
MEAN -3.67 -4.67 0.0033 0.01 -8.33 -0.0038 0.01
4 -3 2 0.0063 0.01 -1 -0.0005 0.01
5 -1 -2 0.0004 0.01 -3 -0.0014 0.01
6 4 2 -0.0055 0.01 6 0.0027 0.01
MEAN 0.00 0.67 0.0004 0.01 0.67 0.0003 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

6 1 -9 5 0.0184 0.01 -4 -0.0018 0.01

6 10 6 -0.0132 0.01 16 0.0073 0.01
MEAN 0.50 5.50 0.0026 0.01 6.00 0.0027 0.01
2 -12 -6 0.0166 0.01 -18 -0.0082 0.01
5 12 2 -0.0191 0.01 14 0.0064 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -2.00 -0.0013 0.01 -2.00 -0.0009 0.01
3 -9 -1 0.0146 0.01 -10 -0.0046 0.01
4 9 2 -0.0140 0.01 11 0.0050 0.01
MEAN 0.00 0.50 0.0003 0.01 0.50 0.0002 0.01

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

7 1 -4 1 0.0074 0.01 -3 -0.0014 0.01

2 3 2 -0.0038 0.01 5 0.0023 0.01
3 -4 2 0.0080 0.01 -2 -0.0009 0.01
MEAN -1.67 1.67 0.0039 0.01 0.00 0.0000 0.01
4 -6 -5 0.0070 0.01 -11 -0.0050 0.01
5 0 1 0.0006 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01
6 -6 0 0.0102 0.01 -6 -0.0027 0.01
MEAN -4.00 -1.33 0.0059 0.01 -5.33 -0.0024 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

7 1 -12 -5 0.0172 0.01 -17 -0.0078 0.01

6 7 -4 -0.0144 0.01 3 0.0014 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -4.50 0.0014 0.01 -7.00 -0.0032 0.01
2 -9 -1 0.0146 0.01 -10 -0.0046 0.01
5 10 1 -0.0163 0.01 11 0.0050 0.01
MEAN 0.50 0.00 -0.0008 0.01 0.50 0.0002 0.01
3 -10 -2 0.0157 0.01 -12 -0.0055 0.01
4 18 6 -0.0268 0.01 24 0.0110 0.01
MEAN 4.00 2.00 -0.0055 0.01 6.00 0.0027 0.01

169
 Table 42
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 1
Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

8 1 8 7 -0.0092 0.01 15 0.0068 0.01

2 0 6 0.0038 0.01 6 0.0027 0.01
3 2 6 0.0004 0.01 8 0.0037 0.01
MEAN 3.33 6.33 -0.0017 0.01 9.67 0.0044 0.01
4 11 1 -0.0180 0.01 12 0.0055 0.01
5 10 4 -0.0144 0.01 14 0.0064 0.01
6 1 6 0.0021 0.01 7 0.0032 0.01
MEAN 7.33 3.67 -0.0101 0.01 11.00 0.0050 0.01

Visit 1 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Jack Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (590 mm high)(1600 mm high) (2190mm high)

8 1 -13 -10 0.0158 0.01 -23 -0.0105 0.01

6 5 -9 -0.0141 0.01 -4 -0.0018 0.01
MEAN -4.00 -9.50 0.0008 0.01 -13.50 -0.0062 0.01
2 -10 -8 0.0119 0.01 -18 -0.0082 0.01
5 10 -6 -0.0207 0.01 4 0.0018 0.01
MEAN 0.00 -7.00 -0.0044 0.01 -7.00 -0.0032 0.01
3 -7 9 0.0175 0.01 2 0.0009 0.01
4 11 11 -0.0118 0.01 22 0.0100 0.01
MEAN 2.00 10.00 0.0029 0.01 12.00 0.0055 0.01

170
 Table 43
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 2

Site J
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)
1 1 1.00 -21.00 -0.0209 0.01 -4 0.0148 0.01 -24 -0.0070 0.01
2 -2.00 -8.00 0.0016 0.01 -6 0.0033 0.01 -16 -0.0047 0.01
3 -1.00 -1.00 0.0032 0.01 -6 -0.0023 0.01 -8 -0.0023 0.01
4 -18.00 -1.00 0.0712 0.01 -12 -0.0054 0.01 -31 -0.0091 0.01
MEAN -5.00 -7.75 0.0138 0.01 -7.00 0.0026 0.01 -19.75 -0.0058 0.01
5 4.00 -16.00 -0.0289 0.01 -3 0.0113 0.01 -15 -0.0044 0.01
6 2.00 9.00 -0.0008 0.01 -4 -0.0093 0.01 7 0.0020 0.01
7 -2.00 7.00 0.0136 0.01 -6 -0.0087 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
8 -1.00 -6.00 -0.0008 0.01 -1 0.0043 0.01 -8 -0.0023 0.01
MEAN 0.75 -1.50 -0.0042 0.01 -3.50 -0.0006 0.01 -4.25 -0.0012 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)
1 1 8.00 -36.00 -0.0610 0.01 -10 0.0281 0.01 -38 -0.0111 0.01
8 -11.00 -11.00 0.0352 0.01 2 0.0099 0.01 -20 -0.0058 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -23.50 -0.0129 0.01 -4.00 0.0168 0.01 -29.00 -0.0085 0.01
2 8.00 -2.00 -0.0336 0.01 -2 0.0006 0.01 4 0.0012 0.01
7 -14.00 7.00 0.0616 0.01 -3 -0.0072 0.01 -10 -0.0029 0.01
MEAN -3.00 2.50 0.0140 0.01 -3 -0.0033 0.01 -3.00 -0.0009 0.01
3 8.00 -8.00 -0.0384 0.01 -11 0.0007 0.01 -11 -0.0032 0.01
6 -10.00 9.00 0.0472 0.01 -11 -0.0129 0.01 -12 -0.0035 0.01
MEAN -1.00 0.50 0.0044 0.01 -11.00 -0.0061 0.01 -11.50 -0.0034 0.01
4 7.00 11.00 -0.0192 0.01 -6 -0.0120 0.01 12 0.0035 0.01
5 7.00 14.00 -0.0167 0.01 -6 -0.0144 0.01 15 0.0044 0.01
MEAN 7.00 12.50 -0.0180 0.01 -6.00 -0.0132 0.01 13.50 0.0039 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

2 1 -3.00 24.00 0.0313 0.01 13 -0.0125 0.01 34 0.0099 0.01

2 0.00 12.00 0.0096 0.01 -3 -0.0112 0.01 9 0.0026 0.01
3 -4.00 5.00 0.0200 0.01 -3 -0.0056 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
4 2.00 2.00 -0.0064 0.01 -1 -0.0021 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
MEAN -1.25 10.75 0.0136 0.01 1.50 -0.0079 0.01 11.00 0.0032 0.01
5 -5.00 -6.00 0.0152 0.01 -8 0.0007 0.01 -19 -0.0056 0.01
6 2.00 -10.00 -0.0160 0.01 -7 0.0044 0.01 -15 -0.0044 0.01
7 -1.00 -6.00 -0.0008 0.01 -4 0.0027 0.01 -11 -0.0032 0.01
8 6.00 8.00 -0.0176 0.01 -12 -0.0127 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
MEAN 0.50 -3.50 -0.0048 0.01 -7.75 -0.0012 0.01 -10.75 -0.0031 0.01

171
 Table 43
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

2 1 12.00 -14.00 -0.0593 0.01 -3 0.0097 0.01 -5 -0.0015 0.01

8 -7.00 17.00 0.0417 0.01 -1 -0.0142 0.01 9 0.0026 0.01
MEAN 2.50 1.50 -0.0088 0.01 -2.00 -0.0022 0.01 2.00 0.0006 0.01
2 6.00 5.00 -0.0200 0.01 1 -0.0035 0.01 12 0.0035 0.01
7 -3.00 13.00 0.0224 0.01 7 -0.0068 0.01 17 0.0050 0.01
MEAN 1.50 9.00 0.0012 0.01 4.00 -0.0052 0.01 14.50 0.0042 0.01
3 9.00 -8.00 -0.0424 0.01 -4 0.0043 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
6 -11.00 9.00 0.0512 0.01 -7 -0.0109 0.01 -9 -0.0026 0.01
MEAN -1.00 0.50 0.0044 0.01 -5.50 -0.0033 0.01 -6.00 -0.0018 0.01
4 8.00 -5.00 -0.0360 0.01 -9 -0.0007 0.01 -6 -0.0018 0.01
5 -10.00 -8.00 0.0336 0.01 -8 0.0023 0.01 -26 -0.0076 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -6.50 -0.0012 0.01 -8.50 0.0008 0.01 -16.00 -0.0047 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

3 1 2.00 -11.00 -0.0168 0.01 -6 0.0057 0.01 -15 -0.0044 0.01

2 -3.00 15.00 0.0241 0.01 0 -0.0120 0.01 12 0.0035 0.01
3 -7.00 -1.00 0.0272 0.01 -1 0.0003 0.01 -9 -0.0026 0.01
4 -1.00 1.00 0.0048 0.01 -6 -0.0039 0.01 -6 -0.0018 0.01
MEAN -2.25 1.00 0.0098 0.01 -3.25 -0.0025 0.01 -4.50 -0.0013 0.01
5 0.00 18.00 0.0145 0.01 -1 -0.0150 0.01 17 0.0050 0.01
6 -4.00 -10.00 0.0080 0.01 1 0.0086 0.01 -13 -0.0038 0.01
7 -2.00 -4.00 0.0048 0.01 -3 0.0017 0.01 -9 -0.0026 0.01
8 0.00 -8.00 -0.0064 0.01 0 0.0064 0.01 -8 -0.0023 0.01
MEAN -1.50 -1.00 0.0052 0.01 -0.75 0.0004 0.01 -3.25 -0.0010 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

3 1 8.00 -5.00 -0.0360 0.01 4 0.0061 0.01 7 0.0020 0.01

8 0.00 14.00 0.0112 0.01 -1 -0.0118 0.01 13 0.0038 0.01
MEAN 4.00 4.50 -0.0124 0.01 1.50 -0.0028 0.01 10.00 0.0029 0.01
2 9.00 -14.00 -0.0473 0.01 0 0.0112 0.01 -5 -0.0015 0.01
7 -10.00 10.00 0.0480 0.01 3 -0.0065 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -2.00 0.0004 0.01 1.50 0.0024 0.01 -1.00 -0.0003 0.01
3 5.00 1.00 -0.0192 0.01 -1 -0.0013 0.01 5 0.0015 0.01
6 -8.00 9.00 0.0392 0.01 -2 -0.0083 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
MEAN -1.50 5.00 0.0100 0.01 -1.50 -0.0048 0.01 2.00 0.0006 0.01
4 6.00 -22.00 -0.0417 0.01 -12 0.0114 0.01 -28 -0.0082 0.01
5 -3.00 -12.00 0.0024 0.01 -12 0.0034 0.01 -27 -0.0079 0.01
MEAN 1.50 -17.00 -0.0197 0.01 -12.00 0.0074 0.01 -27.50 -0.0080 0.01

172
 Table 43
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

4 1 11.00 -7.00 -0.0496 0.01 -4 0.0035 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01

2 7.00 -7.00 -0.0336 0.01 -3 0.0041 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
3 10.00 4.00 -0.0368 0.01 2 -0.0022 0.01 16 0.0047 0.01
MEAN 9.33 -3.33 -0.0400 0.01 -1.67 0.0018 0.01 4.33 0.0013 0.01
4 -8.00 16.00 0.0449 0.01 1 -0.0123 0.01 9 0.0026 0.01
5 -9.00 7.00 0.0416 0.01 -2 -0.0067 0.01 -4 -0.0012 0.01
6 -8.00 20.00 0.0481 0.01 -2 -0.0171 0.01 10 0.0029 0.01
MEAN -8.33 14.33 0.0449 0.01 -1.00 -0.0120 0.01 5.00 0.0015 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

4 1 -7.00 8.00 0.0344 0.01 1 -0.0059 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01

6 20.00 9.00 -0.0727 0.01 -1 -0.0077 0.01 28 0.0082 0.01
MEAN 6.50 8.50 -0.0192 0.01 0.00 -0.0068 0.01 15.00 0.0044 0.01
2 -7.00 0.00 0.0280 0.01 -3 -0.0016 0.01 -10 -0.0029 0.01
5 7.00 1.00 -0.0272 0.01 1 -0.0003 0.01 9 0.0026 0.01
MEAN 0.00 0.50 0.0004 0.01 -1.00 -0.0009 0.01 -0.50 -0.0001 0.01
3 4.00 -1.00 -0.0168 0.01 -5 -0.0018 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
4 16.00 10.00 -0.0559 0.01 -2 -0.0091 0.01 24 0.0070 0.01
MEAN 10.00 4.50 -0.0364 0.01 -3.50 -0.0054 0.01 11.00 0.0032 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

5 1 -2.00 -18.00 -0.0065 0.01 -2 0.0134 0.01 -22 -0.0064 0.01

2 -3.00 -7.00 0.0064 0.01 -2 0.0046 0.01 -12 -0.0035 0.01
3 -1.00 3.00 0.0064 0.01 -4 -0.0045 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -7.33 0.0021 0.01 -2.67 0.0045 0.01 -12.00 -0.0035 0.01
4 -6.00 4.00 0.0272 0.01 5 -0.0006 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
5 2.00 0.00 -0.0080 0.01 -6 -0.0031 0.01 -4 -0.0012 0.01
6 1.00 13.00 0.0064 0.01 -1 -0.0110 0.01 13 0.0038 0.01
MEAN -1.00 5.67 0.0086 0.01 -0.67 -0.0049 0.01 4.00 0.0012 0.01

173
 Table 43
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)
Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)
5 1 1.00 -29.00 -0.0273 0.01 -1 0.0228 0.01 -29 -0.0085 0.01
6 -13.00 7.00 0.0576 0.01 -1 -0.0061 0.01 -7 -0.0020 0.01
MEAN -6.00 -11.00 0.0152 0.01 -1.00 0.0083 0.01 -18.00 -0.0053 0.01
2 7.00 -9.00 -0.0352 0.01 -1 0.0067 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
5 -11.00 -1.00 0.0432 0.01 -1 0.0003 0.01 -13 -0.0038 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -5.00 0.0040 0.01 -1.00 0.0035 0.01 -8.00 -0.0023 0.01
3 1.00 -20.00 -0.0201 0.01 5 0.0187 0.01 -14 -0.0041 0.01
4 -2.00 -7.00 0.0024 0.01 -4 0.0035 0.01 -13 -0.0038 0.01
MEAN -0.50 -13.50 -0.0088 0.01 0.50 0.0111 0.01 -13.50 -0.0039 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)
6 1 -6.00 5.00 0.0280 0.01 4 -0.0019 0.01 3 0.0009 0.01
2 1.00 9.00 0.0032 0.01 1 -0.0067 0.01 11 0.0032 0.01
3 1.00 -8.00 -0.0104 0.01 -1 0.0059 0.01 -8 -0.0023 0.01
MEAN -1.33 2.00 0.0069 0.01 1.33 -0.0009 0.01 2.00 0.0006 0.01
4 -1.00 -1.00 0.0032 0.01 4 0.0029 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
5 -5.00 1.00 0.0208 0.01 1 -0.0003 0.01 -3 -0.0009 0.01
6 1.00 -13.00 -0.0144 0.01 1 0.0110 0.01 -11 -0.0032 0.01
MEAN -1.67 -4.33 0.0032 0.01 2.00 0.0045 0.01 -4.00 -0.0012 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)
6 1 6.00 -19.00 -0.0393 0.01 -3 0.0137 0.01 -16 -0.0047 0.01
6 -10.00 7.00 0.0456 0.01 3 -0.0041 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
MEAN -2.00 -6.00 0.0032 0.01 0.00 0.0048 0.01 -8.00 -0.0023 0.01
2 12.00 -2.00 -0.0496 0.01 -1 0.0011 0.01 9 0.0026 0.01
5 -10.00 10.00 0.0480 0.01 -1 -0.0086 0.01 -1 -0.0003 0.01
MEAN 1.00 4.00 -0.0008 0.01 -1.00 -0.0037 0.01 4.00 0.0012 0.01
3 12.00 -6.00 -0.0528 0.01 0 0.0048 0.01 6 0.0018 0.01
4 -7.00 9.00 0.0352 0.01 2 -0.0062 0.01 4 0.0012 0.01
MEAN 2.50 1.50 -0.0088 0.01 1.00 -0.0007 0.01 5.00 0.0015 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

7 1 -17.00 -17.00 0.0543 0.01 0 0.0137 0.01 -34 -0.0099 0.01

2 -1.00 6.00 0.0088 0.01 1 -0.0043 0.01 6 0.0018 0.01
3 1.00 -12.00 -0.0136 0.01 1 0.0102 0.01 -10 -0.0029 0.01
MEAN -5.67 -7.67 0.0165 0.01 0.67 0.0065 0.01 -12.67 -0.0037 0.01
4 -3.00 -23.00 -0.0065 0.01 -5 0.0159 0.01 -31 -0.0091 0.01
5 -1.00 8.00 0.0104 0.01 -1 -0.0069 0.01 6 0.0018 0.01
6 1.00 -14.00 -0.0152 0.01 0 0.0112 0.01 -13 -0.0038 0.01
MEAN -1.00 -9.67 -0.0038 0.01 -2.00 0.0067 0.01 -12.67 -0.0037 0.01

174
 Table 43
Verticality Results for Site J - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)
Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN
Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

7 1 16.00 -2.00 -0.0656 0.01 -7 -0.0020 0.01 7 0.0020 0.01

6 -10.00 -5.00 0.0360 0.01 -3 0.0025 0.01 -18 -0.0053 0.01
MEAN 3.00 -3.50 -0.0148 0.01 -5.00 0.0002 0.01 -5.50 -0.0016 0.01
2 5.00 0.00 -0.0200 0.01 -5 -0.0026 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
5 -8.00 2.00 0.0336 0.01 -2 -0.0026 0.01 -8 -0.0023 0.01
MEAN -1.50 1.00 0.0068 0.01 -3.50 -0.0026 0.01 -4.00 -0.0012 0.01
3 5.00 -19.00 -0.0353 0.01 -10 0.0101 0.01 -24 -0.0070 0.01
4 0.00 3.00 0.0024 0.01 -2 -0.0034 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
MEAN 2.50 -8.00 -0.0164 0.01 -6.00 0.0033 0.01 -11.50 -0.0034 0.01

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

8 1 12.00 8.00 -0.0416 0.01 2 -0.0054 0.01 22 0.0064 0.01

2 -5.00 0.00 0.0200 0.01 1 0.0005 0.01 -4 -0.0012 0.01
3 6.00 2.00 -0.0224 0.01 1 -0.0011 0.01 9 0.0026 0.01
MEAN 4.33 3.33 -0.0147 0.01 1.33 -0.0020 0.01 9.00 0.0026 0.01
4 15.00 11.00 -0.0511 0.01 -2 -0.0099 0.01 24 0.0070 0.01
5 1.00 10.00 0.0040 0.01 -4 -0.0101 0.01 7 0.0020 0.01
6 1.00 1.00 -0.0032 0.01 -1 -0.0013 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
MEAN 5.67 7.33 -0.0168 0.01 -1.89 -0.0069 0.01 11.11 0.0032 0.01

Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Tan of Extn PrEN Tan of Std PrEN Total Tan PrEN

Base Extn. Jack Jack Angle Spec. Standard Jack Angle Spec. Height Spec.
Table Leg (250 mm) (1245mm) (1925 mm) (3420mm)

8 1 6.00 -8.00 -0.0304 0.01 -4 0.0043 0.01 -6 -0.0018 0.01

6 -11.00 7.00 0.0496 0.01 -1 -0.0061 0.01 -5 -0.0015 0.01
MEAN -2.50 -0.50 0.0096 0.01 -2.50 -0.0009 0.01 -5.50 -0.0016 0.01
2 8.00 -4.00 -0.0352 0.01 -4 0.0011 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
5 -11.00 8.00 0.0504 0.01 -1 -0.0069 0.01 -4 -0.0012 0.01
MEAN -1.50 2.00 0.0076 0.01 -2.50 -0.0029 0.01 -2.00 -0.0006 0.01
3 12.00 -9.00 -0.0552 0.01 -5 0.0046 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
4 -14.00 22.00 0.0737 0.01 8 -0.0135 0.01 16 0.0047 0.01
MEAN -1.00 6.50 0.0092 0.01 1.50 -0.0044 0.01 7.00 0.0020 0.01

175
 Table 44
Verticality Results for Site K - Visit 1

Site K

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Outer Tube Inner Tube Tan of PrEN Total Tan PrEN

(2160 mm or (940 mm or Inner / Outer Spec. Spec.
Leg 2860 mm) 240 mm) Angle (3100 mm)

1 12 4 -0.0013 0.01 16 0.0052 0.01

2 -14 -3 0.0033 0.01 -17 -0.0055 0.01
3 -8 -4 -0.0139 0.01 -12 -0.0039 0.01
4 -16 -4 -0.0111 0.01 -20 -0.0065 0.01
5 8 1 -0.0026 0.01 9 0.0029 0.01
6 -70 -18 0.0133 0.01 -88 -0.0284 0.01
7 4 2 0.0003 0.01 6 0.0019 0.01
8 13 2 -0.0039 0.01 15 0.0048 0.01
9 18 2 -0.0062 0.01 20 0.0065 0.01
10 54 14 -0.0101 0.01 68 0.0219 0.01
11 -12 -5 0.0002 0.01 -17 -0.0055 0.01
12 3 1 -0.0003 0.01 4 0.0013 0.01
13 -4 0 0.0019 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01
14 8 2 -0.0016 0.01 10 0.0032 0.01
15 2 -4 -0.0052 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
16 -3 -1 0.0003 0.01 -4 -0.0013 0.01
17 -17 -4 0.0036 0.01 -21 -0.0068 0.01
18 4 -1 -0.0029 0.01 3 0.0010 0.01
19 16 7 0.0000 0.01 23 0.0074 0.01
20 -38 -10 0.0070 0.01 -48 -0.0155 0.01
21 -6 -6 -0.0036 0.01 -12 -0.0039 0.01
22 -28 -12 0.0002 0.01 -40 -0.0129 0.01
23 -33 -10 0.0046 0.01 -43 -0.0139 0.01
24 -3 1 0.0025 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
25 -5 -1 0.0013 0.01 -6 -0.0019 0.01

176
 Table 44
Verticality Results for Site K - Visit 1
Visit K1

Visit 1 (X-direction Imperfection)

Outer Tube Inner Tube Tan of PrEN Total Tan PrEN

(2160 mm or (940 mm or Inner / Outer Spec. Spec.
Leg 2860 mm) 240 mm) Angle (3100 mm)

26 2 -1 -0.0020 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01

27 10 0 -0.0046 0.01 10 0.0032 0.01
28 19 4 -0.0045 0.01 23 0.0074 0.01
29 -1 -4 -0.0163 0.01 -5 -0.0016 0.01
30 29 13 0.0440 0.01 42 0.0135 0.01
31 -28 -6 0.0066 0.01 -34 -0.0110 0.01
32 6 3 0.0004 0.01 9 0.0029 0.01
33 -3 1 0.0025 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
34 -3 3 0.0046 0.01 0 0.0000 0.01
35 16 2 -0.0053 0.01 18 0.0058 0.01
36 16 8 0.0011 0.01 24 0.0077 0.01
37 -5 -1 0.0013 0.01 -6 -0.0019 0.01
38 0 1 0.0011 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01
39 6 1 -0.0017 0.01 7 0.0023 0.01
40 15 7 0.0005 0.01 22 0.0071 0.01
41 -11 -3 0.0019 0.01 -14 -0.0045 0.01
42 -10 -4 0.0004 0.01 -14 -0.0045 0.01
43 -4 -4 -0.0024 0.01 -8 -0.0026 0.01
44 -13 -4 0.0018 0.01 -17 -0.0055 0.01
45 10 1 -0.0036 0.01 11 0.0035 0.01
46 8 7 0.0037 0.01 15 0.0048 0.01
47 -13 -5 0.0007 0.01 -18 -0.0058 0.01
48 -33 -6 0.0089 0.01 -39 -0.0126 0.01
49 -17 -6 0.0015 0.01 -23 -0.0074 0.01
50 4 -1 -0.0056 0.01 3 0.0010 0.01

177
 Table 44
Verticality Results for Site K - Visit 1
Visit 1(Y-direction Imperfection)

Outer Tube Inner Tube Tan of PrEN Total Tan PrEN

(2160 mm or (940 mm or Inner / Outer Spec. Spec.
Leg 2860 mm) 240 mm) Angle (3100 mm)

1 -13 1 0.0071 0.01 -12 -0.0039 0.01

2 -4 -6 -0.0045 0.01 -10 -0.0032 0.01
3 -46 -8 -0.0172 0.01 -54 -0.0174 0.01
4 6 13 0.0521 0.01 19 0.0061 0.01
5 6 0 -0.0028 0.01 6 0.0019 0.01
6 -1 3 0.0037 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
7 26 5 -0.0067 0.01 31 0.0100 0.01
8 13 5 -0.0007 0.01 18 0.0058 0.01
9 17 8 0.0006 0.01 25 0.0081 0.01
10 -40 -7 0.0111 0.01 -47 -0.0152 0.01
11 -6 -2 0.0007 0.01 -8 -0.0026 0.01
12 0 -3 -0.0032 0.01 -3 -0.0010 0.01
13 6 3 0.0004 0.01 9 0.0029 0.01
14 3 2 0.0007 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
15 12 -1 -0.0066 0.01 11 0.0035 0.01
16 11 1 -0.0040 0.01 12 0.0039 0.01
17 4 -1 -0.0029 0.01 3 0.0010 0.01
18 10 4 -0.0004 0.01 14 0.0045 0.01
19 6 0 -0.0028 0.01 6 0.0019 0.01
20 16 13 0.0064 0.01 29 0.0094 0.01
21 10 4 -0.0004 0.01 14 0.0045 0.01
22 7 -4 -0.0075 0.01 3 0.0010 0.01
23 -34 -6 0.0094 0.01 -40 -0.0129 0.01
24 3 -1 -0.0025 0.01 2 0.0006 0.01
25 -5 -5 -0.0030 0.01 -10 -0.0032 0.01

178
 Table 44
Verticality Results for Site K - Visit 1
Visit 1(Y-direction Imperfection)

Outer Tube Inner Tube Tan of PrEN Total Tan PrEN

(2160 mm or (940 mm or Inner / Outer Spec. Spec.
Leg 2860 mm) 240 mm) Angle (3100 mm)

26 -5 -5 -0.0030 0.01 -10 -0.0032 0.01

27 11 6 0.0013 0.01 17 0.0055 0.01
28 -14 -4 0.0022 0.01 -18 -0.0058 0.01
29 5 3 0.0108 0.01 8 0.0026 0.01
30 -8 11 0.0486 0.01 3 0.0010 0.01
31 -47 -10 0.0111 0.01 -57 -0.0184 0.01
32 2 3 0.0023 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
33 -2 -8 -0.0076 0.01 -10 -0.0032 0.01
34 -11 -4 0.0008 0.01 -15 -0.0048 0.01
35 -18 -7 0.0009 0.01 -25 -0.0081 0.01
36 7 2 -0.0011 0.01 9 0.0029 0.01
37 8 2 -0.0016 0.01 10 0.0032 0.01
38 5 0 -0.0023 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
39 -8 -3 0.0005 0.01 -11 -0.0035 0.01
40 -1 -1 -0.0006 0.01 -2 -0.0006 0.01
41 4 1 -0.0008 0.01 5 0.0016 0.01
42 9 3 -0.0010 0.01 12 0.0039 0.01
43 -1 -4 -0.0038 0.01 -5 -0.0016 0.01
44 13 3 -0.0028 0.01 16 0.0052 0.01
45 14 3 -0.0033 0.01 17 0.0055 0.01
46 37 13 -0.0033 0.01 50 0.0161 0.01
47 22 4 -0.0059 0.01 26 0.0084 0.01
48 -6 -1 0.0017 0.01 -7 -0.0023 0.01
49 32 4 -0.0106 0.01 36 0.0116 0.01
50 0 1 0.0042 0.01 1 0.0003 0.01

179
 Table 45
Verticality Results for Site K - Visit 2

Site K

Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Outer Tube Inner Tube Tan of PrEN Total Tan PrEN

(2160 mm or (1460 mm or Inner / Outer Spec. (3620 mm or Spec.
Leg 2860 mm) 770 mm) Angle 3630 mm)

1 -34 0 0.0157 0.0120 -34 -0.0094 0.01

2 -1 -4 -0.0023 0.0120 -5 -0.0014 0.01
3 -21 8 0.0177 0.0100 -13 -0.0036 0.01
4 -38 -13 -0.0036 0.0100 -51 -0.0140 0.01
5 31 13 -0.0054 0.0120 44 0.0122 0.01
6 1 3 0.0016 0.0120 4 0.0011 0.01
7 6 12 0.0054 0.0120 18 0.0050 0.01
8 -3 6 0.0055 0.0120 3 0.0008 0.01
9 -10 0 0.0046 0.0120 -10 -0.0028 0.01
10 11 11 0.0024 0.0120 22 0.0061 0.01
11 3 -6 -0.0055 0.0120 -3 -0.0008 0.01
12 -12 -5 0.0021 0.0120 -17 -0.0047 0.01
13 -11 -6 0.0010 0.0120 -17 -0.0047 0.01
14 -16 -12 -0.0008 0.0120 -28 -0.0077 0.01
15 8 4 -0.0010 0.0120 12 0.0033 0.01
16 5 -4 -0.0051 0.0120 1 0.0003 0.01
17 -39 -13 0.0091 0.0120 -52 -0.0144 0.01
18 -2 -4 -0.0018 0.0120 -6 -0.0017 0.01
19 18 6 -0.0042 0.0120 24 0.0066 0.01
20 5 10 0.0045 0.0120 15 0.0041 0.01
21 28 8 -0.0075 0.0120 36 0.0099 0.01
22 33 18 -0.0029 0.0120 51 0.0141 0.01
23 -35 -17 0.0046 0.0120 -52 -0.0144 0.01
24 5 -6 -0.0064 0.0120 -1 -0.0003 0.01
25 8 -4 -0.0064 0.0120 4 0.0011 0.01
26 23 3 -0.0086 0.0120 26 0.0072 0.01

180
 Table 45
Verticality Results for Site K - Visit 2
Visit 2 (X-direction Imperfection)

Outer Tube Inner Tube Tan of PrEN Total Tan PrEN

(2160 mm or (1460 mm or Inner / Outer Spec. (3620 mm or Spec.
Leg 2860 mm) 770 mm) Angle 3630 mm)

27 8 9 0.0025 0.0120 17 0.0047 0.01

28 35 17 -0.0046 0.0120 52 0.0144 0.01
29 13 10 0.0084 0.0100 23 0.0063 0.01
30 3 -1 -0.0023 0.0100 2 0.0006 0.01
31 10 1 -0.0039 0.0120 11 0.0030 0.01
32 -39 -23 0.0023 0.0120 -62 -0.0171 0.01
33 8 -6 -0.0078 0.0120 2 0.0006 0.01
34 -37 -23 0.0014 0.0120 -60 -0.0166 0.01
35 -34 -12 0.0075 0.0120 -46 -0.0127 0.01
36 13 14 0.0036 0.0120 27 0.0075 0.01
37 21 10 -0.0029 0.0120 31 0.0086 0.01
38 4 4 0.0009 0.0120 8 0.0022 0.01
39 -23 -13 0.0017 0.0120 -36 -0.0099 0.01
40 4 9 0.0043 0.0120 13 0.0036 0.01
41 -9 -2 0.0028 0.0120 -11 -0.0030 0.01
42 30 -21 -0.0283 0.0120 9 0.0025 0.01
43 -8 -2 0.0023 0.0120 -10 -0.0028 0.01
44 -25 -6 0.0075 0.0120 -31 -0.0086 0.01
45 -23 -2 0.0093 0.0120 -25 -0.0069 0.01
46 17 8 -0.0024 0.0120 25 0.0069 0.01
47 4 2 -0.0005 0.0120 6 0.0017 0.01
48 -19 -9 0.0026 0.0120 -28 -0.0077 0.01
49 35 20 -0.0025 0.0120 55 0.0152 0.01
50 21 10 0.0056 0.0100 31 0.0085 0.01

181
 Table 45
Verticality Results for Site K - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Outer Tube Inner Tube Tan of PrEN Total Tan PrEN

(2160 mm or (1460 mm or Inner / Outer Spec. (3620 mm or Spec.
Leg 2860 mm) 770 mm) Angle 3630 mm)

1 -34 -1 0.0151 0.0120 -35 -0.0097 0.01

2 -40 -11 0.0110 0.0120 -51 -0.0141 0.01
3 2 -4 -0.0059 0.0100 -2 -0.0006 0.01
4 -1 4 0.0055 0.0100 3 0.0008 0.01
5 17 7 -0.0031 0.0120 24 0.0066 0.01
6 -4 8 0.0073 0.0120 4 0.0011 0.01
7 -10 -4 0.0019 0.0120 -14 -0.0039 0.01
8 8 6 0.0004 0.0120 14 0.0039 0.01
9 -8 3 0.0058 0.0120 -5 -0.0014 0.01
10 -4 4 0.0046 0.0120 0 0.0000 0.01
11 -34 -10 0.0089 0.0120 -44 -0.0122 0.01
12 -16 -6 0.0033 0.0120 -22 -0.0061 0.01
13 -9 -6 0.0001 0.0120 -15 -0.0041 0.01
14 -37 -11 0.0096 0.0120 -48 -0.0133 0.01
15 14 6 -0.0024 0.0120 20 0.0055 0.01
16 -39 -18 0.0057 0.0120 -57 -0.0157 0.01
17 -43 -12 0.0117 0.0120 -55 -0.0152 0.01
18 11 4 -0.0024 0.0120 15 0.0041 0.01
19 -1 5 0.0039 0.0120 4 0.0011 0.01
20 32 16 -0.0039 0.0120 48 0.0133 0.01
21 38 16 -0.0066 0.0120 54 0.0149 0.01
22 61 31 -0.0070 0.0120 92 0.0254 0.01
23 29 23 0.0023 0.0120 52 0.0144 0.01
24 35 20 -0.0025 0.0120 55 0.0152 0.01
25 19 1 -0.0081 0.0120 20 0.0055 0.01

182
 Table 45
Verticality Results for Site K - Visit 2
Visit 2 (Y-direction Imperfection)

Outer Tube Inner Tube Tan of PrEN Total Tan PrEN

(2160 mm or (1460 mm or Inner / Outer Spec. (3620 mm or Spec.
Leg 2860 mm) 770 mm) Angle 3630 mm)

26 12 8 -0.0001 0.0100 20 0.0055 0.01

27 7 1 -0.0026 0.0120 8 0.0022 0.01
28 -21 -21 -0.0047 0.0120 -42 -0.0116 0.01
29 12 1 -0.0029 0.0100 13 0.0036 0.01
30 8 6 0.0050 0.0100 14 0.0039 0.01
31 1 -4 -0.0032 0.0120 -3 -0.0008 0.01
32 -54 -15 0.0147 0.0120 -69 -0.0191 0.01
33 -31 -13 0.0054 0.0120 -44 -0.0122 0.01
34 -10 -3 0.0026 0.0120 -13 -0.0036 0.01
35 6 -1 -0.0035 0.0120 5 0.0014 0.01
36 4 4 0.0009 0.0120 8 0.0022 0.01
37 6 3 -0.0007 0.0120 9 0.0025 0.01
38 21 7 -0.0049 0.0120 28 0.0077 0.01
39 -41 -18 0.0067 0.0120 -59 -0.0163 0.01
40 -16 -4 0.0047 0.0120 -20 -0.0055 0.01
41 18 5 -0.0049 0.0120 23 0.0064 0.01
42 24 -18 -0.0234 0.0120 6 0.0017 0.01
43 -3 -2 0.0000 0.0120 -5 -0.0014 0.01
44 18 11 -0.0008 0.0120 29 0.0080 0.01
45 -4 -4 -0.0009 0.0120 -8 -0.0022 0.01
46 17 11 -0.0003 0.0120 28 0.0077 0.01
47 22 15 0.0001 0.0120 37 0.0102 0.01
48 -8 1 0.0044 0.0120 -7 -0.0019 0.01
49 1 4 0.0023 0.0120 5 0.0014 0.01
50 -23 -11 -0.0062 0.0100 -34 -0.0094 0.01

183
 B. FULL STABILITY INTERVIEWS

B.1. GENERAL
In order to preserve the confidentiality of the stability interviewees, their names and those of
their organisations have not been given. Instead they are referred to as Supplier 1, Contractor
1, Contractor 2, and Specialist 1, etc. The interviews were conducted from a simple
questionnaire and the responses recorded. To avoid duplication, the questions have been
reproduced at the start of each of the following sub-sections of responses.
It is emphasised that the responses in Sections B.2 to B.15 are presented in the form of notes,
as taken by the interviewer, rather than in the style of a formal report.

Interviews were conducted with:

Five representatives of three proprietary suppliers. Three of the interviewees were

from the same supplier and were interviewed together. They are reported in Sections
B.2 to B.15 as Suppliers 3, 4 and 5.
Four representatives of three contractors. Two of the interviewees were from the
same contractor and were interviewed together. They are reported in Sections B.2 to
B.15 as Contractors 1 and 2.
A representative of each of two specialist sub-contractors. They are referred to as
Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 in Sections B.2 to B.15.

Three of the five proprietary suppliers representatives were chief engineers with full
responsibility for the technical content of the majority of falsework designed in the UK, and
one was a technical director. The four contractors interviewed were "formwork managers" or
"senior design engineers" with responsibilities for checking suppliers schemes for their
companies sites.

B.2. QUESTIONNAIRE INTRODUCTION - LATERAL STABILITY - HOW

ACHIEVED?
The lateral stability of falsework is a design check requirement of BS 5975, which requires
that the effects of the wind and any out-of-vertical components of force on the structure to be
considered. Stability is achieved by ensuring that either the known horizontal loads or a
minimum notional lateral stability force can be transmitted to suitable restraints. The
minimum nominal lateral stability force is considered to act at the inside of the forkhead to
the falsework. There are two types of restraint possible and, as falsework needs to be
considered for stability in two directions at right angles, both could be applicable to the same
structure. The two considerations are:
1. On a freestanding falsework, which may sway, restraint is generally provided by
2. Where the falsework is not allowed to sway, restraint is achieved by one of the
following means:
(A) Connecting the falsework to suitable columns, abutments and/or walls.

184
 (B) Using the soffit formwork to transmit the lateral forces to points of adequate
restraint.
Where the falsework is restrained through the soffit formwork, it is assumed that there is a
connection of the formwork to the permanent structure. It is emphasised that BS 5975 Clause
6.4.2 states that "allowance is not normally made for the stiffness of the formwork unless it
has been designed and constructed as an integral part of the falsework. . . . "

The proposed prEN 12812 makes proposals about the restraint of falsework at the head level
by the formwork. However, it should be noted that many proprietary suppliers of aluminium
tower falsework systems rely on the soffit formwork for stability.

The primary purpose of the interviews was to identify how temporary works designers in both
supply and contracting organisations consider the lateral stability of their falsework. The
researchers were of the opinion that the great majorityof suppliers would design falsework
only for the current UK minimum value of 2 % Pv. It was also believed that wind force
calculations, as required by prEN 12812, were rarely carried out.

B.3. QUESTION 1 - WHAT IS YOUR INVOLVEMENT WITH TEMPORARY

WORKS?
Supplier 1: Has office manager plus one senior designer in each regional office. The
schemes are all checked on completion. They will not knowingly complete schemes outside
the requirements of BS 5975.
Types of schemes designed now in offices are 50% wall formwork jobs and 50% soffit
formwork with falsework. Simpler walls are done on sites and by the better representatives.
The main equipment used is the one piece aluminium prop and 90% of schemes will use
ledger frames. Do not use the prop on its own. Generically made into tables with the frames.

Supplier 2. Responsible for technical policy of company world-wide, the safe working load
of equipment and that correct design codes are being used. On day to day running, is only
responsible for the workload in the UK. They have several CBU (central business units)

Suppliers 3, 4 and 5 Suppliers of specific falsework aluminium systems, they are used to
dealing with schemes from both building (80%) and civils jobs. Two of the personnel
interviewed were senior draftsmen involved in design and supervision of their drawing
offices.

Contractors 1 & 2. All support schemes from the building and civil companies. less
involvement in carrying out actual schemes; most work involves checking suppliers submitted
schemes. Occasionally some work in small areas. For example the two current big jobs, a
large nuclear plant and a big road project are all done by suppliers. Even the frame
subcontractors go to a supplier for schemes.

Contractor 3. Little building work, mostly civil in UK and overseas up to 70m

Responsible for 3 engineers and 1 technician. This office actually completes temporary

185
works designs but most work is related to checking suppliers schemes for main civil
engineering and building companies.

Contractor 4 Mostly servicing the companys regions that are involved in building works,
75% of time, small amount of civils. Lots of checking of formwork, falsework and
scaffolding schemes. Depends who on site is employed, but will travel to sites for
investigations. There are four staff in the office and work is allocated on arrival. He tends to
handle most of the facade retention schemes and excavations.

Specialist 1 As a director he is responsible for the technical activities of the entire group.
They work in the UK only, concentrating on concrete buildings and classify themselves as a
"specialist trade contractor". Mostly large offices, civils end of building with residential
properties, mostly private work. Estimated 60% of work is concrete frame and 40%
substructures. They use mostly their own labour.

Runs drawing office of two, as one graduate and good trainee. Involved mostly in checking
temporary works schemes and completing sequencing programmes.
Have recently bought SGB GASS aluminium system for support work. Hence SGB "do all
the designs" and they give it a cursory eye. The formwork tends to be PERI or Doka.
Specialist 2 Responsible for delegating work to a staff of at least six designers in his office,
and to many on-site staff. Although responsible for their actions, he is setting up staff
appraisals based on proven capabilities.
Involved mostly in building and the building end of civils. Estimates that 30% of time spent
on temporary works, including heavy shoring (cofferdams), and remainder on general
building engineering. In organisation they have an agreement with SGB to carry out all
design of formwork and falsework, hence office only really involved with the checking of
such schemes.

B.4. QUESTION 2 - WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND BY "FALSEWORK

STABILITY"?
Supplier 1 Considers it to be the BS 5975 horizontal force from wind and any other de-
stabilising forces or a minimum of 2 % of the vertical loads. Company accepts that restraint
from ledger frame bracing is not allowed for taking horizontal sideways loads in the design.

Supplier 2 There are two cases - considering only the rectangular type of structures -
A; to maintain the node points to limit lengths of standards and B; to prevent the structure
blowing over.

Suppliers 3, 4 and 5 Generally the company rule is that the falsework to the slabs is
prevented from moving sideways by the permanent building and thus stability is rarely
considered. Work is mainly on office developments with lots of columns for restraint. If
though it is obvious, such as falsework to the top slab of a culvert, restraint to the falsework in
one direction would be from the walls, but in the other direction it would be freestanding and
they would need to fit bracing tubes or similar for restraint. Weight of system at edge of

186
buildings is the most dangerous for stability during the erection stage. Need to make certain
that no-one goes onto the edge platform - this is done by putting notes on drawings as
standard notes and also to make client more aware by notes near to the open edge shown on
the drawing. Technically the stability is solved by a vertical tube down to a pre-drilled fixing
into the top of the slab. Sites don't often make persons aware that the tying down is needed
during erection and before anyone uses the access platform. Particularly looked at if the
aspect ratio is 3:1.

Use of downstands to edge of structure are very problematical, as individual towers of

different (lower) height are often needed.
If it looks dangerous then they will need to do a more thorough check on stability.
Contractors 1 & 2 Overturning; check if the structure is high, say up to 6m height and less
than 30m long, then not a problem. Look for 1 in 4 legs braced in both directions. Head and
base jacks would be checked against suppliers load charts, particularly if extended above
250mm for 55 and 75kN loads.

Generally check bracing in both directions. The ground must also be checked for stability,
particularly on batters as recently had an incident - thrust to piers but problem not addressed
by suppliers.
12

Contractor 3 Considers it the risk of collapsing due to non principle loads - such as those
from lateral forces. Effective lengths, prop lengths, overturning, bracing for stability. If
doing steelwork design, also the considerations for stiffeners.
Would look at the overall design, mostly a problem on support work - overall stability on 1 : 3
ratio.
Contractor 4 Means of stopping it from collapsing or instability due to horizontal loads not
catered for adequately.
Specialist 1 Stability under the soffit implies do you have enough bracing, are members in
the right place, and the integrity of the scheme. Essentially "are we getting the right shape"
out of the formwork to suit the specification and what the client needs. Has feeling that it
should take 5% of vertical load sideways.
Specialist 2 Robustness to withstand horizontal loads; will structure fall over as complete
structure - also considers stability to include long column buckling of slender members.
Significant aspect of stability, often forgotten is foundation failure.
Rule of thumb uses greater of 2% of load or wind and other loads. He mentioned that to
create a node point requires a side force of 1% of load in strut.

12
{Comment by P F Pallett: Only at the end of this section did they both mention the 2 %
lateral stability. Said - "thought everyone knew that?" }

187
B.5. QUESTION 3 - DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN BUILDING OR
CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURES?
Supplier 1 Would look at Civils work in different way - often it is harder to see what the
structure is doing for you - will it give stability to the falsework.

Supplier 2 Most buildings are on a regular grid of columns etc and they will use the top of
columns to restrain the head of the falsework. Overall stability of the finished structure is
taken by the permanent works by fixity at the head, so it is logical that falsework be restrained
in a similar way. He pointed out that if they did not restrain the structure in this way, then
competition was such that they would lose the job, hence they restrain the structure by the
permanent works. See the sample notes usually put on the drawings as shown at Section B.9.

Civil structures: on short span bridges fixity can be obtained from the abutments, but in the
other direction the system is free and can sway.

Suppliers 3, 4 and 5 They differentiate by inspection, although falsework designs are very
similar. Most building jobs are 3m to 4m floor to floor, but retail shops increase to about
4.5m and stability thought about more carefully.

Contractors 1 & 2 Both carried out same work - considered building as 3 to 3.5m floor to
floor, slabs 150mm to 250/300mm.

Contractor 3 They have no differentiation between the two classes of work.

Contractor 4 Office does not differentiate - can get very hard building work. Very large
jobs, e.g. big civils, are not in his office.

Specialist 1 No differentiation between Building and Civil Engineering. Same end of

market for frame contractor.

Specialist 2 Estimates about 85% building jobs - company equipment has targeted building
compared to civils work.

B.6. QUESTION 4 - DO YOUR DESIGNERS MAKE ANY ALLOWANCE

FOR WIND FORCE IN FALSEWORK DESIGNS?
Supplier 1 Depends on circumstances - if a bridge Yes. In buildings not considered - only
by experience.
Supplier 2 Not generally on buildings. Will always use CP3 Chap. V.

188
Suppliers 3, 4 & 5 Not normally considered as in buildings they rely on being "locked" into
the permanent works. Said would use CP3 Chap.V for wind design, but thought a lot of
information on wind in the "Formwork Guide." 13
They did not mention or "refer to BS 5975" for wind on soffit formwork or parapets. None
had heard of BS 6399 wind calculations.
Contractors 1 and 2 Make checks to BS 5975 on civils jobs. Rarely ever on building
falsework. Mentioned though importance of wind on office blocks for sheeted scaffolds to BS
5973, and on signboards which they checked to BS 6399.
Contractor 3 When appropriate - vulnerable or exposed situations - use BS 5975 method ,
not CP3 or BS 6399.
Contractor 4 Not always - formwork not a lot, but in falsework probably would consider as
a nominal check and always use CP3 Chap V or the reproduced version in BS 5975.
Specialist 1 They allow for wind in design, and would check against notional horizontal
loads with the relevant code - stated as not BS 6399.
Specialist 2 Yes - use BS 5975 - not BS 6399. Often asked by PWD's for cabins, signboards
etc to BS 6399 - but try to convince them to use CP3.

B.7. QUESTION 5 ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY INSTANCES WHERE

FALSEWORK HAS MOVED DUE TO INSTABILITY?
Supplier 1 Not aware of any incident. Has heard of instability problems with steel prop
system into a table in UK by European company - collapse occurred due to sideways
movement of the unrestrained legs.
Supplier 2 No awareness of any structure that has failed from instability during correct use.
One failure occurred when the striking of a bridge deck was carried out by starting near the
abutments, resulting in overloading of standards near the centre of the structure.
Suppliers 3, 4 and 5. Yes : by wind on the unloaded condition, particularly with tables
parked between uses.
One serious incident involved the clamping of different suppliers' aluminium beams fitted on
top of the Ischebeck falsework legs making the tables. The problem was in the beam to beam
connections, not the beam to tower connections. HSE are aware - and the HSW Act clearly
requires extra care needed when mixing equipment. There were different suppliers'
aluminium beams in the system involved in the incident and the beam to beam clamps were
not interchangeable.
Contractors 1 & 2. Some structures have moved - very recently (late 2000) on big road deck
a complete deck skewed while concreting! Both the supplier and themselves had checked the
scheme and neither group had spotted the serious error!
Backpropping to holorib is a common difficulty. Normally incorrectly installed, or, as at a
recent contract in Manchester, they forgot the backprops.
Contractor 3 Not really in temporary works schemes. One serious incident was mentioned.
It involved use of a proprietary soldier system in an "A" frame, except bottom connections
were "4" not "3", hence a mechanism. Once lateral forces came on - it rotated. Error was a

13
The section on wind in Formwork guide only gives overturning of wall shutters, nothing on
falsework.

189
classic error of a supplier completing a scheme and not checking the drawing - the contractor
also failed to spot the error.
Contractor 4 Not aware of any movement in falsework reported back to office. Tend to
deliberately over design the bracing, started by a senior design engineer in the temporary
works office some years previously, and they tend to "design and then double it!"
Specialist 1 Yes, but not with this company - involved side strutting to a deep beam about 2
m deep. The propping was attached to the soffit plywood which moved sideways. 14
Specialist 2 Not aware in his experience of any reported failures. He can recall some years
ago failure of a steel beam as grillage in a pile test when the beam buckled because there was
an absence of web stiffeners.

B.8. QUESTION 6 - DO YOU USE A COMPUTER TO ANALYSE THE

FALSEWORK STRUCTURE?
Supplier 1 No programme used for falsework analysis.
Supplier 2 They use the Kwikform developed programme on a Hewlett Packard system
for loads and leg spacing and head / base dimensions, but it doesn't calculate the bracing.
This is done manually. In building work make use of the 10% continuity rule. Loads into the
legs of bigger falsework structures are analysed by considering the beam systems at the head
level in two directions.
They use the simple RMD beam analysis program which allows for the stiffness of the
supports. Values of the axial stiffness of differing members by height are already established
in tabular form and manually entered in the programme. Although more sophisticated
systems are under development, the simple ways work.
Supplier 3, 4 and 5 Only used in UK for beam reaction calculations using "SPAN".
The Germans do all the system and the testing with computer programmes.
Contractor 1 & 2 Sometimes they use an in-house old wind programme for falsework.
Use RMD beam analysis programme occasionally - otherwise nothing in temporary works
checking (or design?).
Contractor 3 Analysis generally done simply - not 3D analysis. Use the RMD beam
analysis programme a lot. No formwork programmes mentioned.
If it is a big RMD soldier type framework, then they would use the QSE frame program.
Contractor 4 Analysis - only use the RMD DOS continuous beam program.
Formwork would use soldiers with RMD beam program (Not the RMD Soldier program).
In office can use occasionally a Posford Duvivier program STRUC. For design of temporary
roofs on scaffolds use STRUC and Superstress (rarely).
Essentially they keep everything to simply supported beams as moment = wl/8
Specialist 1 They sometimes get computer calcs from SGB, not the norm. Checking is done
on site always assuming it is technically correct, hence the check is more "does it suit what
we want?".

14
Comment by P.F. Pallett - Not really falsework instability.

190
A rule of thumb used by sites of the specialist contractor is if leg load is more than 50 kN then
it is always necessary to ask the office for a check.
Specialist 2 Only use computers at a member level. Use program called STRAP just for
beams and possibly portals. Otherwise all design done by suppliers.

B.9. QUESTION 7 - HOW DO YOU CALCULATE THE RESTRAINT

FORCES WHEN USING FORMWORK FOR STABILITY?
Supplier 1 Yes - Considers schemes fully restrained by deck or, if no resistance, puts in
push-pull props or dividag long ties to ground.
Note on suppliers' drawings will say "Client to provide full horizontal restraint in both
directions."
They have never been asked by Clients to justify or give values for above horizontal force(s).
Supplier 2 Yes. Never been asked how to do it - suggests plywood is cut to suit, and nailed
to secondaries to carry the loads necessary back to the permanent structure. He believes that
such systems will work in compression only, hence you need to be surrounded by permanent
structure.
The company technical instruction (7th August 2000) for falsework schemes - design fixed at
head - requires the following note on the drawing:
"The design assumes that the equivalent 2% of vertical loads in the shoring can be transferred into
the tops of the columns / walls by contact with the soffit plywood and that they are capable of
transmitting this load into the previously constructed permanent works, it is the customer's
responsibility to verify this."

They have a new product as an aluminium panel lifted into place by a four pronged prop end -
this fits so that once erected the four panels are effectively locked at the prop head. This only
provides stability when all make-up areas are complete, so a separate clamping frame is used
around the columns to provide the necessary temporary stability in erection.
Suppliers 3, 4 & 5 Not really thought about because they make the assumption of load
horizontally direct into the permanent works. Load goes straight into the columns - assume 2
% of all the vertical load through the plywood. They have never had to calculate the load
through the formwork.
On bridges, for design, they would consider the 2 % minimum or the wind loads. If they
were doing the culvert case, they would consider stability in the long direction to the ground,
because there would be no plywood as the soffit restraint in the long direction.15
Contractors 1 & 2 Aligning tables and butting provides some restraint forces especially as
the plywood is always nailed.
They are not aware that aluminium systems need top restraint and rely on the permanent
works for stability.
Contractor 3 Interviewee commented that this subject was "a hot potato".
When system relies on falsework restraint, notional loads by being boxed in around columns,
or wedged between walls seems OK. On open sided buildings may ask for other systems,
such as tying back to columns or inclined members to floor slab.

15
Comment by P. F. Pallett This is the first time they mentioned the Bragg 2 %

191
He tended to accept, and not to question that, if the supplier has detailed a scheme in a certain
way for restraint, they had checked it and were satisfied with it as designed (by the supplier).
It is complex to work out the restraint mechanism, and very difficult to judge in a system
where the forces actually go. Presumably the systems, that have been "tested", have in the
past provided satisfactory service, so we should continue. He commented that it was custom
and practice design style design.
Interviewee said that he felt that nobody had ever carried out this calculation.
Contractor 4 Is it butted off the walls - very occasionally work out wind load (edge
shutters) with wind area and rules for stability
Then add in the 2 % of the vertical load. He would look at how it is restrained - box ties
around columns and give the force to the Permanent Works Designer (PWD) for columns.
Has had problem in one direction and used tie rods to floor. Rare to be asked for restraint
forces.
Specialist 1 Restraint of formwork has been done on large jobs by tying into the structure.
Has not been asked to restrain the falsework by using the formwork.
Specialist 2 Yes. Has known quite often where the formwork is providing the restraint, but
no numbers ever calculated; if it looks about right - contractors attitude. No calculations ever
done.

B.10. QUESTION 8 - IS THE CURRENT 2 % PV ACCEPTABLE FOR

FALSEWORK STABILITY?
Supplier 1 OK - would need convincing to reduce to a value below 2%
Supplier 2 Yes -never had a problem. Would be concerned if we reduced value. Can see
no reason why it should be increased.
Suppliers 3, 4 & 5 All considered it more than enough.
Contractors 1 & 2 This is acceptable, very important rule of thumb and consider it an
absolute minimum - no reduction. Would be sad to see it go
Contractor 3 Figure gives a safe, stable system - it should not be increased.
Contractor 4 No problem using it therefore stable - uses a different value on facade
retention work. Leave the 2% unaltered if no evidence to reduce it
Specialist 1 For slabs up to 350mm thick, quite acceptable.16
Specialist 2 Accepted traditionally as OK. Would hesitate going down to 1% in absence of
any testing or proof. Would be worried under 2%.

16
Comment by P.F. Pallett At start of interview thought Bragg was 5%.

192
B.11. CASE 1 - HOW DO YOU CONSIDER STABILITY WHEN
FALSEWORK IS UNRESTRAINED AND CAN SWAY?

An example of a freestanding falsework in the swayed condition is shown in Figure B.1 with
three lifts and four bays, but only three bays are braced. The diagonal braces are fitted in
different directions. Base jack bracing is shown dotted.

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Q"
htop

h3

h2

h1

hb

b1 b2 b3 b4

Figure B.1 : Case 1 Falsework braced section that can sway

B.11.2 Question 9 How would you analyse the force Q" in Case 1?
Supplier 1 Value of Q" from structural analysis - pin joints as a 2D frame. If frames sway
would be more difficult, but would consider deck fully restrained or swaying forces plus
wind. Would make no allowances for load into the ground and would put in big inclined
push-pull props to take horizontal forces direct to ground using the 2%.
Supplier 2 Assumed it was erected with a normal tolerance of erection. He would check the
node points as 2% Pv applied at the top and reacted into the bracing. Components of the
bracing would be taken into the leg loads at the bases.

He believes that Q" is the wind load plus 1% Pv

If the structure were erected deliberately out-of-plumb, he would allow for extra load in the
bracing only if it were in the "falling down hill" direction away from the previous pour.
Suppliers 3, 4 & 5 Would take wind or 2% of vertical loads, then resolve into the
members. The arrangement is unusual as they do not design skeletal systems.
Made comment that it is assumed that the legs are vertical, and would ignore any out-of-
verticality.

193
Contractors 1 & 2 Simple use of 2 % Pv in the calculations. If a bridge would check wind
loads. No allowance would be made for erection not plumb - they both assume that sites can
erect these systems vertically.
On questioning them, the missing braced bay would not be a problem, by resolving the forces
in each braced lift - job done!
It would be different if erected on a slope.
Base jack bracing would simply follow suppliers brochure.
Contractor 3 Stabilised by the bracing - calculate Q" just 2% of total vertical loads. Then
share load between braces - this is not precise, but would not normally do a precise analysis.
The erection out-of-vertical is covered in the 2% value. Any wind would act separately -
considers alternative loading laterally as wind plus 1% of vertical loads.
Such bracing systems in Case 1 are usually supplied by proprietary suppliers and are not part
of the company design and they would assume 2%.
Contractor 4 Restraint as wind load plus 2% vertical load - can depend on site quality of
erection and might add to the 2%. Very much depend on the verticality measured after
erection.
Bracing can take the horizontal loads into the ground, and then by friction. Also check the
head jack system.
Specialist 1 Would consider the Q" as the eccentricity plus wind loading , if less than 1%
then justified by using the 2% vertical load.
Verticality, erected out-of-plumb would look down it to relate the out-of-plumb. From a
contracting point of view, should be catered by the factor of safety on the load. The designer
of the props should have thought about progressive loads and mounting eccentricities. On site
the movement represents out of specification of the concrete, hence sites should monitor
deflections while pouring slabs.
Specialist 2 Certainly would use Qres as 2% Pv or known loads.
The verticality would be checked against the allowances - if the out-of-vertical was
known, then an allowance would be made. In practice it would be considered vertical for
design provided within the suppliers stated standard of erection.
The gap in the bracing is theoretically no problem, but you might get some contraflexure if
tall.
When analysing the forces, some braces in compression, some in tension. He would check
those in compression.

B.12. CASE II - ANALYSIS WHEN TOP OF THE FALSEWORK IS

RESTRAINED BY THE SOFFIT FORMWORK
Where the falsework is restrained by the soffit formwork, such that it will not sway, it may be
erected out-of-vertical, and the effects of bow imperfection need to be considered in the
analysis of the members. An example is shown in Figure B.2 with four bays and three lifts.

194
 Soffit
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 Formwork
Qres

htop
h3

h2
e

h1

hb

b1 b2 b3 b4

Figure B.2 : Case II Falsework braced section restrained at top

B.12.2 Question 10 How would you analyse the force Qres in Case II?
Supplier 1 Not needed to calculate - would design to company tables, which are based on the
heads being restrained by the structure. Would check for wind plus any out-of-vertical forces
and sway under load.

Supplier 2 In this condition with the top tied he would design for 2 % Pv There will be
no component of the bracing force in the legs as the 2 % is a notional load. See company
note given on the drawing to cover this aspect.
No wind forces need be considered.
Suppliers 3, 4 & 5 No difference in design to Case 1 - the bow will average out and could
be ignored.
Contractors 1 & 2 Restraint is again the 2 % Pv in the calcs.. In this direction would not
do a wind calculation. Both would assume that the primaries are tied or blocked off, and they
would not check load through the plywood - all connections are secured.
Contractor 3 Still needed to provide the 2% nominal stability at ledger level - and need
to consider effective length. Provided you keep the eccentricity to the code
recommendations, it would be acceptable.
He pointed out again that the 2% was of the total vertical load.
Contractor 4 Need to check the P-delta effect in the height. Wind is acting in bending the
standards, top and bottom 50%.
Restraint force would be 2% plus 50% wind plus out-of-plumb component.
Specialist 1 Looks more secure. Takes the wind load in the supports only, NOT the 2%
Pv If put up out-of-vertical would allow eccentricity say 25mm maximum.
Because most building falsework is up to 4m height, this stability may be a problem
at that height.

195
Specialist 2 Principle is same as Case 1. The bow is in erection, and ignored if within
suppliers tolerances. The value of Qres would need to be the 2% Pv at the head, but PLUS
the wind force distributed top to bottom. The bracing is now only required for the strut and to
thus prevent column buckling.

B.13. CASE III - RESTRAINT OF SINGLE STOREY FALSEWORK USING

ALUMINIUM TABLES

Where the falsework is restrained by the soffit formwork, such that it will not sway, it may be
erected out-of-vertical, and the effects of bow imperfection require to be considered in the
analysis of the members. An example is shown in Figure B.3 with two separate tables.

P1 P2 P3 P4
Qres Soffit Formwork

Figure B.3 : Case III Falsework framed aluminium restrained at top

B.13.2 Question 11 How would you analyse the force Qres in Case III ?
Supplier 1 Systems used assume top restrained. Note on Supplier drawings will say
"Client to provide full horizontal restraint in both directions."
Hence this scheme designed as simple props top to bottom buckling.

Supplier 2 Again, he would design Qres for 2% Pv

The tables have to be continuous to help transfer the loads and this can be a problem at the
joint of two tables. The legs are designed as struts of full length top to bottom. In certain
tables, fixity at the prop to beam gives a portal action reducing the effective length.
The worst case in Case III is a stop end on the RH side causing side movement.
Suppliers 3, 4 & 5 Would take the 2% of vertical loads as force through the plywood.
There would be take-up at joints between tables. Some discussion ensued about the plywood
taking tension and compression, but neatly covered by "client to stabilise soffit to permanent
works".
Discussion about use of precast planks ensued. Generally ONLY fitted from beam strip to
beam strip. Aspect of a butt joint of non-participating planks at mid point was not known to

196
them - but thought it a serious problem for stability and continuity. They would ensure that
the heads of the falsework were tied into the columns.
Contractors 1 & 2 In building work, never work out Qre. If had to calculate it both said use
the 2 % rule and that the frames would supply sufficient stability from the frames.
They had seen a European suppliers scheme where they used a chain attached from top of
towers to the ground/slab.
Thought that bigger grids have larger loads and need more stability, but that tower at make-
ups was critical.
Always assumed that the columns were cast 25mm high, but rarely stated on drawings, only
assumed. If low a problem with stability.
Contractor 3 With the discontinuity in the soffit, Q" is still 2% . If in a building might
accept a lower value of 1% and IGNORE the wind effects.
If there was an open end - would have to provide some tensile restraint and it needs a
horizontal to tie back to the wall or outside raking prop, or possibly with an inside raking tie
to the floor.
Contractor 4 No bracing to the ground as in frames.
Restraint force would be 2% plus 5% wind plus any out-of-plumb component. Then worry
about the system taking the side force.
Potential problem with plywood gap - relies on the plate action of the plywood.
Specialist 1 Tables are never tied together. The plywood would need to be in tension - an
aspect he had not thought about and will consider in future. Discussed the concept of struts
needing restraint at the top for stability.
Specialist 2 Bow is within the material limits, hence OK - Look at suppliers equipment
literature. Qres can only now be 2% Pv but it is in tension OR compression, hence plywood
between tables in tension. He considers this case is seldom seen on site.

197
B.14. CASE IV - RESTRAINT TO SINGLE STOREY FRAMED
FALSEWORK

Where the falsework is restrained by the soffit formwork, using simple framed towers, such
that it will not sway, it may be erected out-of-vertical, and the effects of bow imperfection
require to be considered in the analysis of the members. An example is shown in Figure B.4
with two separate tables shown fitted in alternate directions.

P1 P2 P3 P4
Qres Soffit
Formwork

C
joint
cross
brace B

Frame bay Brace bay

Figure B.4 : Case IV Falsework section of scissors braced falsework tower

system restrained by the formwork

B.14.2 Question 12 - How would you analyse the force Qres in both directions
of the Frame and the Scissors bracing in Case IV ?
Suppliers 3, 4 & 5 The designers thought that the frame bay was weaker than the cross
braced bay because the effective length was longer, and full height. After discussion with P F
Pallett they all changed there minds to consider the weak cross brace, taking tension only,
gave a full height effective length for buckling inwards, whereas the frames had some
stiffness from portal action.
Contractors 1 & 2. Both thought that the scissors cross bracing will take horizontal loads.
Concern over the strength of the portal type frame direction. If the bracing is high up then
stability must be from the beams at the top.
Contractor 3 He had not seen these types of frames and did not know which would
provide the greater load capacity. Looking at the scissors brace direction, he considered that
the effective length was likely to be full height because bracing couldn't take compression.

198
When considered side by side with two scissors braced bays he saw that stability of middle
leg was now improved.
Contractor 4 No horizontal installed in one direction, and relies on the plate action of the
plywood again.
Portal was stronger in the frame direction. Effective length of the tower as a strut is top to
bottom. What if extra leg joined on? - not a lot - needs horizontals to establish bracing
triangles.
Specialist 1 The Frame is definitely stiffer.
Specialist 2 The portal frame side is stronger. Design same as before, based on the 2% Pv
Adding ties and another set of portals with scissors bracing makes leg 4 stronger.

B.15. QUESTION 13 DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON

FALSEWORK STABILITY?
Supplier 1 Buildings in UK tend to have more columns and less walls than European
structures, hence stability more of a problem.
Our structures have more redundant members in the system once erected,.
He considers that our sub contractors do NOT understand the principles of the top restraint,
but cater for it from experience. Hence not considered to be a problem on site.
Supplier 2 If we require complex computer calculations, who will do them - there is
already a de-skilling of staff, whereas in the past long serving experienced draftsmen
completed the schemes, now youngsters were employed as CAD "designers" with keyboard
skills and few relevant technical qualifications; so in the future, only a few people will be
capable of doing the work and have the relevant experience. The problem then becomes, how
do you check the work?
In general he finds that guidance is clear in the guide (formwork?) on most things and they
get few problems.
Suppliers 3, 4 & 5 The interviewer raised the issue of Site C (see Section 7.2.3.3) where
the Ischebeck Titan tables were designed to be out-of-vertical in one direction. This followed
the constant slope of slab and soffit to the car park.
Was it designed to be 'out-of-vertical'? Reply was that because the loads were so small, said
to be only 20 kN per leg, no allowance was made in the design.
The supplier's drawing does not show any slope to the tables. It was also stated that the
plywood/grp mould of the table top actually butts the previously cast concrete beam for any
stability.17
Contractors 1 & 2 Expect to see bracing in both directions. Use of individual prop
schemes as shown in analyse not used yet.
Contractor 3 Major comment - Few, if any, of the proprietary suppliers have adequate
checking procedures. He is certain that this is due to the inexperience of the CAD operators,
and the failure of supervising staff to carry out recognised basic engineering checks.
Contractor 4 Suppliers are definitely not aware of stability requirements - certain offices
do not even consider it. The quality of schemes produced depends on which suppliers' office
produced them and they vary from 'very good' to 'complete rubbish'. He believes that the main

17
In practice on the site, a gap was left and filled with a mastic, thus the table was freestanding.

199
reason for this variation is an excess of inexperienced staff working unsupervised and with
inadequate checking systems. A completed working drawing is rarely issued (nine times out
of ten). For example he recently received a 170 page computer printout for a simple scheme -
all for simply supported spans of short lengths. No mention of design for stability or bracing.
Specialist 1 Stability at the base of falsework is often a problem. Particularly in buildings
where the pads foundations are in first, and support to the first floor is taken from the sub-
base because the ground slab is not cast. The suppliers' drawings do NOT cover this aspect
satisfactorily, and they have to complete this work themselves. On large grids it is not easy to
accommodate the high leg loads in the systems.
Edge protection and safe platforms to all edges of tables in building is rarely addressed by
suppliers. Particularly relevant on aluminium tables with large spacings for the primaries.
Contractors are becoming very reliant on suppliers designs - so much so that the sites assume
they are correct and only check for compliance, not structural adequacy.
Specialist 2 He believes that in the industry today there is concern that the lateral stability
may fall between two areas of responsibility. The supplier assumes the contractor has to
stabilise the top, and the contractor who believes that a scheme must work, and stability is
taken care of in the design.
The above point is often overlooked at the procurement stage, and he believes that contractors
should be made more aware of the stability requirements.
He is also concerned over a lack of knowledge and understanding of what engineering is all
about - it is a fundamental query and general in the industry. He related it to Eur. Ing. P. F.
Pallett's course test identifying forces v pressure - experienced engineers from site rarely get it
correct.
The suppliers schemes rarely have sufficient detail and they need bludgeoning to get even
simple details included on the drawings.

Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive

C1 11/01

200
 ISBN 0-7176-2232-0

CRR 394

20.00 9 780717 622320