Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: ACI 117

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Bill/Gail,

ACI 301 references ACI 117 in probably a dozen or more places.  Hopefully your drawings or specifications call out ACI 301 for concrete construction.  ACI 318 really should only be used for design although there is some areas of overlap.  Examples of ACI 301 referencing to ACI 117 ;2.2.1.2 for formwork, 3.2.2.1 rebar fabrication, 3.3.2.1 rebar placing, 3.3.2.3 concrete cover, etc.  I guess I am missing something here.  If ACI 117 says that the placing of rebar in a certain situation is +/- 1 inch what is there to argue about.  In the field, if it is 3/4 inch it is OK, if it is 1 1/2 inch it is not.  What is so hard about reading the tolerances in ACI 117??

Thomas Hunt, S.E.
ABS Consulting



Bill Polhemus <bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc>

02/04/2005 08:54 AM

Please respond to
<seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>

To
seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
cc
Subject
Re: ACI 117





THunt(--nospam--at)absconsulting.com wrote:

>
> Gail,
>
> I have had to resolve field disputes over concrete construction
> tolerances a few times over my career and in nearly every case after
> pulling out ACI 117 it was resolved.  Many contractors and sad to say
> some inspectors do not even know this document exists.  Typical
> situations, at least for me, were tolerances for fabricated rebar
> (ovaled column ties comes to mind), drilled pier locations, final
> height of foundations (which can effect column grout thickness),
> center to center spacing of slab rebar, and clear cover to forms.
>
> Thomas Hunt, S.E.
> ABS Consulting
>
>
>
> *GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com*
>
> 02/04/2005 07:59 AM
> Please respond to
> <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
>
>
>                  
> To
>                  seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  ACI 117
>
>
>
>                  
>
>
>
>
>
> A question recently posted pertaining to ACI 117 got me curious.
>  
> Of all those who have specified this document on one of their
> projects,  how many have actually read it?
>  
> How many have had to refer to it during a dispute/discussion of
> construction quality?
>  
> If there was a dispute / discussion of construction quality,  what
> section or sections of 117 were pertinent?
>  
>  
> Gail Kelley

The main problem as I see it is this document isn't explicitly refrenced
in any building code that I know of--I could be wrong, but I have
searched in vain for it.

I believe it IS referenced (somewhere) in ACI 318 (I don't have time to
dig stuff out right now).

One problem is that ACI 117 is so broad that it really needs to be
adapted for a particular project, the same way that you are supposed to
utilize ACI 301 (Concrete material specification) and ACI 530.1 (Masonry
construction specification).

What I have begun to do is reference ACI 117 explicitly on my drawings
as the sort of "master reference," and then put specific (and common)
items in the drawing notes that come directly from it, as clarification.

I must say I'm surprised that you were able to utilize ACI 117 "after
the fact" to settle a dispute. If I tried that the contractors would
just snort and say something like "well, who uses that? This is what
we've been doing for N years [where 20 < N < 500]."

For all the time and judicious effort spent on creating standards to
codify research and "best practice," it all seems to be a waste because
we are STILL having problems getting things clearly spelled out in the
Building Code, or having anyone who gives a **** actually bother to read
it even if it is.

I had a contractor recently place the concrete for a large building
foundation. When I asked him about the concrete testing, he just kind of
shrugged and said "well, we didn't do any of that because you didn't ask
for it in your drawings." When I pointed out that I had called out ACI
301 (which I referenced with defining notes just as ACI suggests), he
just shrugged again and said "well, who reads that stuff?"

Sheesh.

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********