ACI Formed Concrete FInishes

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 11:33 am:    I just became aware of a new(ish) revision to ACI 301 with regard to levels of finish for formed concrete surfaces. ACI 301 has three levels of Surface Finishes - SF 1.0, SF 2.0, and SF 3.0. I have added the following language to my formed concrete finishes specification section, for your use/critique: A. Produce as-cast formed finishes in accordance with ACI 301 and as follows: 1. Surface Finish 1.0 (SF-1): a. Patch voids larger than 1-1/2 inch wide or 1/2 inch deep. b. Remove projections larger than 1 inch. c. Tie holes to remain unpatched. d. Provide surface tolerance Class D in accordance with ACI 117. e. Apply to concrete surfaces [not exposed to public view] <Insert locations>. 2. Surface Finish 2.0 (SF-2): a. Patch voids larger than 3/4 inch wide or 1/2 inch deep. b. Remove projections larger than 1/4 inch. c. Patch tie holes. d. Provide surface tolerance Class B in accordance with ACI 117. e. Apply to concrete surfaces [exposed to public view,] [to receive a rubbed finish,] [to be covered with a coating or covering material applied directly to concrete] <Insert locations>. 3. Surface Finish 3.0 (SF-3): a. Patch voids larger than 5/8 inch wide or 1/2 inch deep. b. Remove projections larger than 1/8 inch. c. Patch tie holes. d. Provide surface tolerance Class A in accordance with ACI 117. e. Apply to concrete surfaces [exposed to public view,] [to receive a rubbed finish,] [to be covered with a coating or covering material applied directly to concrete] <Insert locations>. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 640 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 12:12 pm:    Simply reference the standard and finish designation; no need to repeat the definitions. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 634 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 04:07 pm:    Takes less time to include concise description than to get caught up in a "discussion" during construction about what the numbers mean. Same is true for gypsum board finish "Levels." Remember, you're dealing with the low bidder and also with construction managers and owner's reps who do not understand or appreciate the value in specifying according to standard and finish designation. So why specify by standard and finish designation? Because there's probably more to the standard/finish designation than in the concise description, which could be beneficial if the matter becomes contentious. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 663 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, May 06, 2013 - 04:24 pm:    Does ACI still use photo plates for the finishes? We used to have a set in the office, and this was a great tool to explain to designers what they would be getting with the various levels. It could also come in handy for quality control during construction. [1 photo = 1,000 words, therefore 1 photo = 1 mega word?] George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 641 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 01:16 am:    We couldn't write specifications without reference standards. If we had to write all of the requirements that appear in ACI, ASTM, and all the other standards used in a typical project, the project manual would fill a moving van. Contractors and subcontractors are required to be familiar with those standards that are related to their work; the architect is not responsible for teaching them their jobs. I don't recall seeing any special accommodation for low-bid contractors or subcontractors; each is expected to know how to perform their part of the work. This isn't a vague requirement; bid forms typically include a statement that the bidder has read, and understands, the bidding documents. AIA documents clearly make the contractor responsible for executing the work described in the contract documents; again, no allowances for contractors who don't know what they're doing. (Documents from owners and other sources are similar, but may differ.) Citing portions of reference standards is not only redundant, but suggests the contractor may not be required to comply with parts of the standard that are not repeated. If the intent is that the contractor comply with all of a reference standard, what is the point of citing only part of it? John is almost right - instead of saying, "there's probably more to the standard" he should have said "there's certainly more to the standard"! anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 01:04 pm:    Sheldon is correct, of course, and I generally follow this advice/rule to the letter. For the new ACI finish designations, however, I think it appropriate to be redundant because my crack team of architects will have no clue what SF 1.0 means when they actually take a look at the requirement during CA, which is probably also very likely true of the genius concrete finish "I've been placing and finish concrete for more than 20 years, I know what I'm doing!" sub. In a perfect world, specifications would not duplicate anything from a reference standard, but the world is far from perfect, and now and then i find that breaking a rule here and there is useful to make life easier for all parties. thanks for the 'constructive criticism'. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 642 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 02:21 pm:    Knowing when to break the rules is part of the game! Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 396 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 03:38 pm:    For standards that define visual quality results: I agree with the concept that although the Contractor should certainly know what the standards for his trade, redundancy in repeating them in specs is often the best course for educating your design team and your dear client. At least it might save you some time. Samuel Kim (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 03:07 pm:    Does anyone know why Class C in ACI 117 is skipped over and what it entails? I'm still alittle fuzzy as to what major differences ACI 117 has in comparison to ACI 301. Thanks Scott Piper Senior Member Username: spiper Post Number: 11 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 05:41 pm:    I would agree that there are times when breaking the rules makes sense. However I also worry about the partial inclusion/exclusion issues that Sheldon alluded to when you repeat partial information from a standard. The compromise I am using more and more is to add a hyperlink in the spec that takes you directly to the standard by a simple click of the mouse when the contractor is looking at a pdf version of the spec.