How close is close enough?
Reasonable tolerances
for cast-in-place concrete
he reinforced concrete
T frame of a new resort hotel
was several stories in the air
when the plumbing con-
tractor arrived on the job. His pip-
ing had been preassembled to fit
the standarized floor layouts. When
he couldn’t install the pre f a b ri c a t-
ed waste lines because the open-
ings left for them failed to align, he
complained.
The architect came to measure
and check alignment of the com-
pleted concrete members. In addi-
tion to misaligned plumbing sleeves
he found columns out of plumb,
some of them twisted, beam-col-
umn joints misplaced by 11⁄2 inches
and slabs too thin. He accused the
contractor of gross failure to meet
the specified construction toler-
ances. The contractor charged that
the tolerances were unreasonable
and all parties seemed to be well on
the way to costly litigation.
It is rare, howe ve r, for out-of-tol-
erance work to be rejected and re-
placed solely because it is out of tol-
e ra n c e. In the building described
the frame would eventually be con-
cealed behind a variety of surface
finishes. If the structural safety and
building function were not im-
paired by dimensional deviations,
there might be little reason to reject
the inaccurate construction.
Whether anyone would ever be fully
satisfied is doubtful.
How tolerant?
Tolerances may be thought of as a
recognition of the fact that a struc-
ture cannot be built exactly to nom-
inal dimensions given in the plans
and specifications. No structure is
ever exactly level, plumb, straight
and true. Fortunately such perfec-
tion is not necessary. Wide dimen-
sional variations may occur in prac-
tice and pass unnoticed by
constructors, designers, and owners
alike. Inherent in traditional on-site
construction practices are many de-
sign and workmanship skills that
conceal and correct for dimensional
variations as they occur. Craftsmen
have customarily fitted their own
work into a building as they find it.
Howe ve r, problems and hard-
ships develop when pre f a b ri c a t e d
components won’t fit the spaces left
for them or errors are so gross as to
make the building unsafe or un-
sightly. Then the question must be
answered: How far can the structure
vary from planned line and dimen-
sion and still be considered to ac-
cord sufficiently with the plans?
How much variation is consistent
with full performance of the con-
tract? This is a matter of tolerance,
whether stated or implied.
A common ground
for discussion
To establish a common ground in
discussing tolerances it must be ac-
knowledged that the dictionary pro-
vides two valid definitions which
are applicable:
• permissible deviation from a spec-
ified value of a structural dimen-
sion
• the range or difference between
limits within which a size, dimen-
sion or position must lie
The first definition, which ap-
pears to be more widely accepted in
building construction, is the one
used in this discussion.
In the interest of economy the
standard of accuracy or tolerance
specified should be based on what
is really necessary rather than what
one feels is ideally desirable. A fully
satisfactory job may often be less
precise than what is attainable. The
required accuracy depends on an
interrelationship of several factors:
• St ru c t u ral strength and other
functional requirements. A build-
ing must be safe and strong, and
near enough to size and shape to
do the job for which it was built.
• Esthetics. The structure must sat-
isfy the appearance needs or wish-
es of the owner and designer.
• Economic feasibility. Can the
owner afford to pay what it costs
to attain a specified degree of
accuracy?
• Fitting of parts. Required precision
of the concrete members depends
on tolerances of accessories and
tolerances of adjacent units, joint
and connection design, and the
possibility of accumulative errors
in critical dimensions.
• Construction techniques avail-
able. The degree of precision pos-
sible depends on the level of local
craftsmanship and technology as
well as the materials available.
 One builder compensated for
excessive tolerances on the vertical
by adjusting the building lines when
foundation problems caused the
building to tilt during construction.
The foundation problems continued to
cause tilting after the building was
completed.
A — Straight line
B — Line parallel to A maintained
for one or two stories
C — Line adjusted to the vertical
during construction of top
story (lines of intervening
stories progressively adjusted)
D — True vertical
concepts which will accommodate
tolerances that are realistically at-
tainable. He should plan joints and
other details which will absorb or
conceal the inevitable variations.
Tolerance standards
One prominent concrete con-
s t ru c t o r, when asked what toler-
ances were attainable in concrete,
stated emphatically that “a con-
struction tolerance is some part of
an inch.” His reply reflects the lack
of knowledge as to standards of ac-
When specifying tolerances, the
curacy that are being achieved as a
designer must consider all of these
matter of course by competent
items and decide what the client re-
builders in their day-to-day work.
ally needs and whether he can and
The concrete industry has been
will pay for that level of precision.
groping for practical tolerance
Specifying unnecessarily close di-
guidelines for some time. Early in
mensional tolerances for hardened
1940 John Nichols, a prominent
concrete can lead to considerable
consulting engineer, suggested that
expense. Because of the deflection
the American Concrete Institute set
and yielding of forms and shoring
up some standard tolerances, and
that occurs during concrete place-
for openers he proposed a scheme
ment, formwork must be built to
of limiting values based on his own
even closer tolerances than required
judgment and experience.1 In the
in the concrete. Even higher preci-
ensuing years these proposals were
sion forms do not guarantee the
accepted in varying degree by many
same as-constructed tolerance on
designers and contractors as a mea-
the concrete member. This is be-
sure of adequate performance that
cause of shrinkage of concrete dur-
could be applied to any contract for
ing curing and deflection after the
which the designer had not specifi-
forms are removed. The designer
cally stated tolerance standards. In
can save money by selecting design
1963 when the American Co n c re t e
Institute adopted its first formwork
standard, Nichols’ values, with only
minor changes, were included as
part of the official ACI recommen-
dation. Since 1963 there has been
considerable acceptance of these
standards with only a few changes
proposed, and these modified stan-
dards are carried forward to the cur-
rent ACI 347-68, “Recommended
Practice for Concrete Fo rm w o rk .” 2
Almost identical values are found in
“Specifications for St ru c t u ral Con-
crete for Buildings (ACI 301-72),”
and the ACI 347 values are refer-
enced by the Construction Specifi-
cations Institute’s “Guide Specifica-
tion for Wood Fo rm s” (03110, March
1973).
Although the ACI values are ad-
mittedly based on judgment and ex-
perience rather than on quantitative
field measurements they appear to
be the most widely accepted stan-
dard available in the United States
for ordinary structural concrete.
Even those critics who have intimat-
ed that the tolerances were com-
piled in some equivalent of the
smoke-filled room have provided
field measurements that make the
ACI values appear reasonable.3 In
the absence of a tolerance specifica-
tion by the designer, ACI 347 sug-
gests the tolerances given in the
table for completed construction of
o rd i n a ry structural concrete in
buildings.*
A rc h i t e c t u ral concrete may re-
quire closer tolerances and the up-
per stories of high rise stru c t u re s
may also require special tolerances
for variations from plumb and lin-
ear building lines.
Slab and beam soffits should be
measured before removal of sup-
porting shores, thus placing respon-
sibility for structural deflection with
the designer, who is best qualified to
make the allowances needed for it.
ACI 347 recommends that the de-
signer anticipate occasions where
the project may have features sensi-
tive to the cumulative effects of
these general tolerances, and that
* Refer to ACI 347-68 for suggested tolerances
for other structures including bridges, mass con-
crete, tunnel and canal linings, and culverts.
he set an added limit or cumulative
tolerance. If there are several applic-
able tolerances (for example on
f o rm s, fabrication of reinforcement
and setting of reinforcement) which
may be in conflict, the designer
should anticipate this too by speci-
fying special tolerances or indicat-
ing which one must control.
Some years ago the Building Re-
search Advisory Board of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences recom-
mended considerably more
restrictive tolerances, some as little
as half the values given by ACI 347.
Since some Government agencies
may still be following these recom-
mendations, anyone working on a
Federal contract should carefully
check his specifications.
An alternative approach
A more complicated approach,
which has some merit, is to set up
s e ve ral classes of tolerances, some-
thing like the following:
• O rd i n a ry tolerances—to provide
the structure with basic service-
ability. These, if followed, will pre-
vent problems of fit for elevators,
partitions, curtain walls and ceil-
ings. The ACI tolerances would
probably fit into this class.
• Special tolerances—to provide a
structure with consistently close fit
for auxiliary structural steel or pre
cast floor and wall units.
• Appearance tolerances—to set a
standard for exterior columns,
beams and walls where the ap-
plied finish cannot mask errors.
• Unique high-precision require-
ments—such as for tool or turbine
installation.
This approach is used by seve ra l
European standards-writing bodies
and may point the way for future
development in the United States.
The American Concrete Institute
has a special committee assigned to
development of a system of toler-
ances for concrete construction.
Their present activities, howe ve r,
are being directed toward gathering
data on field performance as a nec-
essary first step toward making new
tolerance recommendations.
Importance of a good tolerance
specification
Some specifications include de-
tailed provisions for tolerances
while others are silent on the sub-
ject. Either course can have its pit-
falls. Unfortunately the oft-ignored
tolerances can be used as a weapon
against the contractor. If things go
well, no thought is given to checking

TOLERANCES RECOMMENDED BY ACI COMMITTEE 347

Variation from plumb Variation in cross-sectional dimensions of columns and
In the lines and surfaces ± 1⁄4 inch per 10 feet beams and in thickness of slabs and walls ± 1⁄4 inch
of columns, piers, walls and arrises but not much more + 1⁄2 inch
than 1 inch
Variation in footing size and location
-1
For exposed corner columns, control-joint Plan dimensions ⁄2 inch
grooves and other conspicuous lines + 2 inches*
In any bay or 20 feet maximum ± 1⁄4 inch
In 40 feet or more ± 1⁄2 inch Thickness -5 percent of
specified thickness;
Variation from level or indicated grade no limit on increased thickness
In slab soffits, ceilings, beam soffits and in arrises
In 10 feet ± 1⁄4 inch Misplacement or eccentricity 2 percent of
In any bay or 20 feet maximum ± 3⁄8 inch ooting width in
In 40 feet or more ± 3⁄4 inch direction of
misplacement but not
For exposed lintels, sills, parapets, horizontal more than 2 inches*
grooves and other conspicuous lines
In any bay 20 feet maximum ± 1⁄4 inch Variation in steps
In 40 feet or more ± 1⁄2 inch In a flight of stairs
Riser ± 1⁄8 inch
Variation of linear building lines from plan position; variation Tread ± 1⁄4 inch
in related position of columns, walls and partitions
In any bay or 20 feet maximum ± 1⁄2 inch In consecutive steps
In 40 feet or more ± 1 inch Riser ± 1⁄16 inch
Tread ± 1⁄8 inch
Variation in size and location of sleeves, floor openings and
wall openings ± 1⁄4 inch * Applies to concrete only, not to reinforcing bars or dowels.
tolerances but if bickering and bad
feeling develop for whatever reason,
strict enforcement of tolerance re-
quirements may be used to penalize
the builder. Similar things happen
even though tolerances are not
specified; someone dissatisfied with
the work tries to invoke “reason-
able” tolerances. The ideal situation
would be to have a clear-cut specifi-
cation with frequent enough check-
ing to see that reasonable compli-
ance is being achieved.
One of the basic hazards in speci-
fying tolerances is the possibility of
more than one interpretation.
Wording of the specification is as
important as the numerical values
that are given. A good tolerance
specification should include defini-
tions of special terms and state the
tolerances as nearly as possible in
the same order as the construction
sequence. It is also important to
provide that in the event of conflict
a variation permitted in one section
of the specification for concrete
work is not to be construed as per-
mitting violation of more stringent
requirements in another section.
There should also be an explicit
statement of whether a permitted
variation for any element is unidi-
rectional or multidirectional. No tol-
erance specified for building lines or
footings should be interpreted to
permit encroachment beyond legal
site boundaries.
Where other than ordinary toler-
ances are required, the designer
should indicate how measurements
will be taken and suggest possible
means of obtaining acceptable
work. If the bidder is aware that spe-
cial screeds, steel forms, extra brac-
ing, permanent shores and the like
may be needed he will be able to al-
low for these items and avoid nego-
tiating for extras later on. The de-
signer can avoid arguments by
showing dimensions that can be di-
rectly measured, such as distances
between column faces rather than
center line to center line.
Camber and deflection
problems
Special problems of deflection
and shortening are inherent in every
structure and these should be dealt
with by the correct selection of a de-
sign concept rather than by inclu-
sion in a tolerance specification.
The contractor should not be held
responsible for deflections which
occur after forms and shores are re-
moved (assuming that the shoring
remains in place the correct length
of time). This is why the ACI 347 re-
quirements indicate that slab soffit
elevations should be measured be-
fore shore removal.
In the past, deflections of con-
crete structures were rarely a prob-
lem and the builder used a rule of
thumb for form camber to compen-
sate for deflection and optical sag of
the finished structure. Today, with
increasing use of flat plates, thin
shells, and strength design methods
that lead to members with larger
span-depth ratios than formerly, the
deflection of the finished structure
is a bigger problem. Since accurate
deflection calculations are difficult
and beyond the normal expertise of
the builder, the designer should
specify the amount and shape of
camber desired to compensate for
structural deflection. He should also
decide how much added camber is
needed to overcome “optical sag” in
long-span horizontal members.
Tolerances for reinforcing steel
ACI 318-71 “Building Code Re-
quirements for Reinforced Con-
c re t e” establishes cover require-
ments for rebars and defines
tolerances in the cover as well as tol-
erances for bar placement. They
vary with the effective stru c t u ra l
depth d to the centroid of the rein-
forcement.
Allowable tolerance on d and on
clear cover:
d of 8 inches or less:
± 1⁄4 inch
d between 8 and 24 inches:
± 3⁄8 inch
d of 24 inches or more:
± 1⁄2 inch
Howe ve r, the Code limits reduc-
tion in cover to one-third of the
specified amount.
Since the effective depth and
clear concrete cover are parts of the
total depth, the tolerances on these
dimensions are directly related to
tolerances on overall depth of mem-
ber which must be considered by
the form builder. Bar placing toler-
ances must not be allowed to be-
come additive with tolerances for
formwork, leaving the steel with in-
sufficient cover or depth. This is a
case where the designer may have
to provide special tolerances as not-
ed above.
Toward a better understanding
It should be the responsibility of
the designer to decide what toler-
ances are required and the responsi-
bility of the builder to produce the
s t ru c t u re to these tolerances. The
owner must pay both of them for
their efforts. Practically speaking,
the interests and objectives of all
three must be considered simulta-
neously. A carefully prepared design
that allows for reasonable devia-
tions without sacrificing utility or
appearance should help reduce
building costs. Even more impor-
tant is to have sufficient open com-
munication before the job begins so
that painful disagreement is avoid-
ed. If the builder knows in advance
what tolerances are required and
how they will be enforced he has a
better chance to deliver on both
price and promises—to fulfill the
contract to the satisfaction of all
concerned.
REFERENCES
1. Nichols, John R., “Tolerances in
Building Construction,” ACI Journal,
April 1940, pages 493-496.
2. ACI Committee 347, “Recommend-
ed Practice for Concrete Formwork
(ACI 347-68),” American Concrete In-
stitute, 1968, 34 pages.
3. Birkeland, Philip W., and Westhoff,
Leonard, “Dimensional Tolerances in
Tall Concrete Building,” ACI Journal,
August 1971, pages 600-607.
PUBLICATION#C740210
Copyright © 1974, The Aberdeen Group
All rights reserved