CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCE
CONFLICTS IN
REINFORCED CONCRETE
A SERVICE OF THE CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL INSTITUTE
933 N. Plum Grove Rd., Schaumburg, Illinois 60173-4758
INTRODUCTION
The construction tolerances for cast-in-place
reinforced concrete buildings have evolved with -
in the American Concrete Institute over the past
50 years into what is generally considered to be
a reasonable set of criteria that can be achieved
using normal construction practices.
One of the early attempts to publish building
tolerances appeared in the ACl literature in
1940. The first presentation of forming toler -
ances in an ACI standard appears to be in 1963
in “Recommended Practice for Concrete
Formwork”. Subsequently, construction toler -
ances have been included in many ACl commit-
tee reports and specifications. ACI tolerances for
fabricated reinforcing bars have been developed
by CRSI. All ACl tolerances are now being con -
solidated under the auspices of ACl Committee
117, Tolerances. The committee has developed
“Standard Tolerances for Concrete Construction
Materials”. The current document is designated
as ACl 117-90.
Reinforced concrete is the result of the work of
several separate trades or subcontractors who
utilize various ACl tolerances applicable to their
trade. Tolerance conflicts in reinforced concrete
construction are multiplied by having potentially
inconsistent tolerances within ACl with which to
build and the requirement to accommodate the
tolerances of other building elements. Conflicts
within the set of ACI tolerances still exist, but
most construction disputes arise from conflicts
with adjoining elements.
This report presents some common areas of
conflict due to tolerances. Recommendations of
actions that may lessen or eliminate the conflicts
are presented.
© Copyright 1995 by the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
CRSI
ENGINEERING
DATA REPORT
NUMBER 40
CONFLICTS BETWEEN ELEMENTS OF
REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES
Reinforcing Steel And Member Profile
The depth of a beam between 12 and 36 in.,
Figure 1, has a tolerance of +1/2 in. and -3/8 in.
The height of the stirrup and the position of the
horizontal bar positioned by the stirrup has a tol-
erance of +/- ½ in. Since the bars are supported
by the 1-1/2 in. bar supports on the soffit, all of the
tolerances affect the top cover. If the stirrup is ½
in. taller and the beam is 3/8 in. shallower than
theoretical, the top cover could be reduced by ½
plus 3/8 or 7/8 in. An actual cover of 5/8 in. would
be the result. According to ACI 117, the tolerance
for the 1-1/2 in. cover over the stirrup is ½ in., pro-
viding for a minimum cover of 1 in. Therefore, the
cover will be reduced below the allowable toler-
ance though all components of the assembly, the
formwork, the rebar fabrication, the rebar place-
ment, and the concrete finishing, usually per-
formed by separate subcontractors, were within
acceptable tolerances. Careful coordination of the
trades and field measurement before placing con-
crete is recommended to resolve this conflict.
Specifying additional cover where cover is critical
may also be appropriate.
For a beam perpendicular to a sloping surface
such as in a parking garage, Figure 2, the deci-
sion on where the beam depth is to be measured
also affects the depth of the beam stirrup. Since
the top slopes and the beam soffit is usually hor-
izontal, if the depth is measured on the downhill
side, the stirrups will be the same as for non-
ramp beams. If, however, the decision is made to
measure the beam depth at the centerline, the
stirrup will have to be roughly 3/4 in. less in
height than for the non-ramp beams. Making this
decision also reduces the effective depth of the
beam reinforcement and therefore its capacity.
The Architect/Engineer should specify the point
at which the depth is to be measured and con -
sider the effects on the reinforcing steel.
 Fig. 1 Beam Stirrup Cover
Formwork And Member Profile
Widely used concrete joist construction is
formed with thin gage inverted “U” shaped metal
forms which lap at joints and have flanges which
are nailed to framing material forming the joist
soffit. The lap joints and soffit connection typi-
cally have offsets of up to ½ in. with occasional
1 in. offsets (Figure 3). While not meeting the
ACl cross-section tolerance of -1/4 in., +3/8 in.
for members up to 12 in. in width, the offsets do
meet ACl 117 Class C (½ in.) and Class D (1 in.)
tolerances for offsets between adjacent pieces
of formwork. Fortunately, the offsets usually
either make the member thicker or do not occur
at locations which would affect the structural
integrity of the concrete joist. The end 3 to 6 ft of
the joist rib is structurally most vulnerable to
thickness deficiency.
This conflict can best be resolved by recogniz-
ing that the tolerance range required with this
method of construction is greater than with more
costly alternatives. Class “C” or “D” tolerances
should be specified and, except in areas affect-
ing structural integrity, the cross-sectional toler-
ances should not be strictly applied to this type
of construction.
Conflicts Between Members
In a long span beam and slab parking struc-
ture, the floor-to-floor height is often 10 ft 0 in.
with a 3-ft deep beam. The minimum clearance
specified is 7 ft 0 in. which leaves zero tolerance.
The ACI tolerances on the forming would allow
+/-3/4 in. for the soffit and top elevation. This
could reduce the clearance by 1-1/2 in.
The problem worsens in the ramp areas,
Figure 4, where the slope of the ramp at 5 or 6
percent grade makes the clearance on the uphill
side of the beam 3/8 in. less than at the center-
line. This occurs because the beam soffits are
placed level rather than parallel to the slope of
the ramp.
Fig. 2 Measuring Beam Depth
Deciding where the beam depth is to be meas-
ured presents a third problem on sloping or
ramped surfaces. If the beam depth is measured
on the downhill side, the soffit of the beam is low-
ered by 3/8 in. which reduces the clearance by
3/8 in.
The simultaneous occurrence of these three
conditions is quite normal. What was intended to
be 7-ft clear becomes 6 ft 9-3/4 in. This is 2-1/4
in. less than planned. The story height should be
increased by 2-1/4 in. to allow for the construc-
tion tolerances.
The use of post-tensioning sometimes com-
pounds the problems of trying to keep the edge
of the building within acceptable tolerance
(Figure 5). The usual procedure would be to cast
the first lift columns, then cast the floor slab.
Before tensioning the floor beams and slabs, it is
likely that the 2nd lift of columns has been cast.
The tensioning operation compresses the con-
crete and tends to pull the edges of the building
toward the center or other stable location. The
result may be the movement of the slab by as
much as 3/4 in., pulling the first floor columns out
of plumb and moving the 2nd lift of columns lat-
erally by this amount. The casting of the 2nd slab
and the 3rd lift of columns followed by the ten-
sioning of the 2nd floor system moves the top of
the 2nd lift of columns an additional 3/4 in.
inward for a total movement of 1-1/2 in. As the
building progresses, the offsets progress. A 10-
story building could be off by as much as 7-1/2
in. unless corrective measures were taken.
The common remedy is to anticipate the
movement and lean the columns outward and
build the slab edge beyond its desired location.
Unfortunately, the movement does not always
occur due to the level of the post-tensioning
force or constraints in the building geometry.
This is a condition where the Architect/Engineer
should advise the Contractor of the anticipated
movement so the Contractor can act accordingly.
Conflicts Between The Frame And Other Trades Interior Conditions
Other trades, particularly the finish trades, The installation of floor-to-ceiling partitions
must build their product to meet or surround the presents conflicts similar to the exterior opening.
concrete elements. Their products also have a Attachment of partitions or other elements
set of industry established tolerances. These against the underside of concrete joist construc-
products are often plant manufactured with sig -
tion must be designed to accommodate the like-
nificantly less variation in dimensions and are
also often exposed to public view and have erec- ly ½ in. to 1 in. vertical offsets that may occur
tion tolerances that are much more restrictive along the joist soffits.
than the hidden concrete elements. It becomes
the responsibility of the Architect/Engineer to
consider the differences in tolerances between
the various elements of the finished structure
and to develop connection details and clear-
ances to accommodate these differences.

Fig. 3 Joist Construction With Lapped Forms

Exterior Conditions
The ACI tolerance for the edge of a concrete
slab is +/- 1 in. The typical 5-in, brick ledge angle Fig. 4 Clearance to Slab Below Sloping Surface
leaves about ½ in. clear between the bolt and
the brick, Figure 6. Any movement of the build -
ing edge outward encroaches on the insulation
and air gap and may require chipping of the brick
or removal of concrete. Chipping the brick weak-
ens the brick and removal of concrete may
destroy the anchorage for the brick angle and
reduce the cover on the reinforcing bars at the
beam edge. The Architect/Engineer must devel-
op connection details that would accommodate
the potential 2 in. movement of the slab edge.
The installation of window units to the under-
side of concrete beams or slabs, Figure 7, is fre-
quently a cause of tolerance conflict. The toler-
ance for the location of the soffit is +/- 3/4 in. The
same tolerance applies to the top surface of the
beam which allows for an opening size variance
of +/- 1-1/2 in. The window unit manufacturer
anticipating a 1/4 in. sealant joint top and bottom
builds the unit to a tolerance of +/- 1/16 in. The
result is 1 in. wide sealant joints or perhaps a
unit that is 1 in. taller than the opening. The solu -
tion to this problem may be easier than some. An
expansion channel allowing for +/- 3/4 in. move-
ment was a solution employed 20 years ago that Fig 5. Post-Tensioning Movement
is still valid today.
 Fig. 6 Attachment of Brick, Precast or Curtainwall Fig. 7 Window Frame in Concrete Opening

CONCLUSIONS

These examples are only a few of the many
areas of conflict relating to the construction of a
structure to acceptable tolerances that could be
made easier by the closer cooperation of the
parties involved.
The ACI tolerances for the reinforced frame
are generally reasonable but increased pressure
to build faster with less cost makes them harder
to maintain. Building the frame to more exacting
tolerances is possible but should only be called
for when absolutely necessary as the additional
cost can be significant. The other trades are
faced with similar problems.
The Architect/Engineer must be continuous-
ly aware of tolerances and design accordingly.
Where it is necessary to be more restrictive at
specific locations, these locations and their
requirements should be shown on the design
drawings or in the project specifications.
Pre-design conferences with Contractors,
Subcontractors and Suppliers will frequently
point out areas of possible conflict. Most of the
discussed conflicts can be avoided by recogniz-
ing that variations, as allowed in ACI 117, will
occur and by acting accordingly.
The Architect/Engineer and Contractor
should be aware of the potential discrepancies
between the exact dimensions and locations
shown on design drawings, and the variance of
practical dimensions which make tolerances
necessary in order for the various trades and
suppliers to construct a reinforced concrete
structure. A concerted effort should be made to
coordinate the work of the various trades, antici-
pate problems of fit, and resolve a potential con -
flict prior to its occurrence. Last minute disputes
at the jobsite are an expensive alternative.

REFERENCES
Nichols, JR., “Tolerances in Building Beall, C., “Specifying Construction Tolerances”,
Construction”, ACI Journal, April 1940. The Construction Specifier, August 1990.
Standard Tolerances for Concrete Construction
and Materials, ACl 117-90, 1990. Birkeland, P.W., and Westhoff, L.J., “Dimensional
“Reasonable Tolerances for Cast-in-Place Tolerances in a Tall Building”, ACI Journal,
Concrete”, Concrete Construction Magazine, August 1971.
May 1974.

CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL INSTITUTE

933 N. Plum Grove Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173-4758 • 847/517-1200
WESTERN REGION OFFICE
259 S. Randolph Ave., Suite 220, Brea, California 92821 • 714/257-7302

This publication is intended for the use of professionals competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of its contents and who
will accept responsibility for the application of the material it contains. The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute reports the foregoing
material as a matter of information and, therefore, disclaims any and all responsibility for application of the stated principles or for the
accuracy of the sources other than material developed by the Institute.

H N H 0995/25M Printed in U.S.A.