TITLE NO.
68-53
Dimensional Tolerances in a Tall Concrete Building
By PHILIP W. BIRKELAND and LEONARD j. WESTHOFF
Measurements ·of floor flatness and spacing be-
tween column lines are reported. These measure-
ments were taken on a high rise office building.
They represent tolerances on concrete surfaces
which are realistically obtainable in high quality
construction. The tolerances found are much larger
than commonly specifiecl or expected. They illus-
trate our industry's tolerances problem-which is
that ne·ither designer nor constructor knows what
tolerances are realistically obtainable, nor what
tolerances are actually required to obtain a satis-
factory building. This paper attempts a start on
solving the problem, by using the measured toler-
ances as a vehicle for discussion.
Keywords: columns (supports); concrete con-
struction; dimensional measurement; flatness;
floors; inspection; multistory buildings; reinforced
concrete; structura I design; tolerances (mechanics).
• THE AUTHORS HAVE LONG had a nagging feeling
that buildings were constructed less accurately
than commonly assumed, and that this was the
root reason behind the bickering which seems to
continually occur between constructor and de-
signer concerning tolerances. On asking around,
we discovered that nobody seemed to have any
data on dimensional tolerances. So, we bowed to
the inevitable. We picked a building representa-
tive of high quality construction. We measured
parts of it to determine variations in floor flat-
ness and column locations. We were amazed by
the wide variations. We often found ourselves
doubting (and rechecking) our measurements.
This paper reports these variations, and uses
them as a vehicle for discussion.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Tolerances actually obtained in construction
are much larger than commonly expected. We
specify unrealistic tolerances, but in fact accept
a building with whatever deviations it happens to
600
have. Thus, owners are protected not by the spec-
ifications, but by implied warranty as to fitness
for intended use. Perhaps this is why most build-
ings are successful.
2. Most real problems with tolerances arise
from unrealized expectations. Both designers and
constructors appear to believe buildings are con-
structed much more accurately than they really
are. Nobody seems to know what tolerances are
realistically obtainable, nor what tolerances are
actually required to obtain a satisfactory build-
ing. There is little understanding of how toler-
ances should be considered in design, controlled
during construction, or enforced by inspection.
3. Tolerances now cause us more trouble than
we like to admit. As more parts of buildings
are fabricated off-site, tolerances will become
even more troublesome. As an industry, we are
not facing up to the problem.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Take existing tables of tolerances with con-
siderable salt. Think of a realistic tolerance on
most concrete dimensions or surfaces as ± 1 in.
2. Select design concepts which will accom-
modate realistically obtainable tolerances. Make
sure there are places to absorb the inevitable
variations. Dimension the drawings such that the
constructor can easily spot which dimensions
are critical, and such that the inspector can
measure them directly.
3. Select construction concepts which will di-
rectly control critical dimensions. Review the de-
sign concept for hidden traps. Ask questions.
4. Committee 117, Tolerances, badly needs toler-
ance measurements on real-life buildings. Please
send us any reliable data you have - particularly
ACI JOURNAL I AUGUST 1971

ACI member Philip W. Birkeland is associate partner, ABAM
Engineers, Inc., consulting engineers, Tacoma, Wash. Currently,
he is a member of ACI Committee 117, Tolerances.
Leonard J. Westhoff is field superintendent, Baugh Construc-
tion Company, Seattle, Wash. Mr. Westhoff's experience in·
eludes high rise and other commercial buildings, as proiect
engineer and as general superintendent. Currently he is a
member of ACI Committee 117, Tolerances.
for cases which define the borderline between
a satisfactory and an unsatisfactory building.
RESULTS
For actual data, see Fig. 2 through 7 and Tables
1 and 2. These data are limited in scope, and
were taken from one building. Adjusting these
measurements to what we would expect to find
on other similar buildings, we feel the variations
listed in Table 1 would be reasonable to ex-
pect in good work.
TABLE I-SUMMARY OF RESULTS-DATA
ADJUSTED BY JUDGMENT
Item Usual Maximum
Floor flatness deviations
From mean elevation ± lh in. ± 1 in.
Slope Yi6 in. per ft =%6 in. per ft
Curvature ~in. in 10ft Vz in. in 10 ft
Column location deviations
Individual column from
its line ± 1 in. ± 2 in.
Spacing between parallel
column lines ± 1 in. ± 2 in.
Squareness between per-
pendicular column lines Ys in. in 10 ft %in. in 10 ft
DISCUSSION
How this paper came to be. written
Both authors are members of ACI Committee
117, Tolerances. From committee meetings and
correspondence, it is clear that the concrete in-
dustry has a real tolerances problem. There is
continuing trouble between the designer, con-
structor, and, sometimes, the owner. The troubles
are of two types: "constructional," which affect
the ease of constructing the building, and "func-
tional," which affect how the building performs
its intended function after it is completed. The
first type results in bid prices higher than they
should be. The second results in a building
which is worth less than it should be. Since
we ultimately work for the owner, we have an
obligation to solve these two types of problems.
ACI JOURNAL I AUGUST 1971
The chief barrier to a solution is that everybody
seems to blame the other person. In fact, all
of us are at fault. There is ~ saying, "Don't
worry about the speck in your brother's eye .
until you take the log out of your own." In the
process of writing this paper, both authors dis-
covered logs in their own eyes.
Committee 117 is supposed to provide a soLution
to the tolerances problem. However, it has been
unable to arrive at a consensus as to the defini-
tion of the problem, let alone propose solutions.
This is not from lack of trying. One of the
difficulties is that there are no hard data avail-
able as to what tolerances are actually attained
in the field. On asking around, it appears that
published "specification" tolerance tables, as
found in ACI 301, 347, etc., have been compiled in
the equivalent of smoke-filled rooms, with no
direct relationship to measured reality. In the
absence of hard data, these committees have had
to rely on their judgment. The "smoke-filled
room" was the only option open if the job were
to get done. In the case of Committee 117, the
only "data" readily available was Roger Corbetta's
very emphatic statement that, "A construction
tolerance is some part of an inch." As may be
seen from the data reported in this paper, he
is surprisingly correct.
It was felt that these problems should be
aired, preferably in the form of a paper based
on real measurements of an actual building.
Thus, this paper. We hope we can communicate
our own sense of amazement as to the wide varia-
tions we found. We hope this will stimulate you
to write discussions. Tolerances is a problem
area which needs plain talk. We will welcome
honest disagreement.
Description of the building structure
The structure is an office tower, in the height
range of 20 to 25 supported levels. The framing
system is of tube-in-tube or hull-core type. Archi-
tecturally, a typical floor plan comprises a 35 ft
wide column free rental space, bounded on the
outside by the hull, and completely surrounding
a 50 ft square core. Fig. 1 shows the framing
concept used for the rental spaces. The hull is
of eggcrate type bearing wall construction, with
cast-in-place columns and spandrels resisting lat-
eral load in the planes of the walls. The rental
area is framed with precast/pretensioned single
tees spanning from the hull to columns at the
core periphery or to cast-in-place diagonal beams
at the corners. The tees are composite with a
3 in. thick structural lightweight concrete topping,
which is also used to bury an underfloor elec-
trification system.
At the time of this writing, the tower is es-
sentially complete. It has enough interior finish
601
 surface irregularities in two single tees. The maxi-
mum variation elsewhere is 3fs in. above (west
of the northwest corner of the core) to 9/16 in.
below (north of the "+10" ridge). The maximum
slope is about 1/s in. per ft, at the east end of
the longer "+10" ridge. The maximum slope else-
where is about 1/16 in. per ft, found at several
locations. The maximum curvature, as would be
measured by offset from a 10-ft straightedge, is
'
r--=-=-:::;:::-...::-_-:::_-=:_-===-=-=~ 3fs in. in 10 ft (across the "+10" ridge, and across
'r--=-;::_:-=--==-=---=-===-=---=":::::8 the "-9" trough just to the north). Elsewhere,
J

Fig. 1-Typical floor framing

work (drywall, ceilings, doors, partitions, etc.)

completed to allow commentary on how this
work is affected by the variations in concrete
dimensions we have measured.

Measurements of floor flatness

Floor flatness is important because of its
effect on detailing of partition reveals, door
swings, the architect's or owner's happiness, and
the like.
In an attempt to make life simple and to Fig. 2-Contour map flatness of 6th floor
eliminate avoidable error, we used a single in-
strument point on each floor to take elevations.
This was located just inside the northeast cor-
ner of the hull (see Fig. 1). From this point we
could see only the north and east sides of the
rental area floor. This is why Fig. 2 and 3 show
only half the floor. We took elevations at points
on a 5 ft sq grid. The reference plane was a
vertically offset line scribed on the hull columns
- the same line used to set the topping screeds.
The contour lines shown on Fig. 2 and 3 were
constructed from these data. The contour interval
is in eighths of an inch. The contour lines are
marked in sixteenths of an inch above (plus) or
below (minus) intended finish floor elevation,
relative to the reference plane.
Fig. 2 shows one-half of the 6th floor. Eleva-
tions range from % in. above intended finish
floor to % in. below, occurring near the northwest
and southeast corners. The two "+10" east-west
ridgelines at the southeast corner are the only
variations we can make sense of. We think they
were caused by two underfloor ducts being set
high, probably due to differential camber and top Fig. 3-Contour map flatness of 16th floor

602 ACI JOURNAL I AUGUST 1971

 there are several places with curvatures of 5/16 in.
in 10ft.
Fig. 3 shows half the 16th floor. This floor has
no underfloor duct. It uses "punch through"
electrification. Elevations range from 5/16 in.
above intended finish floor (on the north face
of the core) to % in. below (three places ad-
jacent to the northwest corner of the core).
Elsewhere, the maximum variations are from
about 5/16 in. above to 11/16 in. below (both at
several locations). The maximum slope is some-
what more than % in. per ft (adjacent to the
northwest corner of the hull). Elsewhere, there
are several locations with slopes about % in. per
ft. The maximum curvature in 10 ft is about
%in., across the "+4" hump adjacent to the north-
west corner of the hull. Elsewhere, several loca-
tions have curvatures of about 3/s in. in 10 ft.
Table 2 summarizes the floor flatness data. It
is interesting to compare reality - as reported
here - with what is often specified. We
will compare with ACI 301-66 (the best standard
specification we know of) and with the contract
documents (specifications) used for this building.
Concerning deviations from intended elevation:
ACI 301 is silent, but refers to ACI 347. ACI
347-68 indirectly limits the deviation to about
plus or minus an inch ( ± % in. for slab soffit
per section 2.4.1.2.a, plus + 1fz - % in. for slab
thickness). The contract documents specify ± 14
in. from "elevation indicated." Table 2 indicates
ACI 301 (and 347) are realistic. The contract doc-
uments are not, for two reasons: First, the words
"elevation indicated" mean that the floor must be
within % in. of the elevation shown on the
drawings at time of completion. In this building,
column shortening due to dead load of later con-
struction above causes a calculated long-term de-
flection downward of about 1 in. at midheight of
the building. This means that a given floor can
be cast exactly at "elevation indicated," and 1
year later be 1 in. below. This shortening cannot
be predicted to an accuracy of % in. Second, even
if "elevation indicated" were interpreted to mean
"intended elevation" (referring to, say, a line
scribed on the column at time of casting the
floor), the ± % in. is still unrealistic. Table 2 in-
dicates that a realistic tolerance on deviation
from intended elevation might be ± 1 in.
Concerning slope: ACI 301 and the contract doc-
uments are silent. By an argument similar to
above, ACI 347 limits slope to about 1/16 in. per
ft. Table 2 shows that a realistic tolerance on
slope might be 3/16 in. per ft.
Concerning curvature: ACI 347 is silent. ACI
301 and the contract documents respectively limit
curvatures to % in. and 14 in. as measured by
offset from a 10-ft straightedge. Table 2 shows
curvatures up to 5fs in. over 10 ft. As this maxi-
ACI JOURNAL I AUGUST 1971
TABLE 2- FLOOR FLATNESS- OATA TAKEN FROM
CONTOUR MAPS (SEE FIG. 2 AND 3)
Floor
Item-Deviations 6th 16th
From intended Maximum +% +~fiG
elevation, in. -% -%
Usual +% +%6
-o/:16 _1~6
Slopes, in. per ft Maximum Ys Ys plus
Usual ~6 l's
Curvatures, in. offset Maximum % %
from 10 ft straight-
edge Usual %n %
mum is at one of the "+10" ridges (protruding
underfloor duct), a more usual maximum might
be % in. Spotty information from other geographi-
cal areas indicates that a % in. requirement is ex-
ceedingly difficult to meet. Thus, a realistic tol-
erance on curvature seems to be Vz in., measured as
an offset from a 10-ft straightedge.
In summary, the contour maps look like ran-
domly glaciated terrain. Except for the "+10" east-
west ridges on the 6th floor, the contours do not
relate to structure below or to anything else.
Slopes approach those you would want for roof
drainage! Deviations and curvatures are far more
than one would innocently expect. Yet, we feel
this building is a good representative of high
quality construction. The floors look flat and
feel flat. There have been no undue problems with
doors or partitions. Hence, if you wish to criticize
the workmanship of this building, please have
ready comparably complete measurements on
one of your buildings.
Measurements of column spacing
In this building, variations in spacing of col-
umns along the hull (or along the face of the
core) are not particularly important. However,
the clear distance between hull and core is im-
portant, as it directly affects ceiling installation.
This is what we measured. The hull columns and
spandrels were gang formed in welded steel. The
core columns were formed in plywood. The ceil-
ing in this building is a modular type (5 ft each
way, to match the floor space planning concept,
with each module consisting of a 2 x 5 ft ceiling
tile on each side of a 1 X 5 ft recessed lighting
fixture). In the ceiling itself, there are no half
modules, reveals or other provisions for take-up
of tolerances. The dimensioning concepts used do
not allow take-up in the wall furring either. The
result is difficult construction, and our interest
in seeing just what the concrete tolerances were.
Many other buildings are of equal difficulty.
Moreover, if you think this building is difficult,
we know of another one with similar ceiling
603
problems, but compounded by underfloor elec- can infer that an individual column could de-
trification which had to be exactly under the viate from its line by % in. In comparing our
partition lines. Imagine trying to build that one! data with the 1970 AISC "Code of Standard Prac-
Again, to keep life simple, we used the same tice for Steel Buildings and Bridges" (Section
instrument point for the same reasons as for 7.h "Tolerances"), we were immediately struck
floor flatness. We had no handy reference line. by the AISC Code's seeming laxity. However, on
So, we arbitrarily set up an east-west baseline review the AISC tolerances appear eminently
parallel to the north hull face, with the east and
west ends the same distance south of the two
end columns. In retrospect, we should not have
used the end columns for our base line. The loca-
tion of the end columns, perpendicular to the
-y
hull, is not well controlled by the forming method
used. Our north-south baseline was obtained by
turning 90° and doubling the angle. Offset dis-
tances were measured from these baselines to in-
side face of hull columns and to outside face of
core columns. These offsets were measured at
ceiling height, a more realistic location than at
the floor. Fig. 4-Colu·mn deviations 6th floor (north side)
Fig. 4 through 7 show the variations in these
offsets, but with shifted and rotated baselines.
We were unable to relate the variations to joints
between gang forms, or to anything else. Lines y
connect the data points. Lines yare "least square
straight lines" which minimize the sum of the
squares of the variations perpendicular to the
original baselines. These y lines are the straight
lines which best fit the data. They are essentially
the same lines as one would draw by eyeball
if one were trying to average out the points.
These lines relate to where the edges of the
modular ceiling must come. One then hopes the Fig. 5-Column deviations 6th floor (east side)
distance between hull and core will be no more
than about % in. over nominal, at which point
the ceiling tiles begin to fall out of the T-bars.
It is much easier to correct for a distance less
than nominal, as one need only crop the ends
of the lighting fixtures and/or the ceiling tile.
Fig. 4 shows the north side of the 6th floor.
Fig. 5 shows the east side. The distance between
lines y is from Ys in. under nominal to % in.
over. The hull (lines y) is about 0.0026 in. per
ft out of square between north and east faces. The
core is about 0.0210 in. per ft out. The core is Fig. 6-Column deviations 16th floor (north side)
skewed about 0.0062 in./ft relative to the hull.
Fig. 6 shows the north side of the 16th floor.
Fig. 7 shows the east side. The distance between
lines y is from% in. under nominal to % in. over.
The hull is about 0.0074 in./ft out of square; the --~--
core about 0.0096 out. The core is skewed about
0.0073 relative to the hull.
Table 3 summarizes the data for clear distance
between hull and core columns. These data com-
pare pretty well with the tolerances required by
ACI 301-66 (see ACI 347-68, Section 2.4.1.3), which lOFT ~I~
,...__.... eJ -
imply a deviation from nominal of the distance
between column lines of 1 in. Additionally, one Fig. 7-Column deviations 16th floor (~os+ side)

604 ACJ JOURNAL/ AUGUST 1971

TABLE 3-COLUMN SPACING-DEVIATIONS FROM
INTENDED DISTANCE BETWEEN LINES OF COL-
UMNS AT HULL AND CORE (SEE FIG. 4 THROUGH 7)
Side of Floor
building
Item-Deviations 6th 16th
Lines of arithmetic North +lh +%
mean, in. East +% -:14
North -:1;8 +%
Lines of least square +% +%
best fit, in.
East +lh -%,
+% +:1;8
realistic. A column not exterior and not at an
elevator shaft can, in theory, be 1:500 out of plumb
for its entire height - 7 in. for a 300 ft high
building! We know of one similar height building
with an elevator shaft out of plumb by 7 in.
The elevator works, too. An exterior column for
a 20-story building can be 2 in. out of plumb.
The column lines at hull or core can be 1:500 or
0.024 in. per ft out of square. The core can be
skewed 1:500 or 0.024 in. per ft with respect to
the hull. Thus, our building appears to meet
the AISC Code.
In summary, we question whether it is reason-
able to expect better accuracy from a concrete
building than from a structural steel building.
Thus, based on the AISC Code, it seems to us
that one should expect the location of any sur-
face on a column over its full height to deviate
at least 2 in. from its intended location. However,
measurements from this building indicate that on
a given floor it is reasonable to expect a given
column to deviate about 1 in. from its line, the
distance between column lines to deviate about 1
in. from nominal, and two nominally square
column lines to be out of square by % in. in 10 ft.
Tolerances in design
Ideally, the designer must first decide what
tolerance is required to make his concept work.
Then he must visualize a reasonable method of
construction, and determine whether the tolerance
he wants can be attained in the field at reasonable
cost. If not, he must change his concept until
the required tolerances can be met at reasonable
cost. Good designers go through this sequence
of evaluation and modification, usually by intui-
tion and often subconsciously. After satisfying
himself as to his concept, the designer then has
to put his requirement on paper (on the drawings
or in the specifications) such that the constructor
knows what is needed. Troubles occur because
real life deviates from this ideal.
ACI JOURNAL I AUGUST 1971
4o'-o"
10'-o" 10'-o" 10'-0"
~C,eJTICAL_j
PH~ COLUM~ ~
SCHEDULE DIMH.ISIDfJ
Fig. 8-Double dimensioning as commonly shown on
drawings
Too often, the designer tacitly assumes the
building can be built to zero tolerance, and there-
fore selects an unforgiving design concept. This
designer can easily end up on the wrong end of
a court decision. The constructor cannot be asked
to perform the impossible, even if the specifica-
tions he bid on said he had to. At best, the con-
structor ends up fighting the job. This costs
everybody money. However, the conscientious de-
signer has his problems, because he has no ready
source of reliable numerical information as to
tolerances attainable or tolerances required. Just
because his previous buildings were successfully
completed and occupied does not mean the toler-
ances he specified were actually attained, or if
attained, were actually required. A case in
point is the building we have measured. The
floor is nowhere near as flat as specified. Yet
that same specification was used on several
previous successful buildings.
In addition to showing what is needed, the
drawings should be dimensioned such that the
important dimensions are directly shown and can
be directly measured. Example: Assume five 12 in.
square exterior columns spaced at 10 ft center
to center. Assume precast concrete infill panels
which must fit between the columns. Normally,
the columns would be dimensioned to centerlines
as four spaces each at 10 ft, an overall dimension
of 40 ft, and the column width indicated on the
column schedule (see Fig. 8). Because of the in-
fill panels, it is important that each space between
columns be controlled as closely as possible. Con-
sider one of the spaces between columns, labelled
"critical dimension" on Fig 8. If the constructor is
to avoid ambiguity, he must choose one of two
ways to control that space. He can control three
center to center distances and the overall dimen-
sion and allow the fourth center to center di-
mension to float, or he can control the four center
to center distances directly and allow the overall
dimension to float. If he does the first, the tol-
erance on the "critical dimension" can be 3 X
( ± 112) on the three center to center distan•ces and
± 1 in. on the overall distance and +
1h-% in.
605

Fig. 9-Double dimensioning critical dimension
left to float
----------1 ;I; 2 1------------t
±1/2 ± 1/2
Fig. I 0-Double dimensioning critical dimension
controlled directly
on the column thickness, or +2a/4-i$ in. total {see
Fig. 9). If he does the second, the tolerance of
any of the four spaces is ±% in. on the c-c
distance and +lf2-% in. on the column thickness,
or +%-1 in. total on the "Critical Dimension"
(see Fig. 10). Thus, the designer might be ex-
pecting +%-1 in., but might actually get +2%-3
in. as a very unpleasant surprise. When there
are two ways to measure a dimension (as above),
this situation is called double dimensioning.
This surprise is why double dimensioning has
been taboo in the metal machining industry -
probably since Eli Whitney invented inter-
changeable parts for firearms. The constructor
too often must guess the designer's intent. Con-
cerning measurements, there is another problem.
Just where is the column centerline? Dimen-
sioning practices should allow direct measure-
ment. The machined metal industry has done
this for generations. Dimensions should be given
to face of concrete.
Until designers are willing to face up to prob-
lems like the above (double dimensioning, and
dimensions which cannot be measured directly),
nobody can expect the constructor to pay se-
rious attention to a table of tolerances given in
the specifications.
Tolerances in construction
Ideally, the constructor should be able to de-
termine the required tolerances from the con-
tract documents. However, the current state of
the art is that he must determine them himself.
Prior to bid, then, the competent and conscien-
606
tious constructor tries to discover which toler-
ances are important. He does this by experience
and intuition. Then, he puts a price on the toler-
ances. This whole process is often done subcon-
sciously. But, it is done, and it does affect the
bid price - sometimes seriously.
Then, if he gets the job, he begins construction.
All goes well if he has enough money in the
job to cover the tolerance problems. If he doesn't,
and if he feels he was misled by the contract
documents through no fault of his own, the job
becomes trouble for all concerned.
On the other hand, if the constructor is not
particularly competent or conscientious, he may
get the job because he didn't spot the tolerance
problems, and consequently bid the job too low.
If he is human, he doesn't like to admit a mis-
take. The result is even more trouble. Trouble
means lessened profit, and higher bids on the
next job. The owner ends up paying.
How do we then reduce the incidence of trou-
ble? One way is to have the contract documents
clearly show where the problems will be. Anoth-
er is to build the structure in such a way that
critical dimensions are controlled directly. Re-
ferring to the example discussed in "Tolerances
in Design," the clear distance between columns
is what is important. A thinking-type constructor
might thus decide to form the opening between
columns rather than the columns themselves. In
this way, the major error or tolerance would
occur in the column width rather than in the
space between columns. The tolerance would thus
be absorbed in the cover over the column ties,
rather than in the space between columns.
Tolerances in inspection
The inspector has his problems too. He must
live in a black and white world, while the real
world around him is shaded all degrees of gray.
He must behave as if a given dimension is
either right or wrong. If right, he lets the con-
structor go on. If wrong, he must order remedial
work. He has no other option.
So, what does he do when faced with double
dimensioning? He may measure the dimension
like he believes it should be, and he may find
excessive error. The constructor, believing other-
wise, measures it the other way, and finds it
within specification. The inspector thus cannot
reject something he thinks is wrong. So, he
stomps off, cursing the design office.
What does he do when faced with dimensions
which cannot be directly measured? Like the cen-
terline of a column? As he must, he guesses. If he
finds the error over specification, he must con-
sider rejecting the work. However, the constructor
guessing in a different but equally logical way,
may be able to show the error as being within
ACI JOURNAL I AUGUST 1971
specification. The inspector has thus lost another
argument, and tears out some more hair.
The inspector cannot solve these problems
without help from the designer.
The inspector has a more serious problem. He
knows that in real life he cannot reject com-
pleted concrete solely because it is out of toler-
ance. Only in the case of a serious error (say a
column is mislocated by the classical 1 ft) can
he reject finished work. And in that case, the
constructor usually tears it out on his own hook
before the inspector gets a chance to reject it.
In building construction, the authors are not
aware of a single instance (barring slabs on grade
which were supposed to drain, but didn't) where
out of tolerance work has been rejected and torn
out, solely because it was out of tolerance.
This is direct proof that specified tolerances
are usually much tighter than they need to be.
In the machined metal industry, the designer,
the inspector, and the constructor generally work
for the same company. There are two differences
~~~----
Public Library, Fort Wayne, Ind.
Precast prestressed concrete units were used in the
Fort Wayne (Ind.) Public Library to attain a fire re-
sistant structure and to take advantage of the prefin-
ished character of precast concrete.
Full-height precast wall panels, columns, and hoods
for the facade were used. Inside, the prestressed double
tees used in the second floor and roof are left exposed
for interior decoration.
The wall panels are channel-shaped to prevent warp-
ing, but the channel stems also combine with the
columns between the panels and the hoods to act as
sun shades for the windows. The panels were cast in
32 ft 3% in lengths with white cement and white
quartz aggregate. The aggregate was exposed through
ACI JOURNAL I AUGUST 1971
from the construction industry. First, areas of
responsibility are clearly defined. The designer is
expected to show on the drawings the minimum
quality needed. If he shows better quality than
needed, his design is considered too expensive.
If he shows worse, his design doesn't work. The
shop (constructor) is expected to make the prod-
uct exactly as drawn and is not expected or
permitted to redesign it if the original design
is impracticable to build. The inspector makes
sure the product is made exactly as drawn.
Second, there is a great deal of feedback. The
designer learns from the shop, and vice versa.
The result is that tolerances are specified loosely
enough for maximum economy, but yet tight
enough so that the design works. The authors
feel the construction industry has much it can
learn from the machined metal people. We must
get good feedback!
Based on a paper presented at ACI's Fall Meeting, St. Louis,
Mo., Nov. 6, 1970.
~~'<::"*
two acid treatments of the exterior and interior sur-
faces. Each panel is 6 ft 2 in. wide and 6 in. thick.
Each stem is 12 in. deep.
The hoods are 9 ft wide, 6 ft deep, and 7 ft high.
They rest ·on the precast columns which are centered
on a 10 ft spacing. The columns are 34 ft 2 in. high and
12 x 41l in. in cross section.
Notches in the columns support the single tee floor
and roof. Each tee is 10 ft wide, 45 in. deep, and spans
50 ft. The second floor tees a-re a special design with
cores cast in either side of the stem just below the
flanges. These voids serve as air conditioning and heat-
ing ducts. The other ends of the tees are supported by
a cast-in-place beam.
Architect-engineers for the library were Bradley and
Bradley. Photo courtesy Prestressed Concrete Institute.
607