Avoiding arguments over

architectural concrete
Architects and contractors need good specifications and a realistic understanding
of available technology

BY M. K. HURD
ENGINEERING EDITOR

rchitectural concrete is of- A rc h i t e c t u ral concrete re q u i re s execute at reasonable cost. Choos-

A ten an economical choice

for building surfaces, but it
is unreasonable for the ar-
chitect to expect to get it for a struc-
tural concrete price. And it is equal-
much attention to detail from both
the designer and the builder. Recog-
nizing that special care is needed
from all concerned is an important
step toward avoiding arguments.
ing an appropriate surface finish is a
critical one of these design deci-
sions.

Smooth surfaces aren’t easy

ly unreasonable for the contractor In addition, a realistic awareness For many years designers persist-
to think he can get away with build- of concrete’s potential and limita- ed in specifying large areas of
ing it the same way he produces tions will help the architect prepare smooth, blemish-free concrete, be-
structural concrete. design details that the builder can lieving them to be readily attainable,
while contractors found them diffi-
cult or impossible to cast in place
consistently to the quality required.
Although concrete can be made di-
mensionally accurate to close toler-
ances and its surface made smooth
without offsets, it is virtually impos-
sible to do vertical cast-in-place
work that is completely uniform in
color and free from bugholes (small
surface voids resulting from air bub-
bles left at the form surface during
placement and compaction).
Smoothly formed surfaces also can
be blotched by color changes, poor-
ly consolidated concrete, and leak-
age at lining joints or corners.
Some color differences, such as
h yd ration discoloration caused by
local variations in water content of
the concrete, extend below the con-
A preconstruction mockup is recommended by the experts (Ref. 1) to help the crete surface. Color variations in the
designer and builder reach agreement on architecturally acceptable details. The concrete also can result from va ri a-
mockup is a full-size sample built at the jobsite with the same materials, tions in temperature, humidity, and
methods, and crew as in the finished work. Here, effectiveness of several tape stripping time.
materials in concealing joints in the form material was studied. To overcome these problems,
 Smooth off-the-form concrete
surfaces reveal more of the
normal, minor surface
irregularities such as bugholes,
although the structure may be
quite acceptable from
normal viewing
distances. A similar
elevator tower was
built with a textured
form lining which
conceals minor
variations and
enhances overall
architectural effect.
some designers specify patterned
and textured surfaces rather than
smooth ones. Among the options
available are abrasive blasting, me-
chanical tooling, aggregate exposed
by chemical retarders, and textures
imparted by form liners. Others
may choose precast concrete, where
control achieved by plant produc-
tion and horizontal casting elimi-
nates most uniformity problems.
Uniform practices a must
Quality and detailing of form-
work are of critical importance for
architectural concrete, but architec-
tural effects may be vitally influ-
enced by many factors other than
f o rm w o rk. Types or brands of ce-
ment; sources of fine and coarse ag-
gregate; mixing and placing tech-
niques and slump control; and
curing time and temperatures all
may significantly alter the finished
concrete in spite of the greatest care
taken with the formwork. UNIFOR-
MITY is the watchword—using the
same materials and practices
throughout a given job—if pleasing
surfaces with minimal defects and
variations in color and texture are to
be attained.
This calls for tight control of the
forming and concreting operations.
Astute planning is required to
achieve the necessary control and
yet maintain the efficient operation
which provides a suitable margin of
profit for the builder. Precautions
which seem costly in the short term
help avoid costly arguments later.
We know one superintendent
who canceled an architectural pour
when the head of his vibrator crew
reported sick; by substituting other
personnel he might have risked los-
ing the uniform appearance of the
c o n c re t e. On a major white con-
crete job, another manager put the
entire construction crew through a
dry run of placing procedures be-
fore any concrete was delivered.
Drawings and specifications
Contract documents are the de-
signer’s basic tools for communicat-
ing with prospective builders. Ar-
chitects who understand the
limitations as well as the full poten-
tial of concrete will not only prepare
effective drawings and specifica-
tions but also provide the opportu-
nity for prebid conferences and cre-
ation of preconstruction mockups.
The objective should be to leave no
important items open to the imagi-
nation or interpretation of the
builder, yet leave room for the
builder to use his expertise.
Establishing an understanding
on a number of details will help
avoid arguments over results. Some
points to consider include:
■ A clear definition of architectural
concrete areas
■ A clear definition of expected sur

USE LESS RELEASE AGENT
Actual size photos of concrete surfaces show how quality of finish depends
on thickness of form release agent. Less release agent gives better
results. For the sample on the left, the applied film thickness was 2/1,000
inch. Release agent used in casting the specimen on the right was
10/1,000 inch thick.
It’s a rare manufacturer who
attempts to market a product by
telling its customers to use less of
it. But this is just what an Ohio
company is doing today to pro-
mote its form release agents.
Recognizing what many au-
thorities agree on—that too
much release agent on the forms
will increase the number of bug-
holes in the concrete surface—
the company has developed a se-
ries of full-size, unretouched
photographs of concrete. The
pictures represent six distinct
classes of concrete, based on the
distribution and size of bugholes
appearing on the concrete sur-
face. All the concrete specimens
were cast from the same concrete
mix using steel patio block forms,
under identical conditions ex-
cept for the thickness of the re-
lease agent. The best surface was
attained with a release agent film
less than 0.0005 inch thick.
Portions of two of the full-size
photos are shown here, one piece
of concrete cast against a surface
with 0.002-inch thickness of re-
lease agent, and the other with
more surface voids cast using a
release agent thickness of 0.010
inch. The company proposes
that these photographic samples
be used by owners, designers,
and builders in identifying posi-
tively the quality of surface finish
desired for a given project.
These concrete specimens
were cast in a horizontal position
and may not represent surface
variations that arise in vertically
cast concrete. Usually there are
more bugholes near the top of
vertical members because there
is less weight of concrete above
to aid in consolidation. Nonethe-
less, creation of these photo-
graphic standards makes an im-
portant and valid point about the
use of release agents on architec-
tural surfaces. It should stimulate
architects and builders to give
more thought to standards for at-
tainable surface finish.
face quality
■ Limits of formwork deflection
■ Construction tolerances
■ Joint and tie details
On some jobs these are taken care
of as matter of course without inci-
dent, but each one is a possible focal
point of arguments when some-
thing else goes wrong.
Identify architectural
concrete areas
The architect should be sure to
designate in the contract docu-
ments all areas that are considered
a rc h i t e c t u ral. The American Con-
crete Institute (ACI) Committee 303
has emphasized this by adding the
thought to its definition (Ref. 1) of
architectural concrete:
concrete which is exposed as an
interior or exterior surface in the
completed structure, definitely con-
tributes to its visual character, AND
is specifically designated as such in
the contract drawings and specifica-
tions.
Preconstruction
samples, mockup
How does a specification define
an architectural concrete surface
that will probably be evaluated on
the basis of a visual inspection? ACI
Committee 303 has suggested pre-
bid conferences, design re f e re n c e
samples, and pre c o n s t ru c t i o n
mockups.
A prebid conference among ar-
chitect, engineer, and prospective
bidders can be called to explain the
owner’s special expectations and
re q u i re m e n t s. A meeting like this
gives contractors a chance to point
out trouble spots—specification
provisions that make it impossible
or too costly to achieve the desired
effect.
The architect may present a de-
sign reference sample or samples
showing desired surfaces, color, and
texture to be referenced for bidding
purposes. Such a sample should be
at least 18x18 inches, 2 inches thick,
cast in a vertical position if it repre-
sents a vertical concrete surface.
An even more realistic approach
is to provide for a pre c o n s t ru c t i o n
mockup, a full-scale sample built by
the successful builder before start-
ing construction of major work. The
mockup should be large enough to
show floor, wall, and column con-
struction, with joint details and
form ties, and abrasive blasting or
other surface treatments that may
be required. It should be built at the
jobsite using all the same forming,
placing, and consolidating practices
that will be used in the real work. A
repaired area and patched tie holes
should be included to show ahead
of time that satisfactory color and
texture match can be achieved.
Once the mockup has been com-
pleted to the satisfaction of the ar-
chitect, the contractor has a perma-
nent onsite standard of what is
expected before the arc h i t e c t u ra l
work begins.
On major projects requiring inno-
vative techniques, a mockup may be
built in advance under separate
contract to determine the feasibility
of proposed specifications.
Joint treatment
Construction joints, control
joints, and isolation joints are all
necessary parts of architectural con-
crete; yet they represent potential
disruptions to the architectural de-
sign. The architect usually adjusts
the design details in some way to ac-
commodate them. Rustication
g ro oves at joints in vertical surfaces
are frequently used to obscure the
joints. Location, number, and de-
tails of such joints should be indi-
cated by the designer on the con-
tract drawings. The formwork
designer uses this information to
p re p a re details on the formwork
drawings showing how the joints are
to be executed. If the designer has
not positively indicated construc-
tion joint locations, the builder
should include proposed locations
on the drawings when they are sub-
mitted for approval.
Where grooved joints are not ac-
ceptable to the architect, special at-
tention to the formwork is neces-
sary to minimize the visual impact
of the joint pattern.
ACI Committee 347 (Ref. 3) rec-
ommends that construction joints
be located at joints between form
panels. Joints between form panels
or in the form lining material re-
quire positive sealing for most
smooth surfaces and for many tex-
tured surfaces. Although mortar-
tight joints can prevent the forma-
tion of projecting fins of concrete,
watertightness may be specified to
p re vent hydration discoloration.
The uniformity of a concrete sur-
face can be destroyed when va ri a-
tions in total water content of con-
crete and moisture movement
within concrete during setting
cause color variation in concrete.
When water containing cement par-
ticles leaks from a form, a blemish
containing more than the usual
amount of aggregate may appear.
There may be streaking, mottling, or
a darker appearance as a result of
less water being available for hydra-
tion of cement. Hydration discol-
oration penetrates concrete to a
considerable depth and cannot or-
dinarily be concealed by abrasive
blasting or surface tooling. Fo rm s
should be as watertight as possible
to minimize the problem.
Construction tolerances
Dimensional tolerances for archi-
tectural concrete must be consid-
ered in design of the formwork. If no
construction tolerances are given in
the contract documents, the form
designer will rely on standard con-
struction tolerances such as given in
ACI 117 (Ref. 4) for guidance in do-
ing the form design. Where more ex-
acting tolerances are required to
achieve the architectural effect, they
must be specified by the architect
who is advised to remember the
added cost of specifying greater ac-
curacy than that normally attain-
able by local craftsmen.
Current standard recommenda-
tions (Ref. 4) for building construc-
tion cover basic elements only, lim-
iting deviation from ve rt i c a l
alignment to:
1 inch.......................for heights
of 100 feet
or less
1
⁄1,000 of height.......... for heights
above 100
feet, but not
more than
6 inches
For the outside corner of exposed
corner columns and control joint
g ro oves in concrete, deviations are
limited to half of those above. A 1-
inch deviation is the maximum per-
mitted from lateral alignment.
Deviation from cross-section
thickness for beams, piers, and walls
is limited to:
+3⁄8 inch,- 1⁄4 inch......if thickness
is 12 inches
or less
+ 1⁄2 inch, -3⁄8 inch.....where
thickness is
from 12 to
36 inches
+1 inch, - 3⁄4 inch.....where
thickness is
more than
36 inches
Design deflection of formwork el-
ements for most architectural con-
crete is satisfactory at 1/400 times
the span of the formwork member,
unless the architect calls for special-
ly restrictive tolerances.
Camber
In designing forms, the builder
traditionally plans to compensate
for any expected settlement or de-
flection of the forms themselves.
The architect or engineer specifies
any camber needed to compensate
for deflection of the structure after
forms are removed. The architect al-
so should indicate any camber de-
sired to compensate for optical sag
(the illusion of sagging in long
members that are perfectly hori zo n-
tal).
If no camber is specified, the
builder can request guidance rather
than risk a sagging span of concrete.
Howe ve r, satisfactory performance
by the contractor is generally judged
on the basis of elevation after settle-
ment or deflection of the formwork
and before forms and supports are
removed. The contractor should not
be held responsible for immediate
or creep deflection of the structure
after the shoring has been removed.
Stripping time
Minimum requirements for form
stripping time are commonly speci-
fied for obvious safety reasons. The
structure must be strong enough to
support itself and the applied loads,
but beyond load-carrying capacity
and structural safety, there are
added concerns for arc h i t e c t u ra l
c o n c re t e. Even when concrete
is strong enough to show no imme-
diate distress or excess deflection it
is possible for edges and corners to
be damaged during stripping and
for excessive creep deflections to
occur later.
If adhesion between the form face
and concrete is greater than cohe-
sion within the concrete, surfaces
may scale and corners spall. Some
research indicates that a compres-
sive strength around 300 psi is
enough to prevent this kind of dam-
age during stripping, but concrete at
corners and edges may be vulnera-
ble to site damage from other activ-
ities. It is wide to provide protection
at corners and edges after form re-
moval; for white concrete, larger ar-
eas may require protection.
Conclusion
This article warns against some of
the many specific items over which
disputes have arisen on architectur-
al concrete work. Careful attention
by the designer to establish reason-
able standards and to communicate
them completely will ove rc o m e
many of the problems. But good
results also call for the builder’s
equally careful attention to detail
and consistency in performance to
give us structures that the entire in-
dustry will be proud of.
References
1. ACI Committee 303, “Guide to
Cast-in-Place Architectural Concrete
Practice,” American Concrete Insti-
tute, P.O. Box 19150, Detroit, Michi-
gan 48219, 1982.
2. M. K. Hurd, Formwork for Concrete,
American Concrete Institute, fifth
edition, 1989.
3. ACI Committee 347, “Guide to
Formwork for Concrete (ACI 347
R-88),” American Concrete Institute,
1989.
4. ACI Committee 117, “Standard
Specifications for Tolerances for Con-
crete Construction and Materials (ACI
117-90),” American Concrete Institute,
1990.
PUBLICATION#C900759
Copyright © 1990, The Aberdeen Group
All rights reserved