SteelWise

TOLERATING

TOLERANCES
By Kurt Gustafson, S.E., P.E. of the web. Sweep of the W-shape is considered in the opposite direction, the deviation being measured perpendicular to the plane of the web. ASTM A6 generally limits the permitted variation in straightness for a W-shape used as beam to 1/8 (number of feet of total length/10) for both camber and sweep. Thus for a 30long beam, the general permissible variation from straightness would be 3/8. There are exceptions for shapes used as columns and for sweep in beams with a narrow ange. See ASTM A6 for more comprehensive information on mill tolerances of steel shapes. On some occasions mill material is shipped to a service center where preliminary nishing processes may be performed prior to shipping to a fabricating facility. In other cases the mill product is shipped directly to the fabricating plant.

Communication between structural engineers and contractors about whats achievable, what can be expected, and how to get results consistent with a structures design can prevent problems with required construction tolerances.
n architect designs a building with the expectation that all the oors will be level and that all the walls will be plumb. Tolerances of construction play an important role in producing a quality product that can help meet those expectations. The establishment of required tolerances can become complex, and may be especially critical in the exterior walls of multi-story structures where the cladding must be attached to a structural frame. Signicant deviations of the verticality of that frame, if not accounted for in proper positioning of the frame and adjustments of the connections, may be reected in the buildings nished appearance. If a oor is signicantly out of level, this reects badly on the quality of the constructed product. However, oor levelness is too often attributed to lack of construction tolerance control, while instead it is mainly inuenced by the design methodology employed (see box). The structural engineer, when designing the framing system, must be cognizant of what is achievable, what can be expected, and how to get results consistent with the design intent. The ultimate questions that need to be answered by quantication are how straight is straight, how level is level, and how plumb is plumb? This is where tolerances come into play, but tolerance is not the whole story. Usually, it is only a part of the puzzle. Tolerances in structural steel construction are stipulated in the AISC Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges (COSP). The current March 7,

2000 issue of this document is available as a free download from the AISC web site at www.aisc.org. The tolerances for steel construction can be divided into three general areas: Mill Tolerances Fabrication Tolerances Field Tolerances

Fabrication Tolerances
Fabrication tolerances are covered in Section 6.4 of the COSP. When the plain material sections arrive at the fabricating plant, members are cut to length, nished, and fabricated. Various tolerances are stipulated on the fabricated dimensions of the pieces to facilitate the erection tup and positioning of the members. For beams and trusses that are detailed without specied camber, the member is fabricated so that after erection, any incidental camber due to rolling or shop fabrication is upward. When beams are specied in the contract documents to require a camber and the beam is received by the fabricator with 75% of the specied camber, then no further cambering is required.

Mill Tolerances
Mill tolerances for structural steel sections are given in ASTM A6, Standard Specication for General Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling. ASTM A6 is incorporated as part of the COSP by reference. ASTM A6 stipulates the limiting tolerances for items such as material properties, dimensions, and weight of the member as produced by the mill. Permissible sweep and camber of steel members are also included in ASTM A6. Camber of a W-shape is the deviation of the member from straight as measured in the plane

June 2005 Modern Steel Construction

Otherwise, there is an allowable vari- settings can be accommodated. Section ation in the specied camber that always 7.5 of the COSP stipulates dimensional includes a minus 0 tolerance with a tolerances to which anchor rods and plus variation depending on the length other embedded items are required to be of the member. The plus tolerance is placed. These tolerances provide consisfor beams fewer than 50 in length. See tency with the base plate hole sizes recthe COSP for additional information on ommended by AISC. Structural Steel Frame Tolerances in fabrication tolerances. An important thing to remember is Section 7.12 contains a single statement that specied camber is the instruction that The accumulation of mill tolerances that is given to the fabricator and, ac- and fabrication tolerances shall not cause cording to COSP requirements, is al- the erection tolerances to be exceeded. ways to be measured in the shop in the The commentary for this section states unstressed (lay-down) position. It is that accumulations of mill tolerances commonly a misunderstood principle and fabrication tolerances generally ocon the part of the designer to expect the cur between the locations at which erecspecied camber to be in the eld erect- tion tolerances are applied, and not at the ed position, sometimes even in the fully same locations. loaded state. There are numerous factors Consider the surface elevation of a that will affect the nal curvature of the member in place that are a function of the design process and beyond the control of the fabricator. Camber should not be confused with loor Flatness (FF) and Floor Levelcurvature or elevation positioning of ness (FL) are terms used in many the erected member in the eld. Speciproject specications and given ed camber is actually a tool used in the quantifying values as a level of perfordesign process in attempt to position mance that the contractor is expected a member at a certain location and at a to meet. This system of measurement is certain point in time. The extent of the described in ASTM Standard E1155. role that camber plays in achieving that There are often misconceptions desired position is fundamentally a funcabout the meaning of the FF and FL tion of the design process and needs to be terms and about what the system is determined by the project design profesintended to do. Many design and consionals. struction professionals relate this system to a measurement of the expected Field Tolerances nal oor elevation. In actuality, the FF/ Field tolerances can be divided into FL system is a measure of the resulttwo basic areas: ing oor nish in terms of the required Site preparation is generally the reatness and levelness produced by the sponsibility of the owners designated concrete setting and nishing processrepresentative for construction (GC). es. It is not intended to be a measure This involves the accurate positioning of the structural performance of the of foundations, piers, and abutments; oor system. The measurements are the accurate location of building lines to be taken at the completion of the conand benchmarks; and the installation of crete nishing operations, with shoring anchor rods, foundation bolts, and other still in place. embedded items. The steel erector must The FF/FL system of evaluation is not have the correct starting point, or everyappropriate for framed oors that can thing is out of tolerance at the begindeect as the weight of the concrete is ning. The junction of anchor rods and applied. The measurement system is apbase plates is where the trades meet. plied to evaluate the slab nishing techAISC has historically recommended niques in some cases of metal deck and extra-oversize holes in base plates for concrete ll systems. However, when many decades in an attempt to accomthis is done, a non-uniform slab thickmodate dislocation possibilities of anchor ness must be assumed in the design to rods. The oversize recommendations account for the deected shape of the were recently increased to avoid a higher structural system, and the placement percentage of these common dislocation of the concrete must be coordinated problems. However, there are realistic to achieve a level oor. The measurelimits as to what plate hole sizes can be ment system can be, and often is, used provided in bases and what dislocation

oor beam in the middle of a bay between columns. The camber of the horizontal beam should have been measured in the shop to be within permissible tolerance, either by ASTM A6 or of a project-specied camber. When this beam reaches the eld it may or may not have the same camber as when it left the shop. When the beam is erected into place it will deect under self-weight, reducing any upward camber that may have been present. The members to which the beam is connected may be other carrying beams that in turn deect as the member weight is added. When decking and concrete are applied, the members will deect even more. Therefore, the camber of the horizontal framing members in the erected position may have little relation

Floor Flatness? Level With Me!

in framed oors that are rigidly shored during construction as a measure of the oor nishing techniques. However after the shores are removed and the framing system deects, the previous FF/FL measurements become irrelevant in terms of the oor elevation. Therefore, dont expect that specifying stringent FF/FL requirements will assure a level framed oor in the nal structure. Once the myth of the FF and FL expectation is dispelled, the design team can get down to the job of assessing the tolerance requirements for the structural steel portion of the building system. As previously stated, the AISC COSP is a standard widely used in the steel construction industry as a method of judging the acceptability of structural steel framework. This document is often incorporated in project specications as part of the contract documents issued by the project design professional. If the design professional requires tolerances other than those stated in the COSP, this information is to be stipulated in the contract documents. However, it is unrealistic to expect the contractor to achieve unrealistic goals by stipulating requirements that are out of the realm of their control. Specifying that oors be level or in a certain position in the completed structure are generally unrealistic goals to place on the contractor. Much of the prerequisite to achieving the ultimate goal is a function of the design process, a function that is beyond the control of the builder.

June 2005 Modern Steel Construction

to the camber that was originally present in the members. Also, the beam midspan location where the camber had been measured is not at the location where elevation erection tolerances are applied for the frame, which is primarily at the column work points. Erection tolerances are covered in Section 7.13 of the COSP. As stated in the section commentary, The erection tolerances dened in this Section have been developed through long-standing usage as practical criteria for erection of structural steel. Additional information is given in this commentary on the historical development of the criteria and discussion of aspects concerning some of the various common erection conditions that may require consideration. Permissible angular variation of column work lines are given with respect to a plumb line which is generally 1/500 of the distance between working points. Additional limitations are stipulated for columns adjacent to elevator shafts and for exterior building columns. Members other than column shipping pieces, that are straight shipping pieces without eld splices, will generally be considered acceptable if the variation of alignment is caused solely by variations in column alignment and/or primary supporting member alignment. There are additional limitations of members connected to columns, cantilever members, members containing eld splices, members that consist of irregular shape, and for members that are identied as adjustable items. See COSP Section 7.13 for further information on erection tolerances.

For insight into what steel fabricators and erectors see as the more common areas of contention regarding the COSP tolerance requirements in the industry today, AISCs Steel Solutions Center chatted with a Midwestern steel contractor, who asked to remain anonymous, for his thoughts on the subject.

Is there any specic problem of erection involving construction or fabrication tolerances that seems to occur most frequently?
Misplacement of anchor rods is probably the most frequently encountered problem. However, the interviewed steel contractor feels that the COSP is quite clear in the denitions of responsibility and that the document is usually quite helpful in establishing dialog to get the discrepancies resolved in a timely manner. Another frequently encountered problem that was mentioned has to do with the sweep of edge beams and resulting control of edge slab locations. Much of the problem may stem from the connection details of the wall attachments and lack of adjustment control.

tor concerning the contents of the COSP, probably because they are dealing with these issues on an almost daily basis. However, it is felt that many design professionals are obviously not as aware of the intricacies of the document, and thus often will not follow identied procedures that could help to make a smoother-running project for all involved. While some of these procedures and stipulations involve tolerance issues, such as properly specifying beam camber and recognizing the limits involved, other issues may involve more general communications on the project. A few of the examples mentioned are the requirements to show complete information on the bid documents clearly showing the work to be performed, methods to bubble and identify changes, and recognizing that changes made on the shop drawings during the approval process are an authorization to proceed.

Are there commonly occurring tolerance issues that are not covered in the AISC Code of Standard Practice?
One common problem area not covered by the COSP has to do with galvanized steel and the effect on the tolerance of fabricated members. The COSP primarily denes the responsibilities and relationships between the owner, owners representative for design (A/E), owners representative for construction (GC), and the prime steel contractor. The COSP does not dene the relationships or responsibilities between the steel contractor and any sub-contractor. Steel members that are within acceptable tolerance limitations when sent to a galvanizer often do not meet the acceptance criteria after the galvanization process. The problem then arises as to whether the members have to be reworked to be brought back within normal tolerances and, if so, who is responsible. Some steel contractors recognize the problem and are adding language in bid proposals to address the issue. The contractors advice is that effective communication is the key to achieving harmony on the project, so that everyone can come out a winner.

Is there any specic problem of erection involving construction or fabrication tolerances that seems to be the most difcult to remedy?
Again, anchor rods is the rst response. Dislocations, bent rods, and short rods are all sources of frustration. While the steel contractor feels the responsibility for remedial action is clear, possible delay is also a consideration. A clear understanding of the responsibilities and action required of each party is a positive advantage when it comes to getting a timely resolution.

Avoiding Tolerance Troubles

The best way to avoid problems is to anticipate where they will occur and adjust accordingly. An invaluable resource is to look at what problems have occurred in the past (hopefully not on your project) and nd ways to avoid the same problem in the future. This may not always be possible if you are working with an unusual structure that is breaking new ground in terms of technology. However, for the steel-framed project that utilizes usual and common procedures of design, detailing, and erection, the COSP is a document developed to solve past common points of problem, dispute, or controversy. As with any type of construction, there are likely some areas of tolerance control that are more troublesome than others.

Over the past decade, have you noticed an increase, decrease, or little change in terms of ability to control tolerances and to avoid problems associated with tolerance?
There does not seem to be a feeling that setting of anchor rods has gotten any better, despite the modern instrumentation tools. Even when set accurately, bending of anchors due to construction activities is often a problem.

Are there areas of the tolerance issue Kurt Gustafson is Director of Technical Asin the AISC Code of Standard Prac- sistance for AISCs Steel Solutions Center. tice that, in your experience, cause Visit the AISC Steel Solutions Center at confusion? www.aisc.org/solutions. Send your quesThere does not seem to be a lot of confusion on the part of the steel contractions to [email protected] or call toll-free at 866.ASK.AISC.

June 2005 Modern Steel Construction