Concrete Mix Design, submittals, and ACI 301

[Dennis59]

Back in Feb. '05 there was a thread entitled "Concrete Mix Design". (thread507-116513)

The question was, "Does anyone know if ACI specifically says what must be included in a concrete mix design submittal?"

Several replies were offered with people's individual experiences in this regard.
Member "jmiec" offered this:
"If you specified that the Contractor meet ACI 301, you can ask for Submission of data and test documentation on materials and mixture proportions under Article 6, Quality Assurance."

Back in July '03 I posted a question "Concrete specified via ACI 301" (thread167-63899) asking if anyone was actually using ACI 301 as ACI had originally intended it to be used. Judging by the text of ACI 301-99, paragraph F2, ACI intended that a design engineer could write a one page spec for all of Division 3 by simply citing ACI 301, and then adding whatever mandatory and optional requirements he/she decided to add.
Presumably then Contractors would go buy a copy of ACI 301 and red-line it with whatever mandatory and optional requirements the engineer indicated, and then that book would be the concrete spec for the job.

In my July '03 post I asked if any folks on this forum were actually specifying concrete this way. I would have to say that the response was "NO".

What is the situation now in 2006? Have any of you taken to using ACI 301 like this? If so, how's it working? If not, why not? It seems like ACI put a lot of effort into 301 and then no one's using it as ACI intended? It would seem that widespread use of ACI 301 in this fashion would be a good thing (for contractors, engineers and inspectors).

As for the question that was asked by thread507-116513, if we are using ACI 301 as ACI intended, then all of the submittal requirements are indeed already spelled out for us - and they are mandatory, not optional. I have ACI 301-99, and the concrete mix submittal requirements can be found at:
1.6.3.2.e
4.1.2.1
4.1.2.2
4.1.2.3
4.1.2.4
4.2.3.4.a
Most of these are included in the "Submittals Checklist" near the end of ACI 301.

Any comments you care to offer will be greatly appreciated.

 

[miecz]

I still write my own concrete specification, and tailor it to each job. I believe it makes me a better engineer, as I have to think about each paragraph at some time or other. Also, whenever I learn something new, as often happens reading this forum, it's an easy matter to update the master. If there is a question, I know exactly if and where the answer appears in the the spec.

I dread the day when buildings are designed by computer wizards and spec'd by ACI 301.

I still think you are correct to ask for the info under 301 Article 1.6. I just don't know if I would have the fortitude to carry that argument to the Contractor.

 

[henri2]

I know that ACI 301 refers to ACI 318..and that ACI 318 is a referenced standard in the IBC... but what section of ACI 318 refers to ACI 301?

 

[Dennis59]

ACI 318-02 refers to ACI 301 on page 2, Introduction, (right column, toward bottom) "...Other ACI publications, such as “Specifications for Structural Concrete (ACI 301)” are written specifically for use as contract documents for construction."

There is another reference in the "Prestressed Concrete" chapter, R18.21.1 (page 287)


I don't think that ACI 318 makes any other references to 301. As I understand it, this is because the two documents serve very different purposes. 318 is the design code, and 301 is intended as a specification that tells the contractor how to build.
I'd really like to hear the perspective of an ACI expert on this subject. If no one uses ACI 301 as a stand-alone concrete spec, then I wonder why is it still offered as such by ACI. (And now I see ACI has even released a new version - ACI 301-05

http://www.concrete.org/bookstorenet/ProductDetail.aspx?ID=340936)

The list of ACI 301 committee members is available here:

http://www.concrete.org/tempComDocs/-72100/letter_to_committee_102805.pdf

It appears to represent people from engineering, construction, academics, suppliers/manufacturers and testing - which all seems pretty appropriate to me.

 

[henri2]

Dennis,

I suspect only a minority of engineers use ACI 301 as a stand alone spec while the majority use it as a guideline to develop their own specs.

If there was mandatory language in ACI 318 that required job specifications to be based on ACI 301 and the IBC(which references ACI 318) did not substantially ammend such a provision, ACI 301 would be more widely used.

How closely do ACI 301 and 318 commitees collaborate? I notice that most members of the ACI 301 committee are not on the ACI 318 committee. In the case of masonry, members of the MSJC code and specification committees appear to be the same and perhaps that's the reason why the masonry specs are referenced in the MSJC Code and significant portions are part of IBC Chapter 21.