Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: Concrete quality control on site in Italy is generally poor: lack of reliable execution
specifications and inspection practices is one of the causes.
Concepts introduced by recent standard UNI EN 13670 give the opportunity of change: the fulfilment of
specific requirements may improve significantly the actual situation.
QC management options, namely concerning execution and curing classes are outlined.
A r.c structures effective inspection plan should rely on a detailed coordinated concreting planning : basic
criteria for its drafting are illustrated.
Systematic analysis of records of real quantities of components batched and times printed in delivery
tickets can help to better check on site compliance of actual w/c ratio with specified values and prevent
problems arising during unloading and placement.
Figure 1. System of European Standards as basis for design, execution and materials
selection for concrete works (only main modules)
While other European States like France, U.K and Germany (which holds the secretariat
of CEN/TC 104 who has prepared EN 13670) are familiar with detailed Standards or
Standards like documents dealing with this matter Italy only recently (february 2008)
has issued through STC (Servizio Tecnico Centrale del Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori
Pubblici ) a Guidance concerning some aspects of the execution of concrete structures.
1.2 Public works contracts Italy Code
Issued between 2006 and 2010 with latest amendements in 2012 the public works
contracts Italy Code follows the European Directive 2004/18/CE.
It provides that , when drawing up its technical specifications , a contracting entity shall
refer to national standards transposing European standards, European technical
approvals and international standards (see Art.68 Dlegs 163/2006).
Art.43 of DPR 207/2010 gives details of the contents of technical specifications.
Despite that, most of technical specifications included in tender documents issued
nowadays in Italy are not updated , not fully pertinent to the object of the project, not
enough detailed and finally do not respect this requirement.
1.3 2008 NTC
Issued january 14th 2008 and mandatory from june 30th 2009 on the wave of lAquila
earthquake the Italian technical rules for constructions (2008 NTC) compared with the
previous 1996 decree contain some more elements to improve concrete structures
quality control but still show lack of details concerning execution specifications .
Namely chapter 10 (execution specifications) do not mention the project specifications
among the documents to be prepared by the designer: only technical specifications
concerning materials to be used should be provided.
On the other hand a very short paragraph (4.1.7 Execution) prescribes execution
specifications giving reference to UNI EN 13670-1 : 2001 which has been generally
ignored by most of italian concrete structures professionals.
It is a fact that italian concrete structures sites have widely experienced in the last
decades a very poor execution quality control.
2
structure.
This includes inspection of formwork, reinforcement , cleaning before casting concrete,
concreting and curing, prestressing etc.
The above scenario is quite normal in most European countries.
General concrete execution specifications have been issued and updated by competent
authorities in France and Germany (CCTG and VOB) without speaking of BS and NEN
in U.K. and Netherlands.
The italian context shows significant deficiences and UNI EN 13670 gives the
opportunity of a strong improvement.
First of all it shall be stressed the need of updated, detailed and project related execution
specifications : Table A1 of Annex A should be currently used by structural designers.
Effective inspection planning procedures should be practiced: nowadays in Italy most of
construction companies are certified ISO 9001 but inspection plans are too often
documents without the necessary effectiveness.
Few inspection reports are recorded in the Journal of works : results of inspection
should be systematically and fully recorded.
Some civil engineering works like railways (managed by ITALFER) and highways
(managed by AUTOBRENNERO, AUTOVIE VENETE, SPEA) have already a QC
management not too far from that provided by execution class 3 in UNI EN 13670
especially for materials: execution inspection plan should be improved according to
UNI EN 13670 requirements.
Items like formwork detailing (clause 5.4) , inserts and embedded components (clause
5.6), installation of reinforcement and concrete cover (clause 6.5), protection and curing
(clause 8.5) should get more attention through specific inspection plans, procedures and
records.
Construction joints rarely are designed and concreting in very hot weather conditions is
too often allowed without reliable precautions: see clause 8.2 (4) and (10).
Many other important and critical structures, technologies and projects (e.g. special
foundations , prestressed structures, strategic buildings in class IV, buildings in seismic
zones 1 and 2) should have assigned and fully implemented execution class 3.
Clause 4.2.2 (see also Art.43 of DPR 207/2010) state that QC management should rely,
when provided in the execution specifications, on a quality plan.
In Italy where roughly half of the territory is in seismic zones 1 and 2 execution class 2
could concern mainly low rise residential and commercial building without particular
structural criticities in seismic zones 3 and 4; then class 1 should be limited to minor
urbanization structures and buildings with negligible risks .
There are rare examples of implementation of execution inspection plans class 2 like,
provided that construction companies, to which the italian law assigns almost all
responsabilities, are not used to plan inspections nor to record their results and
supervision by site engineers on behalf of the client is often lacking and limited to a
survey of the floor structures just before pouring .
A mandatory more detailed Journal of works recording results of the inspections
concerning main items as per clauses 5 , 6 , 8 and 10 should be in such cases advised.
Execution record documentation (Clause 4.2.3 and A.4.2.3) should include:
a) Sources of materials, materials test reports and/or suppliers declaration of
performance; applications for variations and the responses;
b) As built drawings;
c) Non conformities and corrective actions taken;
d) Record of accepted changes to the project specification;
e) Documentation of the inspections and records of checks at hand over;
f) Events of significance for the properties of the finished structure;
g) Weather conditions during casting and curing.
This approach necessarly implies a radical cultural change in all professionals in Italy:
project manager (Responsabile Procedimento) , designers and site engineers (Direttore
Lavori , Collaudatore), and site managers.
They have now the opportunity to use a complete set of updated standards.
Not less responsibility is assigned to associations and regulation bodies.
4
3 CONCRETING PLANNING
3.1 General
A concreting plan shall be prepared where required by the execution specification:
Clause 8.2 (1).
Every day experience learns that without a suitable concreting planning problems are
inevitably arising.
It may seem trite to say that the site should be fully ready before concrete is ordered.
It is surprising how often this is not done with detrimental consequences.
UNI EN 13670 underlines that the concrete structures designer, who should have the
necessary experience and knowledge, when writing the execution specifications, has to
decide if the project needs a general concreting plan or to identify within the project
which specific pours should require a concreting plan.
Some common examples of specific pours may be:
Unusual volume or timing;
Access and placement facilities/techniques not easy to be managed;
Concrete working life lasting more than two and half hours;
Special finishing;
Mix not easy to be managed (e.g. air entrained XF3-F4 with type IV cement).
It is understood that a concreting plan consists of written documents.
The designer may give a guideline on how carry on this activitiy that will concern
necessarly all partecipants: owner, designer, site engineer, safety engineer, general
contractor , concrete structures subcontractor , concrete producer, admixture supplier,
concrete delivery and pumping subcontractor, concrete finisher, testing laboratory and
any other involved in the project.
Without a reliable coordinated concreting plan which is an important part of the
construction plan it is very difficult if not impossible to conceive and implement an
effective concrete quality control on site.
3.2 How to prepare a concreting plan
The U.S.A. National Ready Mix Concrete Association (NRMCA) jointly with the
American Society of Concrete Contractors ( ASCC ) have published an helpful
Preconstruction Conference checklist : it is intended for major projects but because of
its detail , it can serve any concrete structures site .
Aspects taken in consideration are:
a) Project information;
b) Construction process;
c) Concrete Materials and required mix design
d) Ordering and scheduling concrete;
e) Environmental aspects;
f) Quality control/assurance;
g) Safety.
Each subject is dealt as appropriate; items affecting the construction process are
analyzed in a deep detail in order to define responsabilities too:
Construction/Placement drawings and specifications review;
Sequence of construction and meteo monitoring (temperature and humidity);
Construction/Acceptance of base/subgrade;
Access , discharge facilities and vehicle addressing;
Power ,lighting and water facilities;
Forms and vapor retarder/barrier;
Strike off and finishing techniques;
Specified tolerances;
Jointing;
Curing, sealing and protection of concrete;
Form removal.
Procedures for hot and cold weather concreting.
6
Defects encounterd in most italian sites show that forms and jointing are worthy of
further analysis.
UNI EN 13670 says at Clause 5.4 (1) that a method statement , where required by the
execution specification, shall describe the methods of support, erection and dismantling;
it shall specify the requirements for handling, adjusting, tying, intentional precambering,
loading, unkeying, striking and dismantling.
About forms the checklist ask to define responsabilities both for installation and
inspection of reinforcement (namely with regard to location and spacing to allow for
concrete cover, vibration equipment access and aggregates size), embedded items,
waterstops, drains and opening frames.
It underlines the need to plan three inspections at different stages.
Inspection just before concreting is at least not effective: it is very difficult to make
reliable corrections when all reinforcement is on place.
Last minute changes when concrete has already been ordered or is waiting on site risk to
create additional problems.
The inspection plan should provide a preliminary check prior to rebar placement to
verify correct geometry of the forms: to do this coordinated placing drawings with
details of opening frames shall be provided.
It is not the job of site carpenters to take informations/dimensions from mechanical,
electrical and plumbing drawings to concrete structures drawings.
The second inspection should take place when rebars, embedded items, waterstops and
drains are on place: then there is time to make corrections if any and to clean properly
the forms.
The third final inspection should be done just before placing concrete.
Construction joints in mat foundations, walls, floors very rarely are
specified/detailed/planned/inspected: too often the matter is left to the improvisation.
Construction joints should not be made at critical positions Annex F.8.2 (1).
While other aspects are supposed to be well known by concrete structures engineers
items concerning ordering and scheduling concrete are often wrongly underestimated.
The cheklist analyzes specific problems like minimum notice required for most
placements and large and specialty placements, procedure for handling will-call orders
and revised orders, responsabilities for ordering concrete and reviewing delivery ticket
before placement and turnaround time for trucks.
3.3 Concreting plan documents
The above checklist can be used at different stages of planning.
The following list of documents may give an idea of the content of a concreting plan:
Contacts names and phone/e-mail of partecipants/responsible persons;
Updated and detailed bill of quantities of r.c structures and related specifications;
List of mix (according to weather conditions), plants and vehicles involved
(including standby if any);
Information required on delivery ticket;
Testing updated and detailed plan;
Montly and weekly schedule and daily concreting timing with placement rates;
Site layout of points of discharge with main equipment involved;
Jointing programme/procedure (namely with regard to construction joints);
Inspection plan;
Placement detailed plan (including number and thickness of layers, sequence and
direction) with trucks/pumps and other equipment involved
Compaction programme/procedure;
Finishing programme/procedure;
Curing, sealing and protection programme/procedure.
Procedure concerning alternatives in case of emergency (e.g. equipment
breakdown , severe weather);
Procedure for reporting anomalies and corrective actions;
Environmental and safety plan.
Design activities of concrete mix should give all the necessary attention to the
evaluation of the consistence retention time.
Checking the w/c actual ratio is one of the main objectives of concrete quality control on
site; provided that testing according to CEN CR 13902 is time consuming and not
enough accurate the only effective method is to analyse reliable records
It is quite evident that if only one of the above water quantities is not taken in account
all records concerning w/c ratio are useless.
There are many other uncertainties/fluctuations: e.g. aggregates water absorption,
admixtures behaviour, real weight of batched aggregates, temperature of cement and
aggregates.
All involved variables concerning components characteristics bring to a precision not
less than 15 liters of water /cum of concrete: that means that often water corrections are
unavoidable to get the specified consistence.
Sistematic corrections with admixtures are quite difficult to be managed.
Only the complete analysis of these corrections can give information on anomalies to
allow for their reduction and finally ensure the constancy of concrete properties related
to w/c ratio: it may bring to review the mix or to better adjust the batching plant
equipment.
In the view of screening the problems percentages of corrections more than 10/15 liters
per cum should be investigated.
No recorded corrections does not mean necessarly that everything is OK.
An effective concrete quality control on site should include coordinated checking at the
batching plant and on delivery tickets.
4.3 Records of times
Delivery tickets shall have times printed according to EN 206-1.
Normally delivery tickets show the time (automatically recorded) of the completion of
batching and mixing operations: lets say that concrete life has started about 10 minutes
before.
Transport times vary according to distance and traffic: they are manually recorded by
drivers when arriving on site.
Specifications should not allow too far concrete supplies and give preference to plants
located nearby the site.
Then there is a waiting time before unloading: it may last few minutes or much more
according to good or bad coordination between site and batching plant: faults are often
shared.
Placement time depends on equipment used and specified placement rate: completed unloading time is recorded.
The sum of all these times should not exceed the specified consistence retention time,
otherwise admixtures addition should be provided or concrete rejected.
A Guidance issued in 2003 through STC (Servizio Tecnico Centrale del Consiglio
Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici) concerning ready mix concrete require 120 minutes as
limit time for unloading, in absence of adequate measures (like the use of retarding
admixtures).
Such specification appears to be not conservative especially in hot weather conditions;
nevertheless this time is often exceeded due to lack of control.
Concreting planning should make sure that the required consistence retention time is
indicated in the concrete specifications and it is not exceeded.
A systematic checking of times printed on delivery tickets may detect single or frequent
anomalies (namely lack of coordination between site and batching plant or excessive
slow rate of placement) which can be promptly corrected.
Also in this case a detailed analysis can be helpful : percentages of waiting times in
excess of 20/30 minutes and total times more than 75/90 minutes should get the
necessary attention as well as times over 120 minutes without the use/addition of
retarding admixtures may generate understandable suspicions .
5 CONCLUSIONS
Most concrete defects are due to lack of planning and implementation of an effective
quality control concerning execution activities.
In Italy there is not a good practice of specification writing.
UNI EN 13670 introduces here for the first time detailed specification concerning the
planning, execution and inspection of concrete structures.
Italian designers should get familiar with the content of this standard to be able to define
QC management options and specific requirements.
All project partecipants should experience the practice of coordinating concreting
planning and implementing reliable inspection routine.
Testing fresh and hardened concrete on site can detect only a part of the problems.
Systematic analysis of records of real quantities of components batched (including
corrections) and times printed in delivery tickets can help to prevent many anomalies.
REFERENCES
American Society of Concrete Contractors (ASCC) American Concrete Institute (ACI).
(2005). The Contractors Guide to Quality Concrete Construction.
10