https://ascconline.org RSS feeds for American Society of Concrete Contractors 60 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/570/FFFL-Risks-Why-Testing-Methods-Matter-More-Than-Ever#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=570 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=570&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/570/FFFL-Risks-Why-Testing-Methods-Matter-More-Than-Ever Written By: Mike Hernandez, ASCC Technical Director  Few words strike fear in a concrete contractor’s heart like: “This floor doesn’t meet tolerance.” A failed floor flatness/levelness (FF/FL) report can trigger owner dissatisfaction, costly remediation or back charges, project delays, and in the worst cases, litigation. Yet what often gets lost in the dispute is whether the measurement itself is performed correctly by a qualified tester. Recent industry articles—along with an older Concrete International piece and the relevant ACI specifications and ASTM standards—highlight how significant testing practices and interpretation can influence, and even escalate, flatwork disputes. One focuses on common errors made when collecting data with walking floor profilers, another explores the capabilities and limits of laser scanning, the last looks at floor profiler operator qualifications. Taken together, they underscore one point: the credibility of tolerance measurements is critical to validate the reported FF/FL numbers. Importance of the FF/FL Test Report Concrete tolerances can have financial and even legal consequences. Owners and designers increasingly specify ACI 117 Floor Flatness (FF) and Floor Levelness (FL) values, as tested per ASTM E1155. If a testing agency reports a failing number, contractors are assumed at fault. But as Bill Arpin points out in “FF-FL Testing Mistakes: Understanding Concrete Floor Profiler Data Better”, that assumption can be misleading. Even small errors during data collection can swing results from a passing score to a failing one. A quarter inch misread can reduce FF and FL numbers in half, turning an acceptable slab into one deemed defective on paper. If the tests are performed more than 72 hours after placement or worse, after formwork is removed, these tests are not in compliance with the ACI 117 and ASTM E1155 standards and may be impacted by SOG curling or elevated slab deflection. Potential Errors from the Profiler Bill Arpin highlights three easy-to-spot mistakes that frequently plague walking profiler testing, (link to read the whole article is below in the References): Readings taken in the air – If the operator accidently takes a reading before the footpad contacts the surface, the graph will show a sharp vertical step. A single such error can drastically lower the FF/FL results. Stepping on debris or objects – A stray pebble, dust pile, or even something stuck to the footpad can create spikes in the data, again reducing the test. (Having felt this while pulling an F-meter I can attest that this happens easily in jobsite conditions.) Calibration issues – If one side of the profiler is miscalibrated or obstructed, a “sawtooth” pattern emerges. Even a 1/16-inch offset can knock a floor into failing territory. These aren’t hypothetical concerns. Bill provides graphs to show how introducing just one false reading can reduce an FF 65 floor to FF 28—well below most industrial floor requirements. For a contractor facing liquidated damages or repair costs, the distinction between recognizing data error vs actual defects is critical. Laser Scanning, Technology Solution or Part of the Problem? If floor profilers are prone to operator error, could 3D laser scanners solve the problem? An interlaboratory study published in Concrete International in Jan 2025 explored this question. Co-authored by Leo Zhang, Hernandez, Dare, Kowalski, and Che, the study examined the precision of terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) for verifying concrete tolerances. Thirteen participants, many of them ASCC Members, including contractors, surveyors, and manufacturers, scanned a post-tensioned slab and vertical elements on a Conco project in Santa Cruz, CA. The study was partially funded by the ASCC Foundation. The findings were encouraging: repeatability and reproducibility errors were improved when compared to the ASCC 2018 laser scanning study. This showed that TLS is maturing into a reliable tool for construction quality control. It concluded that tolerances greater than ½” can be determined using laser scanning. Still, the article cautions against assuming laser scans are infallible. Post-processing techniques like smoothing, meshing, or “best-fit” algorithms can introduce their own distortions. Human interpretation remains part of the workflow, and errors in point cloud analysis can misrepresent actual slab performance. Based on the capability to only confirm tolerances > than ½” laser scanners are not suitable for testing the FF/FL of a slab. Is this Operator Qualified to Test F-Numbers? An issue that can easily be overlooked is the qualification of the individual who is running the floor profiler. As described in the June 2024 ACI “Concrete Q&A: Operator Qualifications for Determining F-Numbers” by Klinger, Suprenant and Salzano, the operator’s training might be an issue. Training and certification by the floor profiler equipment manufacturer is better than on the job training by a co-worker. The article states “The preconstruction conference specified in ACI 301-20, Section 1.6.1, would be the appropriate time for all stakeholders to confirm all personnel (contractors and inspectors) are properly trained and certified to perform the work.” Is there an issue with interpretation of a single test line? An older article from CI, July 2008, “Concrete Q&A: Rejecting Floors based on One Sample Measurement Line” focused on whether a single line could be interpreted as a failing “local minimum”. ASTM E1155 defines a Test Section as “7.2 Test Section—A test section shall consist of any subdivision of a test surface satisfying the following criteria: 7.2.1 No test section shall measure less than 8 ft on a side, nor comprise an area less than 320 sf. 7.2.2 No portion of the test surface shall be associated with more than one test section. 7.2.3 When testing a concrete floor, no test section boundary shall cross any construction joint.” Therefore, a single placement with its boundaries being the construction joints would be the largest test section. The minimum number of individual readings on lines > 10 ft is A/30 for placements larger than 1,600 sf. So, for a 12,000-sf placement the minimum number of readings is 400.  If the bays are 30’x30’ each bay can be tested with parallel & perpendicular lines or X shaped diagonals. This area would be 13-14 bays. If it is a sawcut slab on grade when testing begins the lines can only be up to 26’ long parallel and perpendicular. Say ~25’ each way or 40’ diagonals. In 13 bays, 16 parallel and perpendicular 25’ lines would be the ASTM minimum, 26 would be expected to cover all full bays, yielding 650 readings. Ten 40’ diagonal lines would be the minimum, skipping several bays. Twenty-six ~40’ lines would cover all bays and provide over 1,000 readings. In this example the minimum local area could be as small as ~900 sf and it would need to be 3/5th of the specified overall, unless a local minimum is already defined in the specification. No single line can define an area so no single line could be used to define a local minimum. Single placements, in this example 12,000 sf, can be used as a “local minimum” if the testing lab only provides the daily FF/FL numbers and does not provide every run with the layout to provide the detail of smaller areas.     So why do slab flatness disputes persist? Three recurring issues: Too much trust in reports – When an FF/FL report arrives few stakeholders question the raw data or methods behind it. This can give too much weight to flawed results. The training of the floor profiler operator is rarely questioned and even less often confirmed to have been provided by the equipment manufacturer. Specification ambiguity – Project documents might not clearly define acceptable test methods, testing time limits, minimum local areas and acceptable methods. This leaves room for inappropriate tools, such as the use of a 10’ straightedge or a laser scanner to check FF/FL compliance. Technology gap – Contractors are usually more familiar with placing and finishing challenges than the statistical quirks of tolerance measurement. Testing agencies, meanwhile, may not recognize errors in their own reports. Avoiding the Dispute – Plan, Test and use the Data Appropriately What can ASCC contractors, owners, designers and testing labs do to reduce the risk of disputes? Confirm the plan before construction – ACI 301-20 addresses a preconstruction conference in section 1.6.1 with the contractor(s), design team, owner and owner’s representatives, such as a testing agency. At this conference the contractor should confirm the testing method, minimum test area, how soon after placement the tests will be performed and submitted as well as the qualifications of the operator. ACI 117 section 4.8.4.4 and ASTM E1155 both require the FF/FL testing to be performed within 72 hours and before removal of supporting formwork. Before stressing of the post-tension cables is also advisable. Designers should explicitly state whether tolerances will be verified with a walking profiler and if laser scanning will be used for additional QC checks. Appropriate use of scanning – Laser scanning can be used to generate heat maps to identify potential issues, but this technology has its limitations. The recent ASCC study recommends only using a TLS for tolerances of ½” or more. Supplementing the FF/FL tests with laser scanner heat map can provide data for very high or low spots that might need to be ground or filled to accommodate final finishes but are not appropriate for FF/FL specification acceptance. Contractors can do their own QC – A walking profiler is ~$10,000 plus the cost to train several operators and time to run the tests. If you need guidance on which companies manufacture them, please contact me at mhernandez@ascconline.org  Multiple ASCC members perform their own FF/FL QC testing immediately after placement and submit this to the GC or design team the next day. This will also provide the ability to discuss the results with the finishers before multiple slabs are placed, and a small problem becomes a large issue. It might be the only record of FF/FL results before the flooring trades arrive on site to look for gaps under a 10’ straightedge. Request raw graphs – As Bill Arpin advises, insist that testing agencies provide profiler plots with every report. Sharp spikes or sawtooth patterns can reveal errors before results escalate into disputes. Foster communication – Most importantly, ASCC contractors and testing agencies must establish a dialogue before FF/FL testing begins. Agree on sampling locations, their interpretation of the ASTM E1155 procedures, and how soon it will be reported. References: ACI Committee 117-10(15), “Specification for Tolerances for Concrete Construction and Materials” ACI Committee 301-20, “Specifications for Concrete Construction” ACI Staff, “Concrete Q&A: Rejecting Floors based on One Sample Measurement Line”, Concrete International, July 2008 Arpin, Bill, “FF/FL Testing Mistakes: Understanding Concrete Floor Profiler Data Better”, ForConstructionPros, https://www.forconstructionpros.com/concrete/equipment-products/flatwork-accessories/article/22909722/somero-matson-group-llc-ff-fl-testing-mistakes-understanding-concrete-floor-profile-graphs-better  Dec 2024 ASTM E1155-23, “Standard Test Method for Determining FF Floor Flatness and FL Floor Levelness Numbers,” ASTM International Klinger, Suprenant and Salzano, “ACI Q&A: Operator Qualifications for Determining F-Numbers”, Concrete International, June 2024 Zhang, Hernandez, Dare, Kowalski, and Che, “Interlaboratory Study on Precision Statement of Using a Terrestrial Laser Scanner to Verify Concrete Tolerance” Concrete International, Jan. 2025 Sayde Hindelang Mon, 17 Nov 2025 12:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:570 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/571/September-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors43-in-a-Series#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=571 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=571&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/571/September-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors43-in-a-Series Written by: Jim Klinger,  ASCC Hotline Operator Question:  In the June 2022 issue of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) "Concrete International" magazine, the monthly question-and-answer feature column titled "Concrete Q&A" considered the issue of incidental standing water in a mat foundation area being prepared (and inspected) to receive concrete the following day. In a nutshell, the foundation area comprised edge forms installed all around, with substantial top and bottom layers of reinforcing steel--in place and secured--supported by precast concrete "dobies" resting on a 3-inch-thick unreinforced concrete mud slab. During the pre-pour inspection, the inspector noticed standing water puddled on the top surface of the mud slab-- incidental remnants of a brief afternoon rainstorm at the jobsite the previous day.  Due to the location of the water, about two inches below the outermost bottom layer of reinforcing steel, accurate measurements of the puddle thicknesses were not possible.  By all anecdotal accounts, however, the puddle thicknesses were estimated to be on the order of 1/2-inch to 3/4-inch deep.   The inspector notified the general contractor (GC) that the puddled water would have to be removed before he would sign the work off and allow the scheduled next-day concrete placement to proceed.  This left the contractor with few options.  One option, of course, would be to wait until the puddles (now not exposed to direct sun or wind) dissipated via evaporation. Brooming the water--or attempting to blow the water out of the pour area with compressed air--was not possible due to the tight spacing of the reinforcing steel layers. Another option--cited by the inspector--would be for the placement to proceed as long as the concrete is placed with a full-depth tremie pipe as stated in the ACI Code--namely ACI 318-19 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, section 26.5.2.1(b), which states the following: "(b) Standing water shall be removed from place of deposit before concrete is placed unless a tremie is to be used or unless otherwise permitted by both the licensed design professional and the building official". The ACI Code Commentary for this provision--namely Commentary section R26.5.2.1(b)--states the following: "The tremie referred to in this provision is not a short tube or "elephant trunk". It is a full-depth pipe used in accordance with accepted procedures for placing concrete under water.  Information regarding placing concrete using a tremie is given in ACI 304R. In our opinion, the ACI 318 "tremie option" for placement does not seem rational for use in incidental "birdbaths" ranging from 1/2 to 3/4 inch in depth. As it turns out, the Owner advised the GC on that same afternoon that the architect was making some design changes due to a change in future tenancy, and the concrete placement would be delayed by two to three weeks. Any cost impacts would be funded by the Owner.  In other words, no real harm done. Nevertheless, we are bringing this to the attention of the ASCC Hotline for review and comment.  Answer:  Based on the response to the ACI Concrete International "Q&A" cited above, the ACI Code Committee is slated to review the provisions in Chapter 26 referenced above regarding standing water and requirements for removal (if any) before placement of concrete in an effort to differentiate between placing concrete in water of any appreciable depth as opposed to placing concrete in a relatively shallow birdbath composed of incidental rainwater. But there is another important issue not raised above, and that concerns the approval protocols for the application of section 26.5.2.1(b).  Notice that this section is one of the few that appear in the ACI Code that require concurrent review and approval "by both the licensed design professional and the building official" at the same time. The way we interpret this concurrency requirement, any judgement regarding final approval for a concrete placement to proceed could very likely involve a field review that features the licensed design professional (LDP) accompanying the "building official" (e.g. the inspector) during the inspection such that each condition can be reviewed and permitted--on a case-by-case basis--by both parties. Even more important: this is an opportunity for the concrete contractor to be involved in the conversations. This case highlights one of those conditions that needs to be addressed during preconstruction meetings.  The procedural problem, of course, with the concurrency requirement is making sure the LDP can be made available to visit the jobsite on rather short notice if appropriate. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 17 Nov 2025 12:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:571 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/572/Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors44-in-a-Series#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=572 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=572&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/572/Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors44-in-a-Series Written by: Jim Klinger,  ASCC Hotline Operator Question:  We are attempting to close out a recent construction contract to build a reinforced concrete mid-rise (6 story) assisted living facility. During the course of construction, the typical 8-inch thick post-tensioned (PT) slabs were placed and finished in approximately 25,000 square foot (SF) pours; then tested with a proprietary "Dipstick" for flatness and levelness by the Owner's test agency. All tested slab surfaces met their required F-numbers within the 72-hour time period specified in the construction documents. In addition, all F-number testing was completed (and reported) prior to any stressing of PT tendons and before the start of any follow-on reshoring activities. Our application for release of retention funds was submitted two months ago following completion (and sign off) of a few minor punch list items (e.g. curbs, pads, and miscellaneous patch items). Unfortunately, we received notice in a meeting today from the general contractor (GC) that our retention payment is in danger of being put on hold, pending resolution of complaints filed by Owner representatives that arose during a recent Architect-Owner job walk. We were advised in today's jobsite meeting that--in an effort to investigate the reported complaints--one of the GC's project engineers performed an informal floor survey using a self-owned laser scanner. The survey was conducted by a room-to-room scan of the oldest floor e.g. the first elevated PT slab. Neither we--nor the project inspector--were notified in advance that such an unofficial laser scan survey was being performed, let alone even being considered. In addition, such "after-the-fact" testing was not discussed in the project preconstruction conference. Truth be told, the thought never crossed our mind. Our understanding is that many of the Owner issues are related to the top slab surfaces and flooring at various locations throughout the building. Evidently, for example, the GC's unofficial "heat map" indicates rooms and hallways that feature areas that are in excess of 3/4 inch below the design top of slab elevation. In other words, the GC survey has found areas where the floor slabs may have deflected. Our position is that the Owner (or the GC) is welcome to survey the floors-at their cost- just as long as the test results will not be used to try and determine contract compliance. That ship has sailed. The Owner's test agency's position is that attempting to determine flatness--after the slabs have been subdivided into so many pieces--by using a Dipstick in accordance with industry standard test methods and protocols will not be possible. Furthermore, the inspector's position is that even the straightedge method--described in industry standard ACI 117-- may not be possible. (N.B.: Now, here we are--several months after the fact--and all the interior partition walls are in place. This effectively subdivides each original 25,000 SF pour area into a series of small rooms and hallways. In addition, flooring has been installed at most locations within the building. We would think that any movements related to the PT or to slab deflections would be most pronounced at the oldest, lowest floors. There is no way anyone could possibly reproduce the original Dipstick runs established by the inspectors when our work was previously tested--and passed). We understand that there are several procedural problems with the withholding of our retention payment. After all, our work was tested when it was supposed to be tested, and it passed within the required time window. We are confident that--eventually--this is all going to be resolved and we will be paid. But, in the meantime, the Owner seems insistent on following the GC's lead and proceeding with an investigation. There was some discussion in today's meeting regarding how testing of F-numbers should be performed so long after the fact--when the access boundary conditions (and Dipstick run line locations) have been drastically changed due to the removal of all shoring and follow-on installation of partition walls and flooring. Although we are relatively new ASCC members, we have become familiar with the ASCC Position Statement collection, especially those related to concrete floor slab finishes; including Position Statement #6: "Division 3 versus Division 9 Floor Flatness Tolerances".  In part, Position Statement #6 addresses surveys of floor flatness that are conducted long after the concrete has been placed, finished, tested, and passed. Thanks to other ASCC (and ACI) documents, we understand that elevation surveys of PT slab surfaces conducted several months apart can often have completely different results--none of which are the concrete contractor's responsibility to address. Going forward, we are looking to the ASCC Hotline to provide comments and guidance.  Answer: Welcome to the ASCC Hotline. As you have stated, there are several procedural problems with the Owner's position and proposed course of action, incomplete as it is. You are correct in noting that your work met your construction document Quality requirements.  It appears that both the concrete slab installation and the subsequent testing were performed in a timely manner, "by the book". And it is no surprise to us to hear that there are areas in the building that--even though the laser scan is unofficial-- apparently have shifted outside of the floor flatness and slab elevation design envelopes as indicated in the construction documents. You are also quite correct in taking the position that the Owner (or anyone else) is welcome to pay all costs to conduct slab surveys any time they want--as long as the results are not used as an excuse to relieve you of some (or all) of your retention dollars.  (It should also be noted here that the unofficial laser scan survey conducted by the GC does not constitute "additional testing" as described in ASCC Position Statement #34: "Who Pays for Additional Testing?", since such GC testing was not triggered by failing test results when the original, official F-number tests were conducted by the Owner's test agency). At this point, we recommend you forward--at a minimum--a copy of ASCC Position Statement #6 to the GC, who should in turn send this information upstream to the design team and the Owner for their consideration. The questions then become "How should such an after-the-fact, top of slab elevation survey be conducted?  What test apparatus (e.g. instruments) and test procedures should be used? According to your construction documents, the basic Quality requirements governing the reinforced concrete portion of your scope are derived from industry standards established by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and ASTM International (ASTM), formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials. For example, general Quality requirements for construction of reinforced concrete slabs (e.g. tolerances for slab formwork, location, thickness, surface finish, etc.) are specified in ACI 117: Specification for Tolerances for Concrete Construction and Materials and Commentary. On the other hand, specific requirements and protocols for the available test methods used by the Owner's test agency to determine concrete floor surface flatness and levelness numbers (aka "F-numbers") are specified in ASTM E1155: Standard Test Method for Determining Ff Floor Flatness and Fl Floor Levelness Numbers. ASTM E1155 section 6 contains provisions for the various types of apparatus that may be used.  Type I apparatus options, for example, could include: leveled straightedge, optical level, laser level, or a laser imaging device (e.g. laser scanner).  If a Type I apparatus is not used, then Type II options could include certain inclinometers or floor profiling devices. The issue of appropriate test procedures and apparatus that should be used to determine F-numbers is addressed--albeit in nuanced fashion--within the ASTM E1155 document itself.  In standard E1155, "Note 3" appears as follows: At first glance, one might get the impression that all project participants would hold a meeting to discuss, then agree on the exact test apparatus (e.g. laser imaging device, leveled straightedge, "Dipstick", and so on) before embarking on any test program that will be used to enforce contract specification compliance.  Presumably, this mutual, sensible agreement among all project participants could be reached--using pre-bid RFI's--during the bid period.  In practice, however, it is more likely that such discussion and agreement would be reached during the preconstruction conference.    Well, not so fast.  Upon further review, it turns out that ASTM E1155 Note 3 is only an informative, non-binding suggestion.  In other words, the phrase "should agree" as stated in Note 3 (above) is not equal to "must agree" or "shall agree". The bottom line is the choice of methodology resides with the entity performing the tests. How do we know this? ASTM Standard E1155 section 1.2 states: Drilling into the issue deeper, we find guidance presented in the ASTM International "Form and Style for ASTM Standards" document that clarifies the intent of "Notes" that appear in ASTM standards. Section A27.1 of the ASTM style guide appears as follows: "A27.1 Notes in the text shall not include mandatory requirements. Notes are intended to set explanatory material apart from the text itself, either for emphasis or for offering informative suggestions, which are not properly part of the standard. Clarification of the description of required apparatus or procedure and modifications required or permitted in certain cases belong in the text itself. If inclusion of the contents yields a different result, then that information is considered mandatory for the performance of the standard and shall be located in the text. Notes may be preferable for detailed description of auxiliary procedures (for example, correction of barometric pressure in a test method not primarily concerned with pressure). Table notes are a part of the table and are mandatory provisions." ____________________________________________________________ NOTE 1: It is not at all unusual for the GC to look to the concrete contractor to provide an agenda for the preconstruction (aka "pre-pour") conference. As it turns out, just such a comprehensive agenda has been prepared jointly by the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) and the ASCC.  Titled "Checklist for the Pre-Construction Conference", this joint document provides line-item discussion points covering topics that range from Quality testing of fresh concrete (e.g. slump, air) to testing of hardened concrete (e.g. compressive strength acceptance specimens, floor flatness, floor levelness, etc.). A link to the Joint NRMCA/ASCC Pre-Construction checklist is here: https://www.nrmca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/1PreconstructionChecklist.pdf For example, the NRMCA/ASCC preconstruction checklist section B ("Construction Process"), item #18 provides a comprehensive series of discussion points that will help provide clarity regarding floor flatness and levelness, and how such Quality items will be determined. As many ASCC Hotline callers know, money can often be saved simply by methodically performing our concrete scopes using various ASCC checklists.  Access to the ASCC checklist collection--in addition to the collection of ASCC Position Statements--has proven over the years to be a valuable, proven member benefit. As mentioned above, the GC often requests the concrete contractor draft the agenda for the preconstruction conference. Unfortunately, in the case of the Hotline call described above, the NRMCA/ASCC checklist was not incorporated into the preconstruction meeting. ____________________________________________________________ NOTE 2: Although not discussed in the Hotline call above, not only are the procedures and apparatus for flatness and levelness testing important, but the qualifications of the device operator are crucial as well. Unfortunately, both ACI and ASTM documents are silent on training, qualifications, or certifications for operators determining F-numbers. This was discussed at length in the September 2023 issue of ACI Concrete International's "Concrete Q&A" titled "Operator Qualifications for Determining F-numbers". This important item should be discussed in the preconstruction conference, in addition to the topics described above. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 17 Nov 2025 12:30:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:572 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/569/Standing-Up-for-Suicide-Prevention-Support-the-CIASP-Banner-Program#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=569 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=569&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/569/Standing-Up-for-Suicide-Prevention-Support-the-CIASP-Banner-Program As part of ASCC’s ongoing commitment to mental health and suicide prevention, I want to take a moment to remind our members of our partnership with the Construction Industry Alliance for Suicide Prevention (CIASP) and encourage everyone to take part in the CIASP Banner Program. The CIASP is an incredibly active and passionate group that brings together contractors, associations, and safety professionals from across the country to develop tools and resources that help save lives. As a member of the CIASP Board of Trustees, I have the privilege of working alongside leaders from every sector of our industry to ensure that these resources remain accessible to all. CIASP operates entirely on donations, which means every banner purchased helps fund the free training materials, toolbox talks, videos, and resources that are distributed to contractors and workers nationwide. The Banner Program is one of the most direct and impactful ways to support this mission, while also showing visible commitment to mental health on your jobsites and in your offices. Through the program, contractors can purchase either: • Pull-up banners ($1,000 each) for office, conference, or event settings. • Vinyl jobsite banners (5-pack for $1,000) to display in the field. Each banner proudly features your company logo and the message “Stand Up for Suicide Prevention.” In addition, members can include the ASCC logo alongside their company logo at no additional cost. Every banner also includes QR codes linking directly to critical mental health resources, giving workers instant access to information and support, even if they’re not ready to ask for help. Simply having these banners present, in break rooms, site trailers, and hallways , can make a difference for someone who may be struggling. Every banner sold supports CIASP’s life-saving mission and helps ensure the message of hope and help remains visible, year-round, across every level of our industry. If you or your company are interested in participating, you can submit your logo and join the challenge directly through the CIASP Banner Program or reach out to me directly for details. Together, we can make a difference — one banner, one jobsite, and one conversation at a time. Ray Hefner Fri, 14 Nov 2025 21:19:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:569 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/568/Industry-Knowledge-in-Action-Wind-Speed-Shutdowns-for-Cranes-amp-Concrete-Boom-Pumps#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=568 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=568&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/568/Industry-Knowledge-in-Action-Wind-Speed-Shutdowns-for-Cranes-amp-Concrete-Boom-Pumps  If you’ve joined one of our monthly Safety Roundtables, you know the real value comes from the people who’ve been in the field for decades, those who’ve seen what works, what doesn’t, and why. This quarter’s discussion included conversation around wind-speed shutdowns for cranes and concrete boom pumps was a perfect example, reminding us that even widely accepted “industry standards” aren’t one-size-fits-all. Every manufacturer, model, and setup has its own limits, and understanding those details can make all the difference. It’s these kinds of conversations that keep us learning from one another and continuously improving jobsite safety across our industry. Our most recent monthly safety roundtable saw one of the largest turnouts to date, with safety professionals and industry veterans from across the country sharing their experiences and perspectives. As always, the real value of these discussions comes from the deep, practical insight offered by those who’ve spent decades in the field. One point stood out, raised by a long-time ASCC member and industry titan who has been in the trenches nearly as long as some of us have been alive. The discussion centered on the “common industry standard” wind-speed shutdown limits for crane and concrete boom pump operations. Many of us rely on this general benchmark when determining when to halt work during high winds, often referencing the widely recognized 20–22 mph threshold as a safe operational limit for cranes and lifting equipment. However, as our veteran member reminded the group, this number should be treated only as a starting point, not a universal rule. Every crane and concrete placing boom is designed differently, with its own rated capacity, boom length, configuration, and stability profile. As a result, manufacturers may specify different maximum allowable wind speeds based on model, size, and type of operation. Failing to check these details can create unnecessary risk.  For example: • Mobile cranes: Many models recommend ceasing operations between 20–22 mph, though others may allow up to 30–40 mph depending on load surface area, boom extension, and height. • Concrete placing booms: Manufacturer guidelines typically reference a limit around 48 mph—or lower if required by specific model instructions—reflecting different structural and stability factors. Site conditions can also amplify wind risk. An open site, coastal environment, or high-rise structure may experience gusting or funneling that pushes wind exposure well beyond what’s measured at ground level. This roundtable reinforced the importance of due diligence and verification. While it’s helpful to know the “industry common” wind-speed cutoffs, there is no substitute for reviewing the actual manufacturer recommendations and incorporating them into your job-specific lift and pumping plans. It’s also a reminder that participating in these discussions connects us with professionals whose lived experience brings real-world context to safety standards. The collective knowledge shared during these sessions helps each of us refine our practices, challenge assumptions, and strengthen the safety culture across our industry. Action Steps for Your Team 1. Review the manufacturer’s rated wind-speed limit for every crane and placing boom on your jobsite. 2. Ensure operators, signalpersons, and pump crews know the exact shutdown threshold for their equipment. 3. Verify that wind meters are functional and properly located (ideally at or near boom height). 4. Incorporate site-specific wind criteria into Activity Hazard Analyses (AHAs), Lift Plans, and Pre-Pour Plans. 5. Share lessons from the ASCC Safety Roundtable with your teams to reinforce awareness and informed decision-making. Participating in ASCC’s roundtable discussions continues to prove invaluable. Every conversation is a chance to learn from those who have lived the challenges, found solutions, and contributed decades of experience to improving how we build safely. Ray Hefner Fri, 14 Nov 2025 21:17:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:568 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/567/Virginia-Tech-Helmet-Lab-Progress-Partnerships-and-the-Path-Ahead#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=567 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=567&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/567/Virginia-Tech-Helmet-Lab-Progress-Partnerships-and-the-Path-Ahead Earlier this month, representatives from ASCC joined our partners from TAUC (The Association of Union Contractors) and the John R. Gentry Research Foundation (JGRF)—the foundation of the Mechanical Contractors Association of America (MCAA)—for a site visit to Virginia Tech’s Helmet Lab in Blacksburg, Virginia. The visit was an opportunity to see firsthand how the funds our organizations collectively committed are being used to advance the science of head protection in construction. Although NECA and one other supporting organization were unable to attend, their support and shared commitment to this research remain critical to its ongoing success. The Virginia Tech team provided a hands-on tour of the facility, demonstrating several helmet impact tests in real time. Seeing these tests up close left no doubt that the funding was being well utilized. The rigor of the methods, the precision of the data collection, and the professionalism of the research staff underscore the validity and lasting industry impact of this study. To date, 17 different helmets from various manufacturers have been evaluated and assigned a STAR rating, consistent with the Helmet Lab’s established approach for other sports and activities such as football, hockey, and cycling. Among these, one Type 1 helmet and one full-brim model have already been tested, with two additional full-brim helmets from other manufacturers currently undergoing evaluation. The published results are already serving as an independent, data-driven benchmark for performance comparison within our industry. The full list of tested helmets and ratings can be viewed here: Virginia Tech Construction Helmet STAR Ratings. During our visit, the research team shared that Virginia Tech will continue to test new helmets as they enter the market rather than on fixed intervals, ensuring that results remain current and relevant. The Helmet Lab will also work directly with ASCC and partner organizations to announce and communicate new test results to industry stakeholders. Perhaps most exciting were the discussions about future directions. The team proposed several new testing scenarios, including struck-by impact simulations specific to construction environments, which could further expand the STAR framework’s relevance to real-world jobsite hazards. Additionally, they are exploring potential heat-retention testing criteria—specifically examining the effects of elevated temperatures on head protection, particularly in southern and humid climates. While this concept is still in its early, conceptual phase, such data could eventually become a valuable component of the STAR rating system, offering new insights into comfort and heat management in challenging environments. The Helmet Lab also introduced the idea of an ongoing Industry Head Protection Forum, which would bring together helmet manufacturers, safety leaders, researchers, and trade associations to share data, discuss challenges, and establish consistent messaging on head protection best practices. This forum concept closely mirrors the collaborative model established by the Construction Safety Research Alliance (CSRA) at the University of Colorado Boulder—a group that unites contractors, owners, and academics to tackle safety challenges through shared data and evidence-based research. Virginia Tech’s goal is to create a similar collaborative knowledge hub, but one focused entirely on head protection: connecting research to real-world use, encouraging transparency, and ensuring continuous improvement across industries. The ASCC and our partners are proud to continue supporting this pioneering work, which is already shaping how safety professionals evaluate and select head protection. It’s a testament to what’s possible when industry collaboration and scientific rigor come together with a shared purpose—to protect our workforce and drive safety innovation forward. Ray Hefner Fri, 14 Nov 2025 21:15:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:567 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/566/Shaping-the-Future-of-Safety-Through-Data-and-Collaboration#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=566 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=566&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/566/Shaping-the-Future-of-Safety-Through-Data-and-Collaboration As we close out the year, I want to take a moment to highlight an exciting step forward for our association and our industry. ASCC is officially launching the first phase of our Safety Benchmarking Initiative, a project that will give members meaningful insight into their safety performance, identify what truly drives improvement, and ultimately raise the bar for safety excellence across the concrete industry. This initiative is being developed in partnership with FactorLab, using their SmartTagIt platform ,  the same system we integrated into this year’s Safety Awards program. The goal is simple but powerful: shift our focus from lagging indicators (what’s already happened) to leading indicators (what helps us prevent it) and build a member-driven benchmark that reflects the real work being done every day in the field. We’ve started with this year’s Safety Award participants, companies that have already shown initiative, transparency, and a commitment to advancing safety through data. But the next step opens the door wider,  inviting any interested member company to join the discovery process. This is your chance to have a voice in shaping what gets measured, how it’s defined, and how we use this data to learn from one another. Phase one will include 10 exclusive member companies who will serve as the initial implementation group,  setting a strong foundation for broader participation in 2026 and beyond. The process is intentionally streamlined, with just three short calls designed to make participation easy and meaningful: Discovery Call: Discuss what matters most, what we want to learn, and what a useful benchmark should look like. Participation Call: Confirm involvement and outline the specific data points that will drive insight. Implementation Call: Align logistics and finalize how it all comes together. This isn’t a labor-intensive task. It’s a collaborative research effort that will benefit not only participating members but the entire concrete construction community. The insight gained will help identify patterns, validate best practices, and illuminate what truly defines safety leadership in our trade. If you’re interested in being part of this initiative,  whether as one of the first 10 participants or as a contributor to the discovery process , I encourage you to reach out directly to me at jwhiteman@ascconline.org. The members who take part in this effort will be helping shape something that belongs to all of us,  a benchmark built by ASCC, for ASCC, that reflects who we are and where we’re headed. Together, we can ensure that our collective knowledge, innovation, and leadership continue to move the entire industry forward. Ray Hefner Fri, 14 Nov 2025 21:11:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:566 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/565/Tools-for-Reducing-Fatigue-in-Concrete-Forming#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=565 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=565&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/565/Tools-for-Reducing-Fatigue-in-Concrete-Forming Assembly of concrete formwork can be one of the most physically demanding tasks done on a regular basis.  It often requires repetitive motions of swinging a hammer to fix forms in place.  The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) published Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for upper limb localized fatigue for recommendations for workplace tasks that require the use of upper limbs. This limit is based on what it is believed that most healthy workers can be exposed to daily and still maintain a normal performance and work capacity without experiencing localized musculoskeletal fatigue. This fatigue can be caused by sustained or repeated exertions of the hands and arms that can cause discomfort or reduced upper limb function. This fatigue may be a precursor to chronic soft tissue injuries. Work performance and duty cycles are measured by the ability to repeat and sustain biomechanical loads. In an effort to study potential options for reducing localized fatigue and the potential for soft tissue injuries, a study was conducted comparing manually hammering duplex nails to using the Milwaukee M18 FUEL Duplex Nailer.  In the case of this study, the biomechanical load is the force (% MVC determined based on surface electromyography) it requires to drive a duplex nail in the concrete form. The limiting muscle group for both the M18 Duplex Nailer and using a hammer to drive duplex nails was a forearm extensor muscle. This muscle plays a key role in ulnar deviation of the wrist. For the duplex nailer, the wrist experiences ulnar deviation to grip the main handle of the nailer. In driving the duplex nail with a hammer, the wrist is actively moving to be deviated in the ulnar direction with the swing of the hammer. The testing revealed a significant increase in the duty cycle when using the Milwaukee M18 FUEL Duplex Nailer versus driving the duplex nails manually. This means, a worker can use the Milwaukee M18 FUEL Duplex Nailer for over 30 minutes longer without experiencing risk of localized fatigue. This difference is amplified by the average time difference between using the M18 Duplex Nailer to drive a duplex nail (approx. 3 seconds) versus manually driving a duplex nail (approx. 15 second average). With this, approximately 2,170 more duplex nails can be driven in concrete formwork when using the Milwaukee M18 FUEL Duplex Nailer versus using a hammer without reaching the duty cycle limit recommendation. The M18 FUEL Duplex Nailer is just one example of a Milwaukee Tools dedication to improving safety and productivity for the Concrete trades. Ray Hefner Fri, 14 Nov 2025 21:04:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:565 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/563/Recognizing-Leadership-Innovation-and-the-Power-of-Shared-Learning#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=563 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=563&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/563/Recognizing-Leadership-Innovation-and-the-Power-of-Shared-Learning I want to take a moment to thank every member company that participated in the first-ever Safety Awards program using FactorLab’s SmartTagIt platform. This new process represented a major step forward for ASCC, and the turnout was nothing short of outstanding. Through this digital submission format, we were able to see more than ever before: creative programs, forward-thinking initiatives, and truly remarkable examples of safety culture in action. What made this year’s process different from traditional award submissions, including our own in past years, was the depth of insight it revealed. SmartTagIt gave members the opportunity to share stories, visuals, and video content that captured how safety excellence looks and feels in real life, not just what the numbers say.  It’s this level of visibility that allows us to recognize and learn from one another, not only to celebrate the winners but to share best practices that inspire continuous improvement across the industry. In the coming months, we’ll be highlighting short video clips and key takeaways from member submissions, showcasing the best-in-class programs, innovative solutions, and people-centered safety efforts that are shaping our industry’s future. To every company that took the time to participate: thank you for your commitment, creativity, and leadership. You’ve set the tone for what this program is meant to be, a living example of how ASCC members continue to raise the standard for safety. I look forward to seeing this momentum continue into next year’s awards cycle. 2025 ASCC Safety Award Recipients Owner Executive Award Mark Scully – Encore Concrete Construction Vanguard Award for Safety Excellence General Contractor: GH Phipps Construction Companies Specialty Contractor: Concrete Strategies, LLC Innovation Award Contractor Member: Concrete Strategies, LLC Associate Member: Irving Materials, Inc. Fleet Awards Lewis Construction Lewis Construction- 595,968 Miles Schiralli Construction- 978,000 Miles WM. Winkler Company - 3,046,121 Miles Outstanding Awards General Contractors Schiralli Construction – Under 100,000 Hours Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd. – Over 250,000 Hours Specialty Contractors Less than 100,000 Hours Bass Commercial Concrete, LLC Durable Surfaces, LLC FV Group Corp. GFP Cement Contractors LLC Pure Floors, Inc. Southeast Concrete Systems, Inc. Hyde Concrete 100,000–250,000 Hours Trademark Concrete Systems, Inc. W.E. Beaty, Inc. Over 250,000 Hours Encore Concrete Construction, LLC Painters USA, Inc. RIR Improvement (2023–2024) General Contractors Charles Pankow Builders, Inc. Schiralli Construction Corporation Specialty Contractors Bass Commercial Concrete Durable Surfaces FV Group Corp. GFP Cement Contractors LLC Hyde Concrete Painters USA Pure Floors Southeast Concrete Systems Trademark Concrete Systems W.E. Beaty, Inc. Zero Lost Time Incidents General Contractors Less than 100,000 Hours Schiralli Construction 100,000–250,000 Hours Adjustable Concrete Construction California Engineering Contractors, Inc. Cameron-Reilly LLC McD Concrete Enterprises, LLC Ruttura & Sons W.E. Beaty, Inc. Winco Construction Over 250,000 Hours Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd. GH Phipps Construction Companies Jordan Foster Construction Nibbi Concrete Sundt Construction WM. Winkler Company Specialty Contractors Less than 100,000 Hours Albanelli Cement Contractors, Inc. Bass Commercial Concrete Durable Surfaces, LLC FV Group Corp. GFP Cement Contractors Hyde Concrete Poppoff, Inc. Pure Floors R.S. Widdoes & Son, Inc. Raffin Construction Southeast Concrete Systems, Inc. 100,000–250,000 Hours Buesser Concrete Florida Concrete Unlimited Hardrock Concrete Placement Lewis Construction Piedmont Concrete Contractors Procon, Inc. The Noel Company The VMI Group Trademark Concrete Systems Over 250,000 Hours Baker Construction Belfast Valley Contractors Burgess Concrete Construction, Inc. Cantera Concrete Company LLC CentiMark Corporation Concrete Strategies, LLC Danko Concrete Construction Encore Concrete Construction, LLC Gregory Construction Services, Inc. Keystone Structural Concrete, LLC Largo Concrete, Inc. Martin Concrete Construction, Inc. Morgan-Keller, Inc. Musselman & Hall Contractors, LLC Orion Concrete Construction Painters USA, Inc. Swinerton T&T Construction Management The Conco Companies Thompson Commercial Concrete United Forming, Inc. Vee Jay Cement Co. Wayne Brothers, Inc. Webcor Builders, Inc. Whitaker-Ellis Builders 2024 RIR vs. Industry Standard General Contractors Less than 100,000 Hours Schiralli Construction Corporation 100,000–250,000 Hours Adjustable Concrete Construction California Engineering Contractors, Inc. Over 250,000 Hours Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd. GH Phipps Construction Companies Jordan Foster Construction Nibbi Brothers Construction Sundt Construction WM. Winkler Company Specialty Contractors Less than 100,000 Hours Bass Commercial Concrete Durable Surfaces FV Group Corp. GFP Cement Contractors LLC Hyde Concrete Pure Floors, Inc. Raffin Construction Southeast Concrete Systems, Inc. 100,000–250,000 Hours Ace/Avant Concrete Construction Buesser Concrete Florida Concrete Unlimited Hardrock Concrete Placement The VMI Group, Inc. Trademark Concrete Systems J.J. Barney Construction W.E. Beaty, Inc. Over 250,000 Hours Wayne Brothers, Inc. United Forming, Inc. Vee Jay Cement Co., Inc. Thompson Concrete T&T Construction Management Group Orion Concrete Construction Painters USA, Inc. Keystone Structural Concrete, LLC Largo Concrete, Inc. Martin Concrete Construction Morgan-Keller, Inc. Gregory Construction Encore Concrete Construction, LLC Danko Concrete Construction Cantera Concrete Company, LLC CentiMark Corporation Concrete Strategies, LLC Baker Construction The Noel Company, Inc. Morley Construction Company Industrial Caulk & Seal Ray Hefner Fri, 14 Nov 2025 20:09:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:563 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/558/August-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors42-in-a-Series#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=558 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=558&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/558/August-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors42-in-a-Series Written By: Jim Klinger, Concrete Expert Question:  We have an opportunity to bid a portion of the reinforced concrete scope on an upcoming industrial/manufacturing plant and adjacent support building project (e.g. parking garage and two steel office buildings) which is slated to break ground next month. The Owner is releasing the work in phases (aka "bid packages") driven by structure type, material availability, Owner financing, and seasonal weather considerations consistent with the jobsite geography. For this project, the Owner envisions having the reinforced concrete foundation portions of each structure "in place and cured" before winter sets in. In our case, the task at hand is to prepare a price proposal for "Bid Package #1: Early Foundations". According to project details advertised by the general contractor (GC) during last week's pre-bid conference, the foundations we are to bid include a reinforced concrete mat foundation for the post-tensioned (PT) parking garage; and reinforced concrete pile cap/grade beam systems for the manufacturing plant itself and its two adjacent mid-rise structural steel support buildings.  According to the Owner's schedule, once the foundation mat for the PT garage is in place, construction of the upper floors can proceed through the winter months as long as we follow the approved cold-weather concrete construction plan we are required to submit as part of our Bid Package #1 scope. In other words, construction of the PT garage can proceed as normal, with no interruptions.  But the ongoing design of the structural steel frame for the manufacturing plant introduces potential schedule hiccups into the equation.  According to the design team, the design of the upper portion of the steel frame is partly dependent on the vibration loads introduced into the base structure by the manufacturing equipment. That equipment is still in the design phase overseas (Germany).   In his presentation at the pre-bid conference, the structural engineer told us the Owner expects further delays once the manufacturing plant equipment is fully designed due to reported material supply chain--and even potential tariff--issues.  Nevertheless, the Owner wants to hedge his bets and have the foundation for the manufacturing plant in the ground as soon as possible. Normally, our traditional scope of construction services only includes work items directly related to reinforced concrete construction.  For example, we include structural excavation of spread footings, but we exclude mass excavation and offhaul of spoils.  We include localized dewatering--in an elevator pit, for example--but we exclude mass geotechnical dewatering.  We include setting of almost all items shown to be embedded in the concrete that we place, but we do not supply any embedded items. On this project, however, the Owner is "calling an audible" and requiring the concrete Bid Package #1 bidders to include the furnishing of structural steel anchor rods, weld plates, embedded plates, embedded shapes (e.g. small lengths of W-shapes or channel shapes as shown) and so on into our scope. Ordinarily, such a scope would be picked up by the structural steel supplier, or even the structural steel erector. Our initial reaction was "Why doesn't the GC solicit bids for the supply of the embedded steel items? The GC's position:  the concrete contractor must become familiar with the embedded items anyway--quantities, types, sizes, locations--in order to price their setting. Once quantities and types are known, soliciting prices should be the logical next step.  Since we anticipate being asked to bid on subsequent bid packages on this project over the next few years--including a substantial site concrete scope--we decided to take on this task of embed supply for the embeds that are shown to be set in the manufacturing plant pile caps, grade beams, and slab on grade.  And that business decision is what has prompted our call to the ASCC Hotline.  During the design team's presentation at the pre-bid conference, the structural engineer made several emphatic comments regarding the grade of structural steel. Example comment: "Make sure that the steel that is used in the fabrication of the embedded shapes has been fully killed."  Questions to the Hotline then become: --What is fully killed steel...and how could killed steel affect our price? Answer: This is an item that might be worthy of a pre-bid RFI to the structural engineer.  By all rights, the structural construction documents (usually the "General Notes" sheets) should identify the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard grade for each of the various structural steel members to be used in the project--including embedded steel material.  Concrete contractors should already be familiar with commonly used ASTM steel grade designations such as ASTM grade A36, for example, or ASTM grade A572. Therefore, when your estimator is tabulating the embedded item quantities in a spreadsheet, we suggest creating a column that lists the ASTM Standard grade for each embed mark for material tracking and pricing purposes. The term "killed steel" is not new to the industry, and is related to the chemical composition--and behavior--of the steel as it is produced from molten to hardened (cast) material in the steel mill.  The idea is to deoxidize the steel by adding either Aluminum (Al) or Silicon (Si) while the steel is still molten. Once the steel is ladled (cast) into the molds, the added Al or Si keeps the material from developing gas bubbles during solidification.  Since the steel essentially lays still in the mold (no gas bubbles develop), it is then said to have been "killed". The end result is steel with less porosity. The requirement for killed steel appears in ASTM A992: Standard Specification for Structural Steel Shapes, section 4.1 as follows: "The steel shall be killed, and such shall be confirmed by a statement of killed steel on the test report, or by a report on the presence of a sufficient quantity of a strong deoxidizing element, such as silicon at 0.10% or higher, or aluminum at 0.015% or higher." Any cost impacts will have to come from your steel supplier of choice. The key is letting your supplier know what material has been called out as ASTM A992 (as opposed to, say, ASTM A36 or ASTM A572 material, for example) so they can advise you if there is any price impact. We suggest you supply the project bid documents to each steel supplier and you can compare their estimate with yours. After that exercise, a pre-bid RFI to the design team probably won't be necessary, since any "premiums" will already be rolled into the supplier's pricing to you. Question: Is there any document that says footings must be formed and not trench poured? Is this part of any Code that you are aware of?  We have a township official telling us this is an ACI requirement. Answer:  The above Hotline questions originally appeared in the October 2012 ASCC Voice newsletter. A link to an updated version of the 2012 original Voice article can be accessed online here: Updated Article Here. In addition to the update of the original 2012 article, what follows below are supplemental comments that reflect document changes, Code updates, and knowledge gained from 13 years-worth of field experience. At issue is the question that all concrete estimators ask themselves when the structural drawing foundation plans are unrolled on day one of the quantity takeoff for a new concrete construction project: "will we have to form the vertical foundation sides, or will the jobsite soil conditions (or design requirements) allow us to cast the foundation concrete directly against earth?" (N.B.: Although we have not seen this explained in the current literature, the so-called "neat-cut" method is almost always going to benefit the Owner in terms of time and dollars.  After all, the "formed sides" option has several activities that the neat-cut method does not have, namely over excavation, furnish formwork material, erect foundation side forms, strip form sides, patch formed faces (if needed), and backfill/compact soil against the formed sides. The downside of neat-cutting, of course, is risk. Once you commit to neat-cutting in your bid proposal, you own the work whether it ends up being neat cut or formed.) The first step in answering the question of whether or not to form foundation sides is to examine the bid documents to determine if the design team has somehow prohibited the so-called "neat-cut" method of casting foundation concrete directly against earth. Such prohibitions might appear in typical drawing details or in specific section cuts taken through the foundation.  We have also seen such prohibitive requirements expressed in project specifications. The second step is to carefully examine the soil borings and recommendations that appear in the project geotechnical report (aka the "soils report"). Certain soil conditions--borings that reveal dry, loose, sandy soil, for example--are quick indicators that the footing sides cannot stand after excavation without sloughing and collapsing. The third step is to carefully examine the construction documents for waterproofing requirements, if any, that can be a factor when sides of the foundation elements (including elevator pits) are to be formed.  In many cases, once forms are stripped, supplemental patching may be required to accommodate follow-on waterproofing applications. We recommend the bid team review ASCC Position Statement #27 Formed Surface Requirements for Waterproofed Walls if foundations require forming. A link to the latest ASCC Position Statement #27 is here: https://ascconline.org/Portals/ASCC/Files/Position%20Statements/PS-27_FormedSurfaceRequiremts_webSC-1.pdf?ver=U7QefaD9st_owBZfsZPwHA%3d%3d Although the ACI Code is silent regarding forming of foundation sides, the International Building Code (IBC) is not.  IBC 2021 section 1808.8.5 Forming of concrete states: "Concrete foundations are permitted to be cast against the earth where, in the opinion of the building official, soil conditions do not require formwork. Where formwork is required, it shall be in accordance with section 26.11 of ACI 318". Sayde Hindelang Fri, 15 Aug 2025 18:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:558 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/557/August-is-National-Traffic-Awareness-Month#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=557 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=557&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/557/August-is-National-Traffic-Awareness-Month Written By: Joe Whiteman, CSP, CHST, Director of Safety Services August is recognized as National Traffic Awareness Month—a timely reminder of the critical role traffic safety plays on and around our jobsites. For concrete contractors, managing traffic hazards extends beyond the open road; many of our most significant risks occur where public roadways meet active construction zones. The movement of equipment, deliveries, and crews requires constant vigilance to protect both workers and the public. Concrete pump truck setup is one of the most visible—and potentially hazardous—traffic interactions we manage. These trucks often require positioning along or near active streets, driveways, or site access points. Proper traffic control plans, effective flagging, and clear communication with both the crew and the public are essential to avoid dangerous conflicts. Similarly, ready-mix trucks delivering concrete frequently enter and exit sites throughout the day. Tight schedules, unfamiliar site conditions, and the need to reverse into pours can create high-risk situations if traffic flow and access are not managed effectively. It’s not just concrete deliveries that require attention—construction materials such as rebar, formwork, and equipment arrive regularly and often must be staged or offloaded in areas with active traffic. Coordination with suppliers, establishing staging areas that minimize public interaction, and consistent use of spotters during unloading are key steps in reducing exposure. These precautions not only protect our workers but also reinforce our commitment to public safety. Adding another layer of complexity, August also marks the return to school in most parts of the country. Increased school zone activity means more pedestrians, buses, and distracted drivers during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times. If your project is near a school or along a bus route, be especially mindful of these peak traffic periods. Allow extra time for deliveries, reinforce vigilance at access points, and communicate with crews about heightened awareness in school zones. Traffic safety is an ongoing responsibility for every ASCC member. By taking proactive steps—from detailed traffic control planning to heightened awareness during high-risk times—we can protect our crews, safeguard the public, and maintain our industry’s strong reputation for safety. Sayde Hindelang Fri, 15 Aug 2025 16:15:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:557 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/556/Greater-Degree-of-Collaboration-on-Next-Generation-of-Blended-Cement#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=556 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=556&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/556/Greater-Degree-of-Collaboration-on-Next-Generation-of-Blended-Cement Greater Degree of Collaboration on Next Generation of Blended Cement Written By: Michael Hernandez, Technical Director Excited to announce that ASCC has already received agreement from more than ten of the largest cement manufacturers in the U.S. to openly communicate, through ASCC, with member contractors about any future blended cement introductions. Each new blended cement will be unique from plant to plant based on SCM availability and market needs. Most plants are already producing IL. This initiative would cover future IL with a higher limestone percentage, IS (slag), IP (pozzolan), or IT (clinker + two SCMs) blended cements. The goal is to avoid surprises and enable members to present options to owners with aggressive low-carbon concrete goals. I can provide you with the point of contact at each manufacturer if you send me an email with a specific request at mhernandez@ascconline.org. Part of the process of introducing a new cement blend involves cement manufacturers providing sample buckets to their customers—ready mixed producers. When a new cement is released, ready mixed producers will usually run lab trials with their own materials and admixtures. Last month, in The Slab (July 2025 issue), Master Builders Solutions provided a paper describing the process for evaluating multiple admixtures and material combinations in small batches. You can read it here: Mortar-to-Mix Procedure for Evaluating Cementitious Materials and Chemical Admixtures The next step is field evaluations. This is an ideal time to ask if the concrete can be placed and finished by your team, so you can gain firsthand understanding of how it performs in the field and provide feedback to both ready mixed and cement representatives. To simplify the search for cement plants located nearest your office or a project, here is a QR code link to a Google Map with every cement plant in the U.S. You can zoom in to view each plant via satellite. Tons per year produced are approximate (+/- 10–15%) and intended to provide a general sense of scale. We have additional data available about what most of these plants are currently manufacturing, which will be posted on the ASCC website (far right tab after logging in). If you would like a large wall map that includes cement plants and transfer terminals (rail-to-silo-to-truck) or the cement directory with addresses, phone numbers, and contacts, they can be purchased here: National Cement Directory The continued increase in communication between concrete contractors, ready mixed producers, and cement manufacturers is an excellent way to mitigate risk by improving understanding of critical material availability and enabling testing before market release. Parallel to the Indianapolis ASCC Annual Conference, on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, there will be a blended cement workshop from 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The program will include: Information about blended cement Insight into cement manufacturing Ready mixed resources A producer quality control testimony Plastic concrete performance evaluation Two case studies A roundtable discussion to conclude the session Registration information will be available by mid-August. Sayde Hindelang Fri, 15 Aug 2025 16:02:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:556 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/554/PRO-Focuses-on-Concrete-Construction-Productivity#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=554 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=554&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/554/PRO-Focuses-on-Concrete-Construction-Productivity From: Phil Diekemper, Executive Director – PRO: An ACI Center of Excellence for Advancing Productivity  Poorly coordinated and/or incomplete design drawings result in inaccurate bids, and they force contractors to complete the needed coordination and design through multiple requests for information (RFIs). The disjointed process leads to delays, added costs, change orders, and a general dissatisfaction with the completed project. A set of documents that is complete and coordinated before construction is essential for achieving productivity. In 2023, FMI Corporation released a labor productivity study. According to the 2023 FMI Labor Productivity Study, “4 of 5 Contractors said low-quality design/construction documents (plans and specs) are a top external factor stunting productivity.”1 While design team members use their education and experience to translate architectural concepts into a constructable format, construction team members use their knowledge and experience to construct the project with a focus on cost and schedule. The design process may include the evaluation of a variety of concepts and solutions. The construction process typically seeks maximum productivity. Changes during construction caused by incomplete and/or poorly coordinated documents are not good for a contractor’s productivity. In 2020, ASCC conducted a Constructability Survey. The ASCC survey indicated that the No. 1 barrier to constructability was a lack of completeness of drawings, with the coordination of drawings second and the coordination of drawings and specifications third. Concrete embedded items from specialty structural engineers (for example, cladding) need to be provided and coordinated by the structural engineer of record (SER), even though those details are often provided during the concrete construction phase. Beware of standard details. Standard details can be added to the drawings without much thought and often conflict with the designers’ intent or other project-specific details. This can lead to ambiguity, conflicts, and change orders. Designers face many pressures during the design process, and these can result in negative impacts on the constructability of the construction documents. These pressures include: Increased competition; Lower design fees; Accelerated design schedules; Increased architectural design complexity; Owner decision delays and changes; Delegation of responsibilities for design and coordination; Accelerated project delivery; Inability to retrain experienced staff and train the less experienced; and Increased reliance on design technology. To address these concerns, many organizations, such as the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), Construction Specifications Institute (CSI), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), International Code Council (ICC), American Concrete Institute (ACI), and ASTM International, have published requirements and guides. I will touch on these in future newsletter articles. Project owners should learn that low design fees, insufficient design time, and increased project complexity that prevent designers’ completion of needed document coordination and constructable designs ultimately increases project cost and time as an expense to the owner. Construction agreements have sprouted new language that exonerates designers while increasing contractor risks. Language that suggests the contractor’s estimate should anticipate and include the designer’s intent, not necessarily what is included or expressed in the documents. Does that include information not included or expressed? What are the limitations of such agreements? Such attempts to deflect responsibility to the concrete contractor become sources of conflict, disagreements, arbitration, and litigation. Send your examples of these onerous agreements to Phil.Diekemper@concreteproductivity.com. PRO seeks to address incomplete and poorly coordinated construction documents, as well as deceptive agreements that are barriers to concrete construction productivity. 12023 FMI Labor Productivity Study Sayde Hindelang Thu, 31 Jul 2025 17:03:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:554 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/553/Mortar-to-Mix-Procedure-for-Evaluating-Cementitious-Materials-and-Chemical-Admixtures-Optimizing-Concrete-Performance-Regarding-Workability-Setting-Characteristics-Heat-of-Hydration-and-Compressive-Strength-Results-Using-Calorimetry-and-Maturity#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=553 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=553&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/553/Mortar-to-Mix-Procedure-for-Evaluating-Cementitious-Materials-and-Chemical-Admixtures-Optimizing-Concrete-Performance-Regarding-Workability-Setting-Characteristics-Heat-of-Hydration-and-Compressive-Strength-Results-Using-Calorimetry-and-Maturity Tom Pelo, Jeff Huff, Tarek Khan, and John Luciano (Retired) Master Builders Solutions Admixtures US LLC – June 2025 Introduction Given the recent interest in low-embodied carbon concrete (LECC), there are new cementitious materials, multiple supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) and admixture chemistries available to reduce the embodied carbon content of concrete. For example, Type IL cement was recently introduced in most US markets. These materials can affect the performance of concrete negatively, especially with respect to setting times and strength development. Master Builders Solutions has developed a procedure using concrete mortars to quickly evaluate combinations of raw materials to assess their performance that is based on ASTM C1810, Standard Guide for Comparing Performance of Concrete-Making Materials Using Mortar Mixtures, particularly, “Method A, Mortar Proportioned Based on Job Concrete Mixture Proportions”1. The information gained from this small-scale, assessment procedure can be used to quickly screen multiple combinations and reduce the requirements for large-scale concrete testing. Following are procedures and testing protocols that have been used by Master Builders Solutions personnel and others in the lab and the field. Typically, the procedure requires only ten minutes to complete a single batch. In addition to physical tests on the mortar, calorimetry and maturity testing establish broad differences in setting time and strength development performance. Others have done similar work and found reproduceable results on a consistent basis.2 Guidance It’s suggested that a thorough testing plan be developed that addresses the project’s concrete requirements, for example high-early strength, setting-time needs, and longer- term strength development. It’s imperative to use locally available concrete sands due to the high variability of aggregate properties that affect water demand and strength, for example cleanliness, soundness, and clay content. This in contrast to ASTM test methods for testing the strength of cements made with mortar containing ‘standard sand’, i.e., “Ottawa” sand. Concrete sand has an influence on concrete properties, especially the required water content to make workable, placeable concrete before the addition of water- reducing admixtures. Consider the workability requirement for the concrete; for example, will the concrete be pumped, will it be flatwork that’s finished by hand or machine-troweled, or will it be placed in a form? Each requires a different water content and water-reducing admixture combination. Early indications of each of these properties can be established following this procedure. The moisture content of the sand should be determined immediately prior to testing so that the added water content can be adjusted based on the SSD specific gravity and the measured moisture content. This procedure is typically run at 70°F but it can be run at the anticipated concrete temperature by adjusting the temperature of the mixing water, the sand, and cementitious materials. Plan on batching approximately 0.35 ft3 of mortar. This batch will yield enough mortar for ten 3 X 6-inch test cylinders or four 4 X 8-inch cylinders with sufficient materials to run a mini-slump3 and 0.5L mortar meter.4 Batches could be mixed in a Hobart mixer as outlined in ASTM C1810, which requires multiple batches for larger quantities. Procedure Pre-weigh the sand in a 5-gallon bucket. If necessary, pre-cool or pre-heat the sand using a refrigerator or hot plate to match the anticipated concrete temperature. If needed, add the air-entraining admixture on top of the sand. Pre-weigh cements and SCMs in a 3-gallon bucket. Pre-weigh water and water reducing admixture(s) in a separate bucket. If necessary, adjust the water temperature using ice or hot water, to match the anticipated concrete temperature. For extreme temperatures, the sand and cementitious materials can be pre-cooled or pre-heated to achieve the anticipated concrete temperature in production and placement. Mixing procedure: Dump the cement (and any SCMs) on top of the sand in a 5-gallon bucket. Immediately add water with chosen admixture dosage Mix at medium to high speed with the Milwaukee Mud Mixer5, for 60 to 90 seconds. Scrape sides of bucket to ensure all materials are thoroughly mixed. Measure the temperature of the prepared mortar. Perform the mini-slump/spread test based on the desired mortar consistency. Perform the air test with mortar air meter6. Fabricate the required number of 3 X 6-inch cylinders for compressive strength testing. Store the cylinders in the Calmetrix, F-Cal calorimeter7 and EXACT Technology Match Curing chamber 8 as indicated in the testing plan. Perform the thermal indication of set (TIS) using the Calmetrix, F-Cal calorimeter7. Break the test cylinders at times that match the project requirements, for example 12 hours, 1-day, 2-days, etc. Correlate the compressive strength test results with the data from Calmetrix and EXACT Match equipment. Develop the maturity curve using the appropriate EXACT Technology equipment8. About Calorimetry The reaction between cement and water (called ‘hydration’) is exothermic, that is, it generates heat. By measuring the heat outflow using a calorimeter, which tracks the temperature of the hydration reaction, one can understand the behavior of concrete or mortar. Simple set time or compressive strength tests do not show this much information. Calorimetry measurements will indicate the effectiveness of admixtures on the hydration reaction, thereby allowing decision makers to optimize cement, SCM and admixture combinations for a given project’s specific needs. The data generated by the thermal indication of set (TIS) measurements allows us to predict initial and final setting times (i.e., the ‘finishing window’) for a given combination of materials. In our experience, the F-Cal 8100 semi-adiabatic calorimeter provides the functionality and ease of use for lab or field testing for concrete tests. The Calmetrix team is supportive and can further explain the use of their equipment. For more information, visit: https://www.calmetrix.com/ Note that the recommended equipment follows ASTM C1753 "Evaluating Early Hydration of Hydraulic Cementitious Mixtures Using Thermal Measurements".9 The F-Cal 8100 unit is described here: https://www.calmetrix.com/f-cal-calorimeters There’s a link called “Concrete Testing” at the bottom of that page to multiple short videos and an hour-long webinar on the Calmetrix YouTube channel. Consult Calmetrix for cost information and the hardware requirements for the laptop computer or tablet needed to capture data. About the Maturity Concept The maturity concept utilizes the same premise that calorimetry uses; namely that the hydration reaction generates heat. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, “the maturity method is a technique to account for the combined effects of time and temperature on the strength development of concrete. The method provides a relatively simple approach for making reliable estimates of in-place strength during construction.”10 The method depends on establishing an accurate calibration curve by casting enough cylinders to determine the strength of concrete over time, typically 12 to 72 hours, and then ‘matching’ those strengths to the measured time-temperature data. Future concrete placements will not require cylinders to be cast and broken; rather the time- temperature data is collected and recorded using temperature sensing equipment. More detailed information about the maturity method can be found in ACI 228.1R-19, “Report on Methods for Estimating In-Place Concrete Strength”.11 There is an ASTM practice for estimating strength using the maturity method.12 A simple discussion of using the maturity method is presented in “Concrete in Practice 39 Maturity Methods to Estimate Concrete Strength”.13 The engineers that founded EXACT Technology come from the concrete construction industry and can explain the maximum effectiveness of this concept. For more information, visit https://www.exacttechnology.com/ Consult EXACT Technology for cost information and the hardware requirements for the laptop computer or tablet needed to capture data. About Master Builders Solutions We offer advanced chemical solutions for new concrete construction and underground construction in the U.S. and Canada. Our brand is built on more than 100 years of experience in the construction industry. Our comprehensive portfolio encompasses concrete admixtures, cement additives, macro, and microfiber reinforcement for concrete and chemical solutions for underground construction. To solve our customers’ specific construction challenges from conception through to completion of a project, we draw on our specialist know-how, regional expertise and the experience gained in countless constructions projects worldwide. We leverage global technologies, and our in-depth knowledge of local building needs to develop innovations that help make our customers more successful and drive sustainable construction. Master Builders Solutions Admixtures own lab in Cleveland, Ohio is available to provide services for concrete producers and contractors. Find a local Master Builders Solutions representative by using the link at the bottom of this page: https://master-builders- solutions.com/en-us/contacts/ Alternately, you may contact the authors. Tom Pelo is a Development Manager, based in Montana, who works across the Western United States. Reach him at tom.pelo@masterbuilders.com Jeff Huff is a Senior Territory Manager in Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Reach him at jeff.huff@masterbuilders.com Tarek Khan is a Business Development Manager, in Master Builders Solutions Admixtures’ Concrete Sustainability Group. He is based in California and works across the United States. Reach him at tarek.khan@masterbuilders.com John Luciano is retired from the Master Builders Solutions, having worked in the research and development group in Cleveland, Ohio for over 40 years. Footnotes ASTM C1810 “Standard Guide for Comparing Performance of Concrete-Making Materials Using Mortar Mixtures”, published by ASTM International, available here: https://www.astm.org/ “Laboratory Paste Mixtures as a Concrete Mix Design Tool”, an American Concrete Institute Web Session presented by Tim Cost, available here: https://www.concrete.org/publications/getarticle.aspx?m=icap&pubid=51686537 (free to ACI members) and “Mortar Testing for Estimating Strength”, by Joseph J. Daczko, Published in Concrete International, by the American Concrete Institute, September 1999, available here: https://www.concrete.org/publications/internationalconcreteabstractsportal.aspx?m=det ails&id=277 (free to ACI members) ASTM C1437 “Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cement Mortar”, published by ASTM International, available here: https://www.astm.org/ ASTM C185 “Standard Test Method for Air Content of Hydraulic Cement Mortar”, published by ASTM International, available here: https://www.astm.org/ “Milwaukee M18 Fuel 18V – ½-inch Mud Mixer”, available from Milwaukee Tool https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/2810-22 “Humboldt Mortar Air Meter”, available from the Humboldt Construction Materials Testing Equipment https://www.humboldtmfg.com/air-entrainment-meters-for-mortar- actual.html “F-Cal 8100 Portable semi-adiabatic calorimeter” (requires software installation and suitable computer), available from Calmetrix https://www.calmetrix.com/ “EM1” or “EM2” Curing chambers (requires software installation and suitable computer), available from EXACT Technology https://www.exacttechnology.com/ ASTM C1753 "Evaluating Early Hydration of Hydraulic Cementitious Mixtures Using Thermal Measurements", published by ASTM International, available here: https://www.astm.org/ “The Maturity Method: from Theory to Application”, by N.J. Carino and H.S. Lew, published by The Building and Fire Research Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This document is in the public domain here: https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=860356 ACI 228.1R-19, “Report on Methods for Estimating In-Place Concrete Strength”, published by the American Concrete Institute, available here: https://www.concrete.org/store/storeresults.aspx?Keyword=228.1 “ASTM C1074 “Standard Practice for Estimating Concrete Strength by the Maturity Method”, published by ASTM International, available here: https://www.astm.org/ “Concrete in Practice 39 Maturity Methods to Estimate Concrete Strength”, published by the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, available here: https://www.nrmca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/39pr.pdf Mortar to Mix Procedure – Equipment List Typical setup – 5-gallon bucket (not shown) Milwaukee M18 Fuel 18V – ½” Mud Mixer – Available here: https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/2810-22 Mud Mixer Paddle – Dual Stage 5” wheels – Available here: https://www.krafttool.com/DC310?srsltid=AfmBOopiVd1raLF_JmUP1WnmHuVN_8ivrdvJY ZJ22Rrj5LfLoz1jWXB7 Digital Temperature Gun – accurate to 0.5 degrees F Electronic Calipers – accurate to 1 mm 5” Mortar Cone – Available here: https://www.americancubemold.com/Mini-Steel-Slump- Cone-p/acm-32mn.htm Plexiglass sheet 24” X 36” – 1/8” 3” by 6” and 4” by 8” Plastic Cylinder Molds (not shown) Prepared Mortar – Entrained Air Analysis Prepared mortars are tested with .5-liter mortar air meter to determine entrained or entrapped air content, such as the Humboldt Mortar Air Meter – H-2847 - .5L Mortar Air Meter Available here: https://www.humboldtmfg.com/air-entrainment-meters-for-mortar-actual.html Calorimetry Testing – Thermal Indication of Setting Characteristics F-Cal 8100 semi-adiabatic calorimeter connected to a laptop Sample heat of hydration curve Prepared mortar samples in 3”X6” plastic cylinder molds are placed into the Calmetrix F- Cal 8100. Up to 8 prepared mortars can be tested simultaneously. Heat of hydration is measured and can then be converted into analysis logs for estimating setting times and strength prediction. More information is available at: https://www.calmetrix.com/f-cal-calorimeters Maturity Curve Testing – EXACT Technology Equipment EM1 Match Cure Box The EM1 unit enables cylinder curing to match temperatures of in-place concrete. Data loggers with attached probes are inserted into concrete member. The temperature is measured and relayed to the curing box, which cures cylinders at the same temperature as the in-place concrete members. EM2 Match Cure Box The EM2 Match Curing unit is a programmable curing box capable of curing cylinders at temperatures ranging from 40 to 140 degrees F. Temperatures can be held constant or can be varied. The EM2 provides time-over-temperature graph, which can be combined with compressive strength information, to formulate maturity curves based on the data. More information is available at https://www.exacttechnology.com/ Sample Calorimetry Data Sample Maturity Data Sayde Hindelang Fri, 25 Jul 2025 17:41:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:553 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/552/July-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors41-in-a-Series#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=552 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=552&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/552/July-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors41-in-a-Series Jim Klinger, Concrete Construction Specialist The Slab Newsletter July 2025 Question:  We just returned to our office from a mandatory project kick-off meeting with major project stakeholders, including the Owner (a well-known, high-profile winemaker), the architect, the structural engineer, and the general contractor (GC). Based on a few of the meeting discussion topics, we now find ourselves in a difficult situation regarding jobsite access and logistics. We are hoping a call to the ASCC Hotline will provide some relief. We were originally issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) for this project, which we successfully bid during the fall of 2019--before the COVID pandemic hit and caused the winemaker to suspend all work on capital construction projects (including new construction, existing facility upgrades, and retrofits). Groundbreaking on our project was slated to occur in January 2020, with our mobilization onsite scheduled soon thereafter. When we received notice from the GC that the project was being shelved, we were assured that the job was only being suspended--not cancelled--and that the Owner didn't want any part of putting the job back out on the street for a rebid.  In other words, this was our job, only with a start date unknown. In addition, we were assured by the GC that all stakeholders would be equitably compensated for all material escalation costs, supply-chain costs, labor escalation costs and so on related to the pandemic shutdown as outlined in ASCC Position Statement #45- "Managing Concrete Projects: Concrete/Steel Price and Delivery Volatility Risks". Now here it is some five years later; and--true to their word--the financing to cover all of the escalated project costs for all parties is approved and in place. The mobilization date for our scope is now slated for October 2025. With that bit of good news, then, what could be so difficult? Here's some background information.  We are a well-established concrete "place-and-finish-only" contractor. But we are slowly expanding our scopes of service. We routinely perform pump-place-finish work on large commercial projects, including concrete high rises, structural steel towers (slabs on metal deck), and small school projects.  This project will be our first tilt-up job. At bid time, we decided to venture into tilt-up work because one of our staff estimator/project managers had extensive experience in tilt-up before he joined our firm. He was experienced enough to win the bid for us. Unfortunately, once COVID hit, he eventually came down with the ailment and is no longer able to work due to severe complications.  That leaves us with an upcoming job on the books with a firm start date and no one currently onboard who has the tilt-up chops to help get the job started. (We understand his counterpart during bid time is no longer with the GC, as well). The project itself consists of a 10,000 square foot (SF) warehouse intended to store winery products and supplies located out in the wine country region. The structural frame consists of 30-foot-tall reinforced concrete tilt-up wall panels with an open-web steel joist roof (no concrete at roof level). The slab on grade is 6 inches thick, placed over 15-mil vapor barrier and 4 inches of drain rock, and reinforced with #4 bars at 16 inches each way. The nominal design compressive concrete strength is 3000 pounds per square inch (psi) at 28 days. Structural typical details indicate 2 inches of concrete cover below sawcut control joints at 1 1/2 inches in depth. There is a small mezzanine located inside the structure, which is supported by a small number of 6-inch square HSS (high strength steel) columns founded on spread footings. The building footprint has an irregular shape, which follows a sharp bend in a local protected creek along two sides of the property.  There is a steep, sloped, 75-foot wide easement that separates the building edge from the bend in the creek bed. No construction vehicles, material storage, or other construction activities are allowed in or on the 75-foot easement.  In other words, there is no available construction access on two sides of the project. Inside the jobsite boundaries, there is virtually no laydown area available. During the kickoff meeting, discussion ensued regarding jobsite access and logistical constraints.  The Owner advised that his office has been contacted by local building officials who reminded him that the environmental restrictions on encroachment--on or into the 75-ft creek easement zone--will be strictly enforced. In addition, the structural engineer advised that driving forklifts or other equipment over the slab on grade or using the slab on grade as a platform for tilt-up panel erection (or structural steel erection cranes) will not be allowed. We had been proceeding with the assumption that we would be able to place the 10,000 SF slab on grade at one time, and then use the new slab as a casting bed for the tilt-up wall panels.  We also assumed our erection crane would be allowed to drive on the slab on grade. The GC advised that a submittal containing our tilt-up panel logistics plan, including crane safety, panel erection, temporary panel bracing and so on will likely have to be approved by the local building official before we can start work, and suggested we get the submittal prepared as soon as possible. We are wondering if the ASCC Hotline can offer any words of encouragement, and hopefully suggest some options to help us meet the challenges described above.  Please advise. Answer: After reviewing the construction drawings for this tilt-up warehouse, we have the following observations and suggestions. --The access constraints and jobsite geometry can easily be found on the contract drawings.  The 75-foot wide easement, for example, appears on multiple sheets. It seems likely that your estimator already had this handled with his counterpart at the GC during pre-bid discussions.  Suggest trying to track that down with a call to the GC. --The compressive strength of the slab on grade (3000 psi) seems to be on the "low" side, which may be driving the engineer's objections to driving equipment on the slab. Since there are ways to strengthen concrete slabs, you may consider a cost-sharing arrangement with the steel erector, whereby costs to re-engineer the slab would be split. Possible options might range from adjusting the mix proportions (e.g. add cement) or perhaps thickening the slab.  Another option might be to call a meeting with the structural engineer, the GC, and the steel erector and ask if a slab analysis/redesign could be handled by his office in-house. Any costs could be covered by a mutually agreed backcharge.  --It may be feasible for you to place the slab in two placements.  Panels would be cast on the new slab, while the crane could stage on the adjacent subgrade and erect the panels from there. --We noticed that there are details that show embedded plates that are shop welded to steel channel sections that serve as ledgers for follow-on framing work at the roof level.  If these assemblies are cast in as designed, you will not be able to stack any tilt-up panels, since the channels protrude past the face of wall.  The assemblies will have to be redesigned such that the ledger channels can be field-welded in place to the embedded portion (placed flush with face of wall) after the walls are erected. Update: The Hotline was just informed that a meeting was held among the Owner, the building officials, and the fire marshal.  It seems likely now that the Owner will have to provide a temporary fire lane along the creek sides of the building. It appears the contractors will be able to use this sanctioned "encroachment" for erection purposes.  It may also be possible that the fire lane will have to be made permanent before the project is turned over. If true, this could help solve most--if not all--of your logistics issues. Note: A pat on the back (and a tip of the hat) goes out to ASCC Technical Committee member Jeremiah Mistele of PROCON, who helped with this Hotline call. Sayde Hindelang Wed, 23 Jul 2025 20:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:552 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/548/June-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors40-in-a-Series#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=548 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=548&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/548/June-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors40-in-a-Series Jim Klinger, Concrete Construction Specialist The Slab Newsletter June 2025 Full Disclosure: On 18 May 2025, Dr. Ward Malisch--The Original ASCC Hotline Operator--passed away after a long battle with cancer. The following morning, a memorial tribute summarizing and showcasing Ward's extensive concrete industry accomplishments--including his significant contributions to the ASCC--was published in a Message from the Executive Director, see below: "In Memoriam: Dr. Ward R. Malisch (1939–2025) A Pioneer, Mentor, and Lifelong Advocate for ASCC Concrete Contractors The ASCC is deeply saddened to share the news of the passing of Dr. Ward R. Malisch, who died on Sunday, May 18, 2025, in Lebanon, TN, after a courageous battle with cancer. A brilliant engineer, respected educator, and dedicated servant to the concrete construction industry, Ward was a valued member of the ASCC family whose contributions left a lasting mark on our organization and membership. Ward joined the ASCC in 2008 as our first-ever Director of Engineering, a role he held until 2013. He then served as Concrete Construction Specialist until his retirement in 2020. In both roles, Ward was a vital technical resource for ASCC members across the country, translating complex engineering principles into practical, jobsite-ready knowledge that helped members build better and safer concrete projects. Ward’s career began in academia, following BS, MS, and PhD degrees in civil engineering from the University of Illinois. He went on to teach at three universities before joining the American Concrete Institute (ACI), where he served as Director of Engineering and later Senior Managing Director. Ward was an Honorary Member of ACI and an active contributor to several key committees, including ACI 117, 301, and 302, often serving as a bridge between ACI’s technical community and ASCC’s contractor members. Over his lifetime, he authored or coauthored more than 200 articles, books, reports, and papers on subjects of direct importance to ASCC contractors, including tolerances, floors, and specifications. His work consistently addressed real-world challenges faced on jobsites, and he had a rare gift for offering practical, contractor-focused solutions. Ward’s industry honors reflect the breadth of his impact: ASCC Lifetime Achievement Award (2011) ACI Arthur Anderson Award (2010) ACI Construction Award (2011) ACI Roger Corbetta Award (2019) NRMCA Richard Gaynor Award (2008) Construction Writers Association Silver Hard Hat Award (2006) Dr. Malisch wasn’t just a technical expert—he was a mentor, a problem-solver, and a champion of concrete contractors. His voice, insights, and passion for quality construction helped shape the culture and credibility of the ASCC we know it today. He will be deeply missed and long remembered. Our thoughts are with his family and all those in the industry who were fortunate to call him a colleague and friend." I first met Ward at the ACI Fall Convention held in Cincinnati, October 2019-- about a year before retiring from my full-time "day job" and officially joining the staff here with the ASCC Technical Division.  I had decided earlier to sit in as a listener at one of the morning ACI 506 (Shotcrete) Committee Meetings and was just leaving the convention center to grab a bite to eat when I recognized Ward approaching the crosswalk from across the street. There was no way I was going to let him walk by without saying something.    I introduced myself, we shook hands, and I made it a point straightaway to tell Ward how much I (and countless others) have appreciated his work troubleshooting concrete construction for concrete contractors. I advised Ward how his efforts over the years helped me to navigate through many a tough situation-- whether I was working for a private Owner, a structural engineering firm, or a concrete contractor.  It didn't much matter. There are many among the ASCC ranks that have always said the same thing. Ward's valuable concrete troubleshooting advice was brought to bear by many of us almost every step of the way. Since that chance meeting in Cincinnati, I kept in touch with Ward via occasional phone calls and email traffic, the last of which was dated March 3, just a few short months ago. In typical Malisch fashion, Ward downplayed his illness by writing "I am a walking miracle, having entered my fourth year of metastasized bone cancer without any current traumatic pain.  I give God and my faithful spouse all of the credit. Prayer works". Since Ward's passing, I have fielded quite a few Hotline phone calls from ASCC members who wanted to express their condolences and to pay their respects to the Original ASCC Hotline Operator, who will be missed by all of us. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Question: We are considering preparing a bid for a mid-rise (e.g. 5 elevated floors) city government office building that features post-tensioned (PT) concrete slabs. As a company, we have no previous experience with PT work; although we do have a few workers in our reinforcing steel crew that have experience placing and stressing PT tendons.  In addition, one of our carpenter foremen has worked on a small PT garage before hiring on with us. The PT slabs are 8 inches thick, placed with a "high-early" concrete mix that enables stressing to be completed within the specified 72 hours. The mix is designed to reach 3000 psi at 3 days, 5000 psi at 28 days. Our estimators are almost finished with their modeling and take-offs for the concrete and formwork quantities, and the reinforcing steel division is nearing completion of their estimate as well.  The next bid items that need attention include assessment of key baseline schedule activities: structural excavation, concrete placement, and formwork cycling.  We are calling the ASCC Hotline with questions regarding the last item--formwork cycling.  We own enough column and wall forms to do this job, but we are going to have to rent the formwork and shoring for the 5 elevated PT slabs. We invited our carpenter foreman with PT experience to come into the office and meet with our estimating team to discuss the proprietary forming systems currently available for rent in our market; and the labor hours we will need to erect and strip the slabs.  Our foreman advised us that we will not need to reshore the top-most (5th floor) slab once the PT has been stressed and the structural engineer has approved the PT tendon elongation records submitted by the project inspector.  In other words, we will only need to rent the shoring until approximately 5 to 6 working days after the final 5th level concrete placement. (We assume that if we place the slab on a Friday, we will be able to finish stressing the PT by end of the day on Monday.  That leaves 2 to 3 days to strip, clean, and bundle the formwork materials for shipment out on Friday. Hence the 5 to 6 working day duration). Obviously, we wish to return all rented formwork items just as soon as possible after they have been removed, cleaned and bundled.  But despite what our foreman is saying, we just noticed there is a clause in the formwork specifications that states "All formed slabs must be reshored for 30 days". This seems to be a blanket requirement, since it does not distinguish between non-PT and PT slab construction. This is a public works job, and we want to understand the risks. How would you recommend we proceed? Answer:  Good question. This one is slightly complicated because the formwork engineer works for the formwork rental company, which you have not yet hired. One possible way forward, in this case, is to prepare and submit a pre-bid RFI.  Here's why. On most PT projects, the top-most PT concrete slabs do not require reshoring after the PT has been stressed.  (This is something that the formwork designer will have to confirm by calculation after inspecting the construction documents-- particularly the structural drawings--and Division 3 specifications).  The theory is that if the slab concrete can take the PT stressing loads, then--at that point--the slab is its own self-supporting structure, and shoring supports are no longer needed to support the slab. The clause in your specifications described above regarding the requirement for reshores to be placed under all slabs for 30 days is a conservative requirement-- likely based on non-PT slabs-- and probably appears in your specifications due to cut-and-paste by the design team from a previous project. This requirement does not consider the in-situ strength of the concrete--it is based purely on calendar days of shoring in place. The risk to you--both in terms of Safety and in terms of dollars--lies in proceeding with the bid without getting this clarified by the structural engineer. Suggest you submit a pre-bid RFI as follows:  "The project specifications require that all elevated slabs be reshored for 30 days after concrete placement.  Please confirm that this restriction does not apply to the 5th level PT slab." This way, if the engineer is going to enforce the 30-day rule for the upper-most PT slab, all bidders will be informed and can carry the "extra" rental costs to suit.  Another option is to ask the formwork rental bidders to prepare a base quote assuming the rental period ends about a week after the 5th level PT has been stressed as described above. Then ask the formwork rental company to include an "alternate add" line item in their price quote to keep the shoring in place for the extra time--approximately 3 weeks or so of rental. It would also be a good idea to remind your customer that--once you have removed the shoring from the topmost slab areas--dead load deflections and any construction loads placed on the slabs by follow-on trades are not your responsibility. Sayde Hindelang Tue, 17 Jun 2025 19:08:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:548 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/547/Potential-Tariff-Impacts-on-Material-Prices#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=547 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=547&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/547/Potential-Tariff-Impacts-on-Material-Prices Mike Hernandez, Technical Director The Slab Newsletter June 2025 ASCC contractors may need to revisit material prices considering recent tariffs, including the 50% tariff on steel announced last month. In the near term, rebar prices have been rising since January. From June 2–9, four major rebar manufacturers raised prices by $60/ton. If bids were submitted this spring and not yet awarded—or if a contract was just sent to your firm—it would be wise to double-check with your rebar fabricator to confirm whether their proposal remains accurate before executing a new contract. Members are reminded of ASCC Position Statement #45: Managing Concrete Projects: Concrete / Steel Price and Volatility Risks, which encourages referencing AIA A201-17 on this topic. It outlines various approaches, including requesting payment for stored materials. The position statement recommends that contractors consult legal counsel to develop or review contract language appropriate for their projects. One possible contract clause might read: “(Client/Contractor/Owner) acknowledges that material prices can fluctuate unexpectedly, and Subcontractor has no control over such material price fluctuations. The subcontractor shall order material quantities for the job and shall be paid for all materials stored for use on the job. Subcontractor shall store materials specifically identified for the job in a manner agreed to by (Client/Contractor/Owner), and all costs of storage shall be reimbursed to Subcontractor as a cost of the work. If Subcontractor material costs increase, then Subcontractor shall be entitled to a change order for these cost increases.” Now more than ever, it’s critical to read contract details carefully and negotiate reasonable terms. Concrete prices should remain mostly unchanged unless you’re ready mixed producer is using imported cement or slag. According to the USGS Mineral Industry Survey, about 20% of the cement used in the U.S. comes from international sources. There are currently nearly 90 cement plants in the U.S., and most are underutilized, either due to unexpected stoppages / down time or a lack of local demand. If your ready mixed producer is citing tariffs as a reason for price increases, it’s worth taking a closer look at what cement is being siloed at your local batch plant. Ready mixed producers know who supplies cement in their market, and there is likely a domestic plant or terminal nearby. If you need help understanding your local cement supply options, ASCC maintains a map of all U.S. cement plants and hundreds of rail terminals, complete with contact information. Google often struggles to distinguish between concrete contractors, ready mixed plants, and cement facilities. Email me at mhernandez@ascconline.org with your city, and I’ll help you better understand your domestic cement options. A substantial amount of formwork systems and overlaid formwork plywood are manufactured internationally. Tariffs likely won’t affect rental rates for existing inventory in the U.S., but it’s worth checking if your formwork supplier is not domestic. Economists have reported that the residential construction market is slowing, and home builders are major consumers of dimensional lumber. The National Association of Home Builders noted on June 6, 2025: “Softwood lumber prices have dropped 4.8% over the past month; however, they remain 12.2% higher than one year ago.” Most softwood lumber imports come from Canada, and as of this writing, the exact percentage of tariffs on Canadian lumber remains unresolved. The market for overlaid formwork plywood like MDO and HDO is more international than dimensional lumber, and trends in this niche market are harder to track. Bottom line: ASCC contractors need excellent communication with formwork, lumber, and plywood suppliers during this unstable time. Engineering News-Record reported last month that overall construction revenue for the Top 400 contractors rose 8% in 2024. However, many are seeing owners cancel or delay project starts “amid confusion over the America First policy,” and interest rates remain high. General contractors are likely seeking more bidders and engaging in more negotiation rounds to keep projects within budget. Know your walk-away number and your schedule. In short, material pricing is unpredictable. Keep communication lines open with clients, key material and equipment suppliers, and consider qualifying your bids with quoted unit prices for major materials. Know the relevant contract language. Where some see challenges, others see opportunity. Hope to see you next month in Carlsbad, CA at CELF. Sayde Hindelang Tue, 17 Jun 2025 19:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:547 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/546/May-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors39-in-a-Series#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=546 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=546&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/546/May-2025-Guidance-for-Concrete-Contractors39-in-a-Series Jim Klinger, Concrete Construction Specialist The Slab Newsletter May 2025 Question: We have been asked by the general contractor (GC) to place cementitious slurry backfill in a MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) trench containing a group of 2-inch diameter CPVC (chlorinated polyvinyl chloride) pipes. Our scope of work is to pump, place, and finish cementitious slurry to cover CPVC piping that has been excavated, furnished, and installed by others. The trench dimensions are 2.5 ft. wide, 4 ft. deep, and 130 ft. in length-- which translates roughly into a 49 CY (cubic yard) placement. The construction documents present the typical requirements for backfill at MEP trenches as follows: In addition to the above stated backfill requirements, the following review comments were extracted from the approved CPVC material submittal prepared by the MEP subcontractor and forwarded to us by the GC: "Contractor to submit backfill mixture that limits heat of hydration to less than 220 degrees F.  Submit records that document--during backfill and curing--that the temperature remains below 220 degrees F.  If temperatures reach or exceed 220 degrees F, piping must be removed and replaced". Following the above criteria, our readymix supplier prepared a mix design for submittal titled "2-Sack Sand Slurry" with the following per-cubic-yard proportions:  Type II/V cement: 188 pounds. Water: 517 pounds (62 gallons). Sand: 2803 pounds.  Total weight per cubic yard:  3508 pounds.  Unit weight:  130 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Slump: 5 inches, plus or minus 2 inches. No admixtures were specified or included. Unfortunately, our readymix supplier is unable to find on file any historical data (thermal or compressive strength performance) to furnish as backup for their 2-sack sand slurry mix. So we attempted--on our own--to find documentation that would help us predict the maximum heat of hydration for the proposed mix.  It turns out that the available concrete industry thermal formulas and models all seem to be based on mixes with much more cement content than ours; and with larger concrete member dimensions than ours. Put another way, it turns out that our proposed slurry mix is too lean-- and the trench is too small--to be considered "mass concrete"--and therefore cannot be considered as a realistic cause for concern. At this point, the questions then became:  "Given our cementitious slurry mix containing 188 pounds of Type II/V cement per cubic yard, what would the thermal performance likely to be during the first few days after initial placement of the slurry? How long will it take for the in-place slurry to attain maximum temperature after placement? After much research and in-house, jobsite trailer debate, we advised the project Owner that it is not possible for the proposed 2-sack slurry to reach a temperature of 220 degrees F during the curing period. In fact, we actually anticipate the curing temperatures to be well under 100 degrees F.  We are looking to the ASCC Hotline to take the temperature of this situation and weigh in. Answer: Interesting question. As concrete contractors, the Hotline doesn't field many questions like this, since backfilling of MEP trenches is typically performed by others before our members mobilize onsite and take ownership of the prepared building pad. Nevertheless, this scenario highlights risks associated with incidental concrete work that ASCC members may eventually be asked to take on. Consistent with the ASCC Hotline's long-standing M.O. (modus operandi), we typically recommend Hotline callers try to have a look at the other guy's playbook. After all, according to the CVPC pipe supplier's stated upper limit of 220 degrees F, the backfill slurry could be at the boiling point of water after placement and still be acceptable (water boils at 212 degrees F), with 8 degrees F to spare.   We began our playbook literature survey by reviewing a technical brief prepared by the PVC Pipe Association titled "PVC Pipe In Contact With Concrete" and dated 7 May 2021, which explains: "During the concrete curing process, heat is generated (known as "heat of hydration"). The vast majority of installations experience no issues with excessive heating.  If this is a concern, choosing concrete formulations with low heat of hydration is the most common solution.  Another option is to dissipate heat by filling the pipe with water (essentially creating a heat sink) until the concrete has cured."  A similar Technical Bulletin found in an industry pipe manufacturer's playbook  titled "Best Practices for Concrete Encasement of PVC and CPVC" addresses potential topics such as how to prevent flotation of PVC pipes during placement of concrete, why it is best to limit the maximum depth of cover over the pipes to 2 feet, and preventing damage that might be caused to the pipes by mechanical vibrators during slurry placement. Regarding potential thermal damage, the Technical Bulletin offers the following guidance: "During the curing process of the concrete, temperatures within the concrete may very well rise above the ambient temperature conditions.  Care should be taken to prevent the piping system from experiencing temperatures above 140 degrees F. Although the idea of blowing cold air through the piping system might achieve the required temperature control, another option is to consider filling the piping system with cold water. The cold water would act as a thermal heat sink." In the course of our literature review, we found an industry report describing potential heat of hydration issues associated with lightweight cellular concrete (LCC) used in certain backfill applications. A recent Portland Cement Association document (Guide to Lightweight Cellular Concrete for Geotechnical Applications, January 2021) reports the following: "LCC is comprised of portland cement, water, and air (added through a preformed foaming agent). The curing of cement is an exothermic reaction, commonly known as the heat of hydration.  This rapidly occurring chemical reaction has been known to generate temperatures above the boiling point of water.  Under normal conditions, the heat of hydration in an LCC fill begins two to four hours after placement...The heat of hydration can be a significant problem when placing plastic pipes within large masses of LCC undergoing curing and should always be considered when designing an LCC fill.  While an LCC fill will always warm up, placement with an open top will not obtain the maximum heat forecasted, which assumes no heat loss and represents the highest temperatures possible.  Internal temperatures in large flat fills typically range from 100 to 150 degrees F."  Based on the above, we can see why the CPVC pipe supplier would raise the issue of potential damage caused by cementitious heat of hydration. Next step: we have the approved mix design for the slurry in hand, but the readymix supplier lacks any historical temperature performance data for us to use as backup. Where do we go from here? Following the Hotline caller's lead, we searched the ASCC Technical Division library facilities for information that might help us predict (and monitor) the heat of hydration for a lean slurry backfill mixture. The closest information we could find was all related to American Concrete Institute (ACI) and other industry publications that discuss mass concrete and describe preparation of thermal plans typically required for projects featuring mass concrete. Out of all the documents and articles that we located, perhaps the best suited for our purposes is a PCA publication titled "Engineering Mass Concrete Structures", part of the Professional Development Series for continuing education. Authored by John Gajda and Ed Alsamsam, this 2006 publication offers the following guidance that explains one easy way to predict concrete temperatures: Based on the procedure described above, the ECC factor for the trench backfill turns out to be the same as the actual cement content, which--in our case--is 188 pounds per cubic yard. The predicted rise in temperature, then, is calculated by multiplying the ECC by 0.14 as described above--which results in a temperature rise of 26.32 degrees F (rounded down to 26 degrees F). The next step is to add the expected temperature rise to the temperature of the concrete as delivered.  If we assume the temperature of the slurry at delivery is 75 degrees F, then the maximum predicted temperature would be the sum of 26 plus 75, or a total of 101 degrees F-maximum. (N.B.: The ECC factor for "straight" cement is reckoned in the above PCA procedure on a 1-to-1 basis. Fly ashes and slag, on the other hand, contribute less to the heat generated by the mass, so their respective ECC factors are reduced to suit. The lowest ECC factor presented above is for Class "F" fly ash-at 0.5 percent-a pozzolan popular in concrete mixes that offer reduced short-term heat of hydration in exchange for slower, long-term time needed to reach design compressive strength. We have experience with at least one successful foundation mat slab mix featuring Class F fly ash that was designed to reach the required compressive strength at 120 days). Keep in mind that the PCA method presented above is valid for concrete with certain minimum dimensions and a certain minimum cement content per cubic yard. As reported by the Hotline caller and described above, the proposed slurry mixture is so lean--and the dimensions of the trench are so small--that we find ourselves outside of the extreme lower limits of what could reasonably be considered mass concrete. In any event, it seems fair to say that the 101-degree F temperature calculated above falls on the conservative side, and very close to the "well under 100 degrees F" temperature advertised by the Hotline caller to the project stakeholders. JOBSITE UPDATE: As scheduled, the slurry backfill was placed last weekend, with placement starting at 1:30 AM.  The slurry was placed with a trailer pump featuring 50 feet of rubber hose "system". Temperature sensors were placed in the slurry at three locations along the MEP trench; each sensor was located 4 inches below top of slurry elevation. According to the reports generated by each of the three sensors, the average slurry temperature at delivery was 61 degrees F. The average maximum temperature inside the slurry mass--at an average of 16 hours after placement-- was measured at an average of 76 degrees F. Using the PCA formula described above, and using a temperature at delivery of 61 degrees F, the result predicts a maximum temperature of almost 86 degrees F; which--given the lean mix and small sample size--a conservative answer is no surprise. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 19 May 2025 21:44:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:546 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/545/A-Culture-of-Quality#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=545 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=545&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/545/A-Culture-of-Quality Mike Hernandez, Technical Director The Voice Newsletter May 2025 Several weeks while attending the Annual Conference of the Design & Construction Excellence Exchange (The DCX) it hit me that ASCC Contractors should strive for a Culture of Quality like the Culture of Safety has been developed for the last few decades. Why? Let’s start with safety. Surprisingly, two ENR top 20 contractors in the DCX reported that their craft workers are 3x to 14x more likely to be injured performing quality rework than on first time base contract scope. They intently plan the base contract scope and all too often the craft are left to figure out rework. Beyond safety, quality issues also cost extra money, impact company reputation and often schedule, a quadruple whammy. One of the best tools are company and project specific Quality Plans & scope specific Work Plans. Kiewit & Archer Western in the transportation sector, PCL & Mortenson in buildings have work plans for specific elements of self-performed concrete work or they ask the concrete specialty contractor to generate them. Work plans break each scope, for example tilt panels, into a step-by-step procedure which ideally is one or two 11x17 pages with multiple appendix references for everything from construction chemicals to lifting equipment product data. Many contractors print them in English on one side, in Spanish on the other side. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the gold standard for training quality personnel on setting up and executing a quality plan. They focus on “distinguishable elements of work”. Those could be shear walls & columns, elevated decks. Or more general like placing & finishing. A 2019 survey of ASCC Members stated that quality challenges with drawing quality is among the biggest concerns among the membership. This is in part because experienced engineers are retiring, designers have less time and fee to put into proper coordination. BIM / VDC continues to gain market share as a solution to poor drawing quality. ASCC Members Pinnacle Infotech, Zenith BIM Services & MB Solutions, a subsidiary of GH Phipps can provide BIM/VDC support services. See websites: https://pinnacleinfotech.com/ ,  https://zenithbim.com/ , https://www.mbbimsolutions.com/ Many members have reported that sustainably has increased the level of difficulty of concrete operations. It is easier for engineers to skinny a structure by introducing more column sizes and more beam sizes because the software can handle it. Form work quantities and labor increase to save a few cubic feet of concrete. Lower clinker content can make placing & finishing more challenging. Simultaneously multiple companies market AI as a tool to lower over design in ready mixed concrete. Testing labs may exclude initial curing tanks causing low breaks to be more frequent.  Solutions? The ACI Pro Constructability Blueprint has been developed to help designers make their projects more productive. Establish a relationship with local cement and ready mixed technical staff. ASCC can help you figure out who that is. Purchase ready mixed concrete on quality & consistency instead of only on lowest price. Last month we highlighted the CRMCA CTAC program to help with testing lab consistency and meeting ASTM C31 initial curing standards. Placing concrete has a lot of inherent variability. Look for opportunities to create consistency for finishers by using the same mix proportions project to projects. Ask for feedback from finishers about what can be improved in those mixes. Give the place and finish team FF/FL feedback with your own E1155 device to increase consistency and reduce the risk of follow-on trade complaints. Formwork standard operating procedures will continue to increase in importance because of a shortage of skilled labor with highly experienced craft retiring. BIM coupled with virtual reality is one way to train on form work systems. ASCC Members Doka & Meva have libraries of BIM formwork components. Can go all in with virtual reality such as the “Build the Future” VR tech highlighted by ASCC in our 2025 World of Concrete booth.   The potential to save money, improve reputation, and work safer is all there in shifting to a culture that focuses on quality. Any company that makes this transition has a bright future. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 19 May 2025 21:40:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:545 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/538/Making-Safety-Personal-Mental-Health-and-Safety-Week-Unite-in-May#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=538 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=538&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/538/Making-Safety-Personal-Mental-Health-and-Safety-Week-Unite-in-May ASCCSAFE Spring 2025 “The Latest” By: Joe Whiteman, CSP, CHST, ASCC Director of Safety Services Each May, the construction industry shines a light on two critical initiatives: National Mental Health Awareness Month and Construction Safety Week (May 5–9, 2025). These efforts remind us that true jobsite safety must include not only physical protection but also mental and emotional well-being. This year, ASCC members have access to powerful tools to turn awareness into action — and we hope you’ll join us in making the most of both. CIASP’s Mental Health Awareness Month Initiative – S.T.A.N.D. At the forefront of this year’s Mental Health Month efforts is the Construction Industry Alliance for Suicide Prevention (CIASP), an organization I’m honored to serve as a Board Trustee. CIASP has released a comprehensive five-week Mental Health Toolkit built specifically for the construction industry. The initiative is structured around the theme S.T.A.N.D., with each week focused on a core action: S = STAND – Open the conversation and show visible support on the jobsite T = TRAINING – Equip team members to recognize and respond to mental health concerns A = AWARENESS – Share warning signs and accessible resources N = NORMALIZE – Reduce stigma through safe and honest communication D = DECREASE – Provide tools to manage stress and build resilience The toolkit includes: Toolbox talks and weekly guides Hardhat stickers, wallet cards, challenge coins Posters and social media content Planning checklists and customizable support materials Printed materials are available at no cost while supplies last — including CIASP/988 stickers and poker chips. To receive them before May, request your materials here: CIASP Mental Health Toolkit & Request Form Whether you roll out the full five-week plan or focus on one meaningful conversation, this initiative gives contractors a proven structure for supporting their teams — and reinforcing that mental health is a safety issue. And if you find value in these materials, I encourage you to support the mission behind them. CIASP is a nonprofit, and its resources, training tools, and outreach efforts are entirely made possible by the generosity of our industry. Donations of any amount make a difference. Construction Safety Week: Value Every Voice Running concurrently with Mental Health Awareness Month, Construction Safety Week takes place from May 5–9, 2025, under the unifying theme: “All In Together.” This campaign emphasizes that safety is a collective responsibility, requiring every individual's commitment to planning, ownership, and excellence.​ Each day of the week focuses on a specific aspect of safety culture:​ Monday, May 5 – Plan with Precision: Emphasizes the importance of meticulous planning in identifying potential hazards and implementing effective risk controls.​ Tuesday, May 6 – Identifying High Energy Hazards: Focuses on recognizing and mitigating high-risk energy sources, often referred to as "Stuff That Could Kill You" (STCKY), to prevent serious incidents.​Construction Safety Week Wednesday, May 7 – Own Your Part: Encourages personal responsibility in safety practices, highlighting the role each team member plays in maintaining a safe work environment.​ Thursday, May 8 – Engage and Empower Team Members: Promotes open communication and active participation, ensuring that all voices are heard and valued in safety discussions.​ Friday, May 9 – Commit to Excellence: Reinforces the commitment to executing tasks with precision and pride, fostering a culture of continuous improvement in safety.​ To support these daily themes, Construction Safety Week offers a variety of resources, including:​ Toolbox talks and discussion guides Printable posters and banners Multilingual materials Engaging videos and case studies​ All resources are available for free download at: Construction Safety Week Resources​Construction Safety Week By integrating these daily themes into your safety programs, you can reinforce a culture where every team member feels responsible for and empowered in maintaining a safe workplace. When combined with the CIASP Mental Health Toolkit, the two initiatives offer a powerful opportunity to talk about safety in a more holistic way. Safety Week provides the platform to address communication, trust, and team culture, while the CIASP campaign delivers practical tools for addressing mental health and suicide prevention head-on. Together, these efforts underscore a message ASCC has long championed: jobsite safety is not just about preventing physical injuries — it’s about creating a workplace where every worker feels seen, supported, and valued. Share Your Efforts, Inspire the Industry As you roll out these initiatives this May, we encourage ASCC members to document and share their participation. Whether you're hosting a CIASP-led toolbox talk, displaying Safety Week banners, or handing out hardhat stickers, post a photo on social media and tag ASCC so we can share your efforts with our members!. Sharing what you’re doing not only celebrates your company’s commitment, it helps other members learn from your example. These shared moments — whether on a jobsite or online — create the momentum we need to normalize these conversations industry-wide. Let’s show the industry that safety goes beyond PPE. It means protecting our people — physically, mentally, and emotionally. And it starts with standing together. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 12 May 2025 18:47:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:538 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/537/A-New-Era-for-ASCC-Safety-Awards#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=537 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=537&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/537/A-New-Era-for-ASCC-Safety-Awards ASCCSAFE- Spring Edition Director of Safety Services Message Joe Whiteman, CSP, CHST ASCC’s annual Safety Awards program has officially entered a new era — one focused not only on recognizing achievement, but on fostering a deeper culture of learning, leadership, and innovation across the concrete construction industry. With a new digital platform, updated award criteria, and two major program additions, the 2025 awards process has been reimagined to better reflect what safety excellence looks like today. At the core of this evolution is ASCC’s commitment to moving beyond traditional evaluation methods. While we will continue to honor member companies in our core categories — Recognition (for incident rates below the industry average), Improvement, Zero Lost Time, Fleet Safety and Outstanding Safety Performance — the program now places greater emphasis on culture, engagement, and proactive best practices. The aim is to create a more holistic picture of how safety is embedded throughout an organization. Our top honor, formerly known as the W. Burr Bennett Award for Safety Excellence, has been renamed the ASCC Vanguard Award for Concrete Safety Excellence. As in years past, this award remains by invitation only. Following initial submissions, a panel will invite select general and specialty contractors to move forward with a deeper review of their overall safety approach. The new submission platform provides an enhanced opportunity to demonstrate performance by including supporting materials — from images and documents to embedded video clips that bring a company’s values and leadership practices to life. One of the most exciting features of the new platform is the option to include video testimonials. These can be a powerful tool for showing how safety is embraced throughout an organization. Members are encouraged to capture authentic voices from across all levels — including field personnel, superintendents, project managers, and company leadership. Whether reflecting on what safety means to them personally, sharing their onboarding experience, or explaining why their approach stands out, these testimonials provide real insight into culture and commitment in a way written words often cannot. These video submissions will also play a role in enhancing the Safety Awards Ceremony at ASCC’s Annual Conference, the organization’s highest-attended event of the year. Featuring select clips during the ceremony allows ASCC to highlight award recipients in a dynamic and visual way — turning the ceremony into a larger platform for recognition and sharing. This not only elevates the work being done by member companies but also creates a powerful opportunity for others to see and learn from proven field practices, leadership philosophies, and cultural strategies. In addition to refining the submission process, ASCC has launched a brand-new category: the ASCC Safety Innovation Award. This award celebrates bold, forward-thinking efforts that challenge industry norms, improve jobsite safety and culture, and shape the future of our industry. Submissions may include innovations in training, mental health, equipment use, digital tools, or any impactful solution that leads to measurable improvements. Entries can be submitted in either written format (up to 2,000 words) or video (up to five minutes), depending on what best tells the story. New in 2025 — ASCC Associate Members are encouraged to submit for the Safety Innovation Award.- We recognize that our Associate Members often face unique safety challenges and work environments that may differ from dynamic construction job sites. Whether operating in manufacturing, fabrication, or more fixed settings, these members are still developing innovative safety practices that deserve to be shared and celebrated. Safety leadership can emerge from any setting, and we believe there's great value in showcasing how Associate Members are contributing to a safer industry overall. This is a powerful opportunity for Associate Members to highlight their own innovations, share lessons learned, and help inspire safety improvements across the entire ASCC community. To support the new process, ASCC has partnered with FactorLab to deliver a streamlined web-based submission experience through SmartTagIt. The mobile- and desktop-friendly platform makes it easier than ever to participate, allowing companies to attach media, provide narrative, and track their progress. Submissions for this year’s awards are due June 15, 2025. For those looking for guidance, a detailed walkthrough webinar — hosted by Teresa DeVore from FactorLab and ASCC Safety & Risk Management Council Director John Messing — is now available on the ASCC website. To view the archived session, log in and navigate to the Members tab, click Webinars, and scroll to the Safety section where it’s listed first. To access the platform, members will need login credentials for both the ASCC website and SmartTagIt. If you don’t yet have access, reach out to Sayde Hindelang at shindelang@ascconline.org, ASCC’s Membership and Administrative Coordinator. Sayde can assist you in getting both sets of credentials so you can begin the submission process without delay. Above all, this revamped program reflects ASCC’s longstanding belief that our members are our greatest resource. When companies share their efforts — whether through safety improvements, innovations, or cultural practices — they provide insight others can learn from. A key benefit of the new platform is anonymous benchmarking. Participants will be able to compare their performance against both fellow ASCC members and the broader construction industry. This not only offers a valuable internal assessment tool but also provides ASCC with aggregated data to demonstrate that its members truly are among the safest contractors in the industry. This benchmarking capability transforms the awards process into a strategic opportunity — helping members identify growth areas while reinforcing the collective strength and safety leadership of the ASCC community. Participation is the key to unlocking the full value of this effort. The more companies that submit, the richer the collective knowledge becomes. ASCC encourages all members — including Associates — to not only start their own submissions but also remind their peers to get involved. The ripple effect of more voices, more stories, and more innovations will elevate safety across the industry. So don’t wait. Log in, get your credentials, and begin your submission today. Let’s raise the bar together and make 2025 the year we collectively redefine what safety leadership and excellence look like in concrete construction. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 12 May 2025 18:41:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:537 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/536/Tilt-up-braces-and-Safety-Practices#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=536 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=536&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/536/Tilt-up-braces-and-Safety-Practices ASCCSAFE Spring Issue Safety Moment Lan Moody, Finish Safe General Manager Martin Concrete Ensuring safety during tilt-up operations is a top priority for construction contractors, particularly when handling large concrete panels and their critical bracing systems. Regular inspections should be integrated into daily routines, including thorough checks of braces for cracks or dents, brace assessments for structural integrity, and anchor reviews to confirm all connections are properly secured. Regular, scheduled maintenance and good recordkeeping prevent equipment breakdowns and keep crews safe while projects stay on track. Contractors also share responsibility for safety with their suppliers. To maintain accountability, it is advisable to request documented inspection processes from rental suppliers and challenge any gaps you identify. Recognizing suppliers who demonstrate a commitment to job site safety can further promote a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement. By maintaining rigorous inspection, prompt repairs, and open communication with suppliers, contractors can better protect their teams and maintain compliance with industry standards. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 12 May 2025 18:38:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:536 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/535/Hard-Hats-2-Helmets#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=535 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=535&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/535/Hard-Hats-2-Helmets Dean Kermicle, Director of Risk Management United Forming, Inc. Recently our company made the decision to fully make the transition from traditional hard hats to Type II Safety Helmets in 2025. Several things factored into this decision. First, is the increased level of protection that safety helmets provide to our employees. Second, is our involvement with the American Society of Concrete Contractors (ASCC) and their hard hats to helmets initiative. My participation in the ASCC Safety & Risk Management Council provided me with so much valuable information on the topic that I could bring back to further educate our organization. And finally, we are seeing more and more General Contractors that we are working for that are making safety helmets mandatory for all trades on their projects. Three (3) of our 5 regional area operating units had already made the transition, so it seemed like the logical time to take it companywide. Obviously there is a little more cost involved with safety helmets than with traditional hard hats that any financially responsible company has to budget for. Therefore, rather than stipulate a specific date for the total transition, we have mandated that safety helmets will be required on all new projects that start up in 2025. This approach will allow is the budget the costs as a line item into each new project. Currently we have decided on two different types of safety helmets to use in this transition. These include the PIP Traverse, and Milwaukee Bolt front brim safety helmets. Both models provide ventilation to address heat concerns and offer a variety of add-on attachments. If your company is considering making the transition to safety helmets or if you would just like additional information, please visit the Hard Hats To Helmets (H2H) website at www.hardhatstohelmets.org. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 12 May 2025 18:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:535 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/534/Tricks-of-the-Trade#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=534 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=534&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/534/Tricks-of-the-Trade ASCCSAFE Spring 2025 Ground-Level Rigging for Safer Column Form Handling Swing-lock column forms (such as those from Gates or Atlas) present two primary hazards during setting and stripping: the risk of falls when workers climb to attach or detach rigging, and the risk of tipping when forms aren’t properly secured. Recognizing these hazards, one crew implemented a smart solution: pre-attaching dedicated metal wire rope slings to the manufacturer-approved hoisting points at ground level using proper rigging practices and hardware such as shackles. The slings are purchased at a specific length, allowing the eyelets to hang low enough that they can be accessed from the ground or a secure platform when it’s time to hoist the column form into place or remove it after stripping. This eliminates the need to climb the column, significantly reducing both fall and tipping hazards. Additional benefits of this approach include: Durability: Metal cable slings are more resistant to the elements than synthetic slings, which can degrade from UV exposure or be damaged by concrete splatter. Inspection compliance: Select slings with metal tags stamped with manufacturer information, rather than nylon tags, which can tear or fade over time. Proper identification ensures slings can be inspected and maintained per OSHA and manufacturer requirements. Less equipment required: This method reduces the need for ladders or scissor lifts, freeing up space on tight decks and minimizing congestion around work areas. Fewer touchpoints, more efficiency: With rigging installed once and left in place, crews spend less time handling gear and more time placing forms safely and productively. This trick has proven to be a safer, cleaner, and more efficient way to handle column forms—one that improves workflow and minimizes exposure at every step. Have a “Trick of the Trade” that makes your job safer or more efficient? Share it with us! Contact Joseph Whiteman, Director of Safety Services with ASCC, at jwhiteman@ascconline.org to be featured in a future issue. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 12 May 2025 18:26:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:534 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/533/Dynamic-Digital-Tools-for-Safe-SRL-Use-and-Fall-Clearance-Calculations#Comments 0 https://ascconline.org/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=190&ModuleID=463&ArticleID=533 https://ascconline.org:443/DesktopModules/CM.NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=533&PortalID=3&TabID=190 https://ascconline.org/Home/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/533/Dynamic-Digital-Tools-for-Safe-SRL-Use-and-Fall-Clearance-Calculations One of the most critical calculations that must be performed on a job site is the amount of Fall Clearance a specific job application requires.  Fall Clearance is a highly variable combination of five primary factors: Free Fall; Maximum Arrest Distance; Harness Stretch, Safety Margin; and Swing Fall. Given the differing performance of fall protection connectors, be they fixed length or adjustable lanyards, or self-retracting lifelines - which pay out and retract webbing or cable (sometimes up to 100 ft. in length) - the job site Competent Person must ensure that the equipment chosen for the job at hand will perform as expected to prevent injury or loss of life. Having ready access to tools that can help the Competent Person or worker-at-height accurately calculate Fall Clearance or access other important technical information helps maintain regulatory compliance and ensures workers remain safe across the job sites. To assist fall protection professionals, Guardian has added a digitally enabled QR code to product labels. A quick scan with a mobile device directs users to the Guardian website  www.guardianfall.com where they will gain instant access to instruction manuals, test reports, technical data sheets, as well as an industry-leading, dynamic Fall Clearance Calculator that can be accessed from anywhere on the job site. Guardian’s web-based Fall Clearance Calculator is a free, open-access tool that works with Guardian self-retracting lifelines with 24”, 36”, 42” or 54” maximum fall arrest distances. Simply select your anchor point location (above or below dorsal D-ring), choose your SRL’s maximum arrest distance, then adjust the anchor height (above work surface), and worker offset values to match the job site. If your selected equipment is suitable for the application, you’ll receive visual confirmation (green means Go!) and the total fall clearance requirement including any specific swing fall amount for reference. If not, the tool will indicate that a leading-edge-capable device is required, or if the selected equipment and application are fully incompatible, the tool will indicate a red Unsafe condition. In the latter cases, you can adjust your anchor height and worker offset values and re-run the scenario to potentially relocate your anchor location to ensure compatibility. Information demands across job sites are at an all-time high, and the more manufacturers can do to put relevant information in the hands of decision makers when they need it, where they need it, the safer job sites will be. The online dynamic Fall Clearance Calculator is just one more example of how Guardian is making safe simple and accessible. Sayde Hindelang Mon, 12 May 2025 18:18:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:533