Structure 201101

A Jo

int P

ublic

atio

n of

NCS

EA |

CASE

| SE

I

S T R

U C

T U

R E®

January 2011 Concrete

Special Section: Anchors, Piers, Foundations and Underground Construction

cover Jan 2011.indd 1 12/20/2010 9:37:11 AM

Powers Fasteners, Inc.2 Powers LaneBrewster, NY10509www.powers.comP: (914) 235-6300F: (914) 576-6483

Drill the appropriate size hole.

Interested in learning more about Powers’Hollow Set Drop-Ins and to request aFREE sample, simply fax your request to

(914)576-6483

Attach the anchor to the settingtool and tap into predrilled hole.Turn the tool clockwise topre-expand the anchor. Unscrewthe setting tool and your anchoris set.

Put fixture in place and bolt in.Anchor has been set.

The Hollow Set Drop-In is specificallydesigned and engineered foranchoring in hollow base materialssuch as hollow concrete block, brickwith weep holes and precast hollowcore plank. It can also be used in solidbase materials, and is appropriate foroverhead applications.

Sleeve available in Zamac alloy.Cone available in carbon orstainless steel.

Zamac sleeve allows bettercorrosion resistance. Greatfor anchoring into thin wallbase materials.

Great ForAnchoring

In WallThicknessAs LittleAs 1”!

7/8* 3/8 530 1,575 105 315(22.2) (2.4) (7.1) (0.5) (1.4

1* 5/8 1,035 1,815 205 365(25.4) (4.7) (8.2) (0.9) (1.6

1* 5/8 1,225 2,485 245 495(25.4) (5.5) (11.2) (1.1) (2.21 1/4* 3/4 1,790 3,655 360 730

(31.8) (8.1) (16.4) (1.6) (3.31 1/2* 1 1,790 3,740 360 750

(38.1) (8.1) (16.8) (1.6) (3.4

Tension Shear Tension Shelbs. lbs. lbs. lbs(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN

1/4(6.4)5/16(7.9)3/8

(9.5)1/2

(12.7)5/8

(15.9)

Ultimate Load Allowable Load

1. Tabulated load values are applicable to anchors with carbon and stainless steel cones.2. Tabulated load values are for anchors installed in minimum 6-inch wide, minimum Grade N, Type II, lightweight, medium-w

or normal-weight concrete masonry units conforming to ASTM C 90. Mortar must be minimum Type N. Masonry cells maygrouted. Masonry compressive strength must be at the specified minimum at the time of installation (f'm ≥ 1,500 psi).

3. Allowable load capacities listed are calculated using and applied safety factor of 5.0. Consideration of safety factors of 20higher may be necessary depending upon the application such as life safety, and in sustained tensile loading applications.

*Anchors were installed with sleeve flush to face shell surface and with setting tool for hollow base materials.

DrillBit

Diameterdbitin.

MinimumEmbedment

Depthhvin.

(mm)

Rod/Anchor

Diameterd

in.(mm)

Ultimate and Allowable Load Capacities for Hollow-Set Dropinin Hollow Concrete Masonry1,2,3

f´m ≥ 1,500 psi (10.4 MPa)

POW1654_ad_2 12/9/10 11:44 AM Page 1

Blank.indd 1 12/9/2010 12:06:21 PM

Blank.indd 1 12/6/2010 4:05:34 PM

Make your connection to HALFEN.

Global connections from a global company.

Halfen Anchoring Systems · Meadow-Burke Products · 8521 F.M. · Road 1976 · Converse · TX 78109 · USA · Phone: 800 323 6896 · www.halfenusa.com

Easy installation

W hether you are designing

curtain wall connections for

an airport; connections for bridge

or tunnel services; or screening

connections for a parking structure;

HALFEN channels provide the

answers.

Easy use

HALFEN channels are available for casting

into concrete or use as framing. The fast

bolted connections allow easy adjustment,

and reduced installation time.

Better health and safety

When cast-into the concrete structure,

HALFEN channels are installed without

drilling or welding, and so avoid installer

hazards such as noise, dust, vibration,

hot surfaces and high voltages.

Superior performance

HALFEN cast-in channels off er safety and

reliability over the widest load range.

They are available in stainless steel and

high quality galvanized fi nish.

Individual support

For further information and technical

assistance make your own connection to

HALFEN today.

Worldwide: www.halfen.com

USA: www.halfenusa.com

Many advantages with one result: HALFEN provides safety, reliability and effi ciency for you and your customers.

HALFEN_ad_STRUCTUREmag_USA_3dez10.indd 1 03.12.2010 15:05:08

Blank.indd 1 12/3/2010 11:20:44 AM

CONTENTS

Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE® magazine does not constitute endorsementby NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole

responsibility for the content of their submissions.

FEATURES

COLUMNS

DEPARTMENTS

IN EVERY ISSUE

January 2011

300 New Jersey Avenue is a 10-story concrete o� ce building with an adjacent atrium and 6-story parking garage. It is the � rst commercial o� ce building designed and built in the United States by world renowned architectural � rm, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners. � e 300 New Jersey Avenue project was one of the 2010 NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering award winners. See the Spotlight article on page 51.

A Jo

int P

ublic

atio

n of

NCS

EA |

CASE

| SE

I

S T R

U C

T U

R E®

January 2011 Concrete

Special Section: Anchors, Piers, Foundations and Underground Construction

27

30

35 Special Section

Anchors, Piers, Foundations and Underground ConstructionBy Larry Kahaner

Although projects are not coming as plentiful as before the recession, foundation companies are seeing a slow but steady improvement in the pace of inquiries, bids and projects.

Shrinkage-Compensating Concrete in Post-Tensioned Buildings – Part 2By Kenneth B. Bondy, S.E.

Case studies of four projects which demonstrate the effective use of shrinkage-compensating concrete to mitigate restraint - to-shortening (RTS) cracking in post-tensioned concrete buildings.

South Tower of the Milwaukee City Hall – Part 2By Mark D. Webster, P.E., Gunjeet Juneja, P.E. and Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.

After the completion of the Part 1 investigation, the City of Milwaukee proceeded with design for the repairs of the South Tower. The City quickly established a goal for the repairs to last 100 years.

7 EditorialWhat Are Your New Year’s Resolutions?

By John A. Mercer, Jr., P.E., SECB

9 InFocusRemember the Hyatt

By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB

10 Building BlocksSteel or Synthetic Fiber Reinforcement?

By Pierre Rossi

12 Codes and StandardsACI 318 and Pile Stability

By Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. and C. Scott Branlund, P.E., S.E.

16 Structural PracticesBecoming a Results-Oriented Structural EngineerPart 1

By John P. Miller, P.E., S.E.18 InSights

Glazing Retrofi ts for Blast Mitigation

By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB, BSCP

22 Professional IssuesSustainability and the Structural Engineer

By Zak Kostura, M.Eng, EIT and Jennifer Pazdon, EIT

42 Historic StructuresCritical Skills for Structural Engineers Encountering Historic Structures

By Dr. Debra F. Laefer24 Structural Performance

Wood Pre-fabricated Shear Panels for Lateral Force Resistance

By Renee Strand, P.E.

44 Great AchievementsCharles Conrad Schneider

By Frank Griggs, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.

46 Product WatchSIPs Provide Green Building Benefi ts in Traditional and Cutting-Edge Designs

By Joe Pasma, P.E.

6 Advertiser Index50 Resource Guide

(Anchor Updates)50 Noteworthy52 NCSEA News54 SEI Structural Columns56 CASE in Point

ON THE COVER

48 Legal PerspectivesDispute Resolution Techniques

By David J. Hatem, PC and Jordan S. Rattray

51 SpotlightThe New DC: The Atrium at 300 New Jersey Avenue

By Azer Kehnemui, D. Sc., P.E., Hakan Onel P.E., S.E. and Rupa M. Patel

58 Structural ForumFor the Love of the Profession

By Robert H. Lyon, P.E.

Table o Contents-Jan11.indd 5 12/20/2010 9:38:18 AM

STRUCTURE magazine January 20116

Advertising Account MAnAger

Interactive Sales Associates

Chuck Minor Dick Railton Eastern Sales Western Sales 847-854-1666 951-587-2982

[email protected]

editoriAL stAFFExecutive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE [email protected]

Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E. [email protected]

Associate Editor Nikki Alger [email protected]

Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer [email protected]

Web Developer William Radig [email protected]

STRUCTURE®(Volume18,Number1).ISSN1536-4283.Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by theNational Council of Structural Engineers Associations andpublished incooperationwithCASEandSEImonthlybyC3Ink.ThepublicationisdistributedfreeofchargetomembersofNCSEA,CASEandSEI;thenon-membersubscriptionrateis$65/yrdomestic;$35/yrstudent;$125/yrforeign(includingCanada).Forchangeofaddressorduplicatecopies,contactyourmember organization(s). Any opinions expressed inSTRUCTUREmagazinearethoseoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofNCSEA,CASE,SEI,C3Ink,ortheSTRUCTUREEditorialBoard.

STRUCTURE®isaregisteredtrademarkofNationalCouncilofStructuralEngineersAssociations(NCSEA).Articlesmaynotbereproducedinwholeorinpartwithoutthewrittenpermissionofthepublisher.

www.ncsea.com

NationalCouncilofStructuralEngineersAssociations

C3Ink,Publishers

ADivisionofCopperCreekCompanies,Inc.148VineSt.,ReedsburgWI53959P-608-524-1397F-608-524-4432publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine

new trends, new techniques and current industry issueseditorialAdvertiser index PleAse suPPort these Advertisers

ChairJon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB

Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, [email protected]

Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECBCBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA

Richard Hess, S.E., SECBHess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA

Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA

Brian J. Leshko, P.E.HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

John A. Mercer, P.E.Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND

Brian W. MillerDavis, CA

editorial Board

Mike C. Mota, P.E.CRSI, Williamstown, NJ

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT

Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E.Dokken Engineering, Folsom, CA

Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA

Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA

John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA

Faculty Positions in Structural EngineeringThe Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences at the

University of Notre Dame (www.nd.edu/~cegeos/) invites applications for faculty positions to complement the existing Structural Engineering group. Qualified candidates at all levels will be considered with hiring rank and tenure status commensurate with academic accomplishments. Successful candidates must hold a doctoral degree in an appropriate field

and must demonstrate potential for high quality research and teaching. The department is seeking outstanding faculty members with a research focus on, but not limited to: bridge engineering and infrastructure systems, high-performance and sustainable civil structures, reliability and performance of structures under extreme loading, and foundation-structure interaction. Candidates for the positions should be qualified to teach civil engineering courses, with a strong commitment to teaching excellence at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Each successful faculty candidate is expected to develop and sustain an externally funded research program and publish in leading scholarly journals. Applications should be submitted online at www.nd.edu/~struct as a single PDF with cover letter, detailed CV, statements of research and teaching, and names and contact information for three references. Review of applications will start immediately and continue until the positions are filled. The University of Notre Dame is committed to diversity in education and employment, and women and members of underrepresented minority groups are strongly encouraged to apply.

Inquiries related to this search can be directed to [email protected].

AD

VERT

ISEM

ENT

– Fo

r Adv

ertis

er In

form

atio

n, v

isit w

ww

.str

uct

ure

mag

.org

AD

VERTISEMEN

T – For Advertiser Inform

ation, visit ww

w.stru

cturem

ag.org

The easiest to use software for calculating wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on these codes ($195.00).Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists ($100.00).Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).

Demos at: www.struware.comPE/SE License Seminars – Webcast – Nationwide/Worldwide

Guaranteed Pass or 1 year of free archives

SE Vertical, SE Lateral – 16 hourAlso – PE (Civil), PEME, PEEE (Power), PEEE (Computer), PEEE (Electr), PE (Env),

Surveying (FS, PS), PMP, Contracts and Legal, CA Seismic and CA Survey

IRVINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Ph: (949) 585-9137 www.irvine-institute.org

C.V. Chelapati, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE

Irvine Institute Of TechnologyC.V. Chelapati, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE

SE/PE License Seminars-Webcast-Nationwide/Worldwide- Guaranteed Pass or 1 year of free archives

SE Vertical, SE Lateral - 16 hourAlso – PE (Civil), PEME, PEEE (Power), PEEE (Computer), PEEE (Electr), PE

(Env), Surveying (FS, PS) PMP, Contracts and Legal, CA Seismic and CA Survey

www.irvine-institute.org Ph: 949-585-9137 for more information.

IIT advertisement.indd 1 11/8/2010 9:45:29 AM

I am committed to cleaning up my desk sometime in 2011. I cleaned it off sometime in 2010 and I was so proud. It lasted for a week or two, but it seems like one thing adds to another and here we are again, buried in paper, books, and magazines.

I’ve heard that a messy desk is a reflection of a creative mind. That gives me pause to consider whether or not I should even attempt to clean it. I can still find my pencils and pens, but where did I put that job file…?The only other issue that I am committed to is my continuing

education. I am signed up to try some of the webinar approaches to obtaining PDH’s, but I still look forward to traveling in February to a southern location to spend a few days where there isn’t any snow or ice. I also get to see some of you there as well. (I live in the beautiful state of North Dakota in case you were wondering.)I have a question for you. In your opinion, whose responsibility is

it to maintain your continuing education? Personally, I believe that it is every engineer’s responsibility, not their employer’s. “A carpenter without a hammer and saw doesn’t build much”. Some firms may offer a policy to participate in partial or even full reimbursement for continuing education expenses as a part of their benefits program.Past experience has taught me that anyone considering starting

their own firm should join ACEC and become a participating CASE member immediately. I joined ACEC for the insurance benefits when I started my firm, but didn’t participate in any of the conventions or other activities for the first 12 years of membership. I missed on many education opportunities, not counting the relationships and networking I’ve been able to establish with other engineers like your-self. I discovered the true value of my membership to be centered in my participation in ACEC and CASE.In the March 2008 STRUCTURE magazine Editorial, John

Grieshaber, P.E. discussed the issue of mandatory continuing education (MCE) requirements and listed states’ annual, biennial, or triennial PDH requirements to maintain licensing. At the time of its writing, 33 out of 55 registration boards required continuing education. How many of your registrations require continuing education?I encourage you to take advantage of the perfect storm currently

forming for CASE structural engineers to attend the CASE Winter Meeting, and leverage their travel expenses to stay on and attend the NCSEA Winter Institute to be held in Jacksonville, FL at the end of February 2011.Now is a perfect time for CASE member firms and new structural

engineering firm principals to make plans to attend both meetings. Get a bigger bang for your buck by attending the CASE Winter meeting and NCSEA Winter Institute, and receive PDH continuing education credits for the presentations you attend. Look for dates, times and accommodations information in other sections of this and future issues.Looking forward to 2011, a CASE Risk Management Convocation

will be held at the Structures Congress in Las Vegas in April 2011, Don’t Gamble on your Future. CASE will discuss the following topics:

Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 60CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 23DBM Contractors Inc. .......................... 35Fyfe Co. LLC ........................................ 29Geopier Foundation Company .............. 41Grip-Tite Manufacturing Co., LLC ....... 36Hayward Baker, Inc. .............................. 34ICC .................................................. 20-21Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. .... 49Irvine Institute of Technology .................. 6ITW Red Head ..................................... 19

KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 47MacLean-Dixie ..................................... 38Meadow Burke ........................................ 4Monotube ............................................. 37Mortar Net ............................................ 13NCEES ................................................... 8NCSEA/Kaplan Engineering Educ. ....... 15Pile Dynamics, Inc. ............................... 40Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2RISA Technologies ................................ 59SAS Stressteel ........................................ 38Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 25StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. ......................... 3Struware, Inc. .......................................... 6Subsurface Constructors, Inc. ................ 39University of Notre Dame ....................... 6W.R. Meadows, Inc ............................... 26

C-Editorial-Infocus-Jan11.indd 6 12/20/2010 9:40:29 AM

January 2011

Advertising Account MAnAger

Interactive Sales Associates

Chuck Minor Dick Railton Eastern Sales Western Sales 847-854-1666 951-587-2982

[email protected]

editoriAL stAFFExecutive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE [email protected]

Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E. [email protected]

Associate Editor Nikki Alger [email protected]

Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer [email protected]

Web Developer William Radig [email protected]

STRUCTURE®(Volume18,Number1).ISSN1536-4283.Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by theNational Council of Structural Engineers Associations andpublished incooperationwithCASEandSEImonthlybyC3Ink.ThepublicationisdistributedfreeofchargetomembersofNCSEA,CASEandSEI;thenon-membersubscriptionrateis$65/yrdomestic;$35/yrstudent;$125/yrforeign(includingCanada).Forchangeofaddressorduplicatecopies,contactyourmember organization(s). Any opinions expressed inSTRUCTUREmagazinearethoseoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofNCSEA,CASE,SEI,C3Ink,ortheSTRUCTUREEditorialBoard.

STRUCTURE®isaregisteredtrademarkofNationalCouncilofStructuralEngineersAssociations(NCSEA).Articlesmaynotbereproducedinwholeorinpartwithoutthewrittenpermissionofthepublisher.

www.ncsea.com

NationalCouncilofStructuralEngineersAssociations


new trends, new techniques and current industry issueseditorial AD

VERTISEMEN

T – For Advertiser Inform

ation, visit ww

w.stru

cturem

ag.org

The easiest to use software for calculating wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on these codes ($195.00).Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists ($100.00).Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).

Demos at: www.struware.com

STRUCTURALENGINEERINGINSTITUTEst

ruct

ure®

a m

embe

r be

nefi

t

What Are Your New Year’s Resolutions?By John A. Mercer, Jr., P.E., SECB

I am committed to cleaning up my desk sometime in 2011. I cleaned it off sometime in 2010 and I was so proud. It lasted for a week or two, but it seems like one thing adds to another and here we are again, buried in paper, books, and magazines.

I’ve heard that a messy desk is a reflection of a creative mind. That gives me pause to consider whether or not I should even attempt to clean it. I can still find my pencils and pens, but where did I put that job file…?The only other issue that I am committed to is my continuing

education. I am signed up to try some of the webinar approaches to obtaining PDH’s, but I still look forward to traveling in February to a southern location to spend a few days where there isn’t any snow or ice. I also get to see some of you there as well. (I live in the beautiful state of North Dakota in case you were wondering.)I have a question for you. In your opinion, whose responsibility is

it to maintain your continuing education? Personally, I believe that it is every engineer’s responsibility, not their employer’s. “A carpenter without a hammer and saw doesn’t build much”. Some firms may offer a policy to participate in partial or even full reimbursement for continuing education expenses as a part of their benefits program.Past experience has taught me that anyone considering starting

their own firm should join ACEC and become a participating CASE member immediately. I joined ACEC for the insurance benefits when I started my firm, but didn’t participate in any of the conventions or other activities for the first 12 years of membership. I missed on many education opportunities, not counting the relationships and networking I’ve been able to establish with other engineers like your-self. I discovered the true value of my membership to be centered in my participation in ACEC and CASE.In the March 2008 STRUCTURE magazine Editorial, John

Grieshaber, P.E. discussed the issue of mandatory continuing education (MCE) requirements and listed states’ annual, biennial, or triennial PDH requirements to maintain licensing. At the time of its writing, 33 out of 55 registration boards required continuing education. How many of your registrations require continuing education?I encourage you to take advantage of the perfect storm currently

forming for CASE structural engineers to attend the CASE Winter Meeting, and leverage their travel expenses to stay on and attend the NCSEA Winter Institute to be held in Jacksonville, FL at the end of February 2011.Now is a perfect time for CASE member firms and new structural

engineering firm principals to make plans to attend both meetings. Get a bigger bang for your buck by attending the CASE Winter meeting and NCSEA Winter Institute, and receive PDH continuing education credits for the presentations you attend. Look for dates, times and accommodations information in other sections of this and future issues.Looking forward to 2011, a CASE Risk Management Convocation

will be held at the Structures Congress in Las Vegas in April 2011, Don’t Gamble on your Future. CASE will discuss the following topics:

How Structural Engineers Can Work Effectively with Architects Who Use AIA C401

If your firm works as a sub-consultant to architects, examine CASE’s Commentary on AIA Document C401, the Standard Form of Agreement Between Architect and Consultant. AIA Contract Document C401 incorporates by reference AIA Contract Document B101, the Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect.The interplay between C401 and B101 cannot be over-emphasized.

Using C401 without understanding fully the interrelationships with B101 is a recipe for disaster. This presentation will cover how the engineer’s rights and obligations are impacted by these two agreements and CASE’s recommended provisions to include in your contract with the architect.

The Changing Face of Indemnity: Meaner and Uglier!

This program will present an overview of some recent California cases having received national attention, which could present potentially disastrous results for the engineering community. The program will conclude with a description of some legislative and practical efforts to defend against this unfortunate tide.

New Tools for Managing Risk and Project Implementation

The CASE Tool Kit Committee has developed a number of new tools that will be presented in this session. Developing a Culture of Quality provides a white paper and PowerPoint presentation used to engage firm leaders in a discussion about their firm culture and key aspects that contribute to quality.A new tool on staffing projections provides a method for firms to

project future revenues and staffing demands based on contract values and potential work.Managing Computer Software Use provides a white paper on key

aspects and responsibilities of the project manager and principal in charge relative to software use on projects.

Lessons Learned from Arbitration, Mediation and Litigation

A panel discussion will focus on applying lessons learned from the speakers’ involvement with arbitration, mediation and litigation. The speak-ers, who are a practicing structural engineer & arbitrator, an attorney specializing in construction law, and a professional liability insurance agent, will share some of their own lessons learned and anecdotes.So there you have it. My winter and

early spring schedule is set. How about yours? I will look forward to meeting you at one of our CASE meetings. Step forward and introduce yourself.▪


Blank.indd 1 12/3/2010 9:38:09 AM


new trends, new techniques and current industry issuesinFocus

A rallying cry often serves to unite people behind a particular cause, especially in a time of war. Texans urged each other to “Remember the Alamo!” During the Spanish-American War, it was “Remember the Maine!” For World War II, the

exhortation was to “Remember Pearl Harbor!” The objective in such cases was to highlight a particularly egregious offense committed by the enemy – often whatever it was that provoked the conflict in the first place.Structural engineers should remind each other of certain past events

for a different reason – we need to invoke occasions when our pre-decessors, our colleagues, and we ourselves have made mistakes, so that hopefully we can avoid similar errors in the future. One such case study is the collapse of the skywalks at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Kansas City, Missouri. This year will mark the 30th anniversary of the deadliest structural engineering failure in United States history, which happened on July 17, 1981.The details should be familiar to most of us already. The architect

wanted the walkways that traversed the main lobby to look as light and airy as possible, suspended by thin rods hanging down from the structural steel framing above. The preliminary drawings showed each rod supporting the end of a box member formed by welding two channels together at the flange tips. The fourth floor walkway was directly above the second floor walkway, and the rods were depicted as continuous, with nuts and washers at both levels.As the fast-track project proceeded, the fabricator notified the

engineering team that continuous rods would not be practical and suggested, as an alternative, providing two separate rods – one to hang the fourth floor from the roof, and the other to hang the second floor from the fourth floor. The engineers approved this modification, but never performed any calculations to verify its structural adequacy. They did not realize that this arrangement would double the bearing load from the upper rod’s nut and washer on the bottom of the box member at the fourth floor level.On that fateful Friday night, during a popular tea dance event, this

nut and washer pulled through the built-up box member, sending the second and fourth floor walkways crashing down to the floor below. The subsequent forensic investigation revealed that even the original connection was not adequate for the loads specified by the governing building code – a situation that was greatly exacerbated by the revised configuration, which was barely able to support just the weight of the walkways. Based on these findings, the structural engineers in responsible charge were stripped of their licenses by the Missouri board.What should “Remember the Hyatt” bring to mind? The most

important thing is that structural engineers have a uniquely significant responsibility to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Architectural, mechanical, and electrical system failures usually result in unattractiveness, poor functionality, discomfort, and/or inconvenience. A structural system failure almost always has more serious consequences; even in the best cases, there are often substantial costs associated with correcting what is or could become a life-threatening situation.

There is a more specific lesson to be learned as well. The fundamental mistake in the case of the Hyatt failure was the design of the skywalk hanger rod connections – or, rather, the fact that these connections were never truly designed at all. The engineering team did not take any steps to ascertain the load capacity of the conceptual arrange-ment, and then overlooked it again when the fabricator proposed changing it during submittal review. In what we do for a living, the devil really is in the details.What specific steps can we take to “Remember the Hyatt”? For one

thing, a non-profit organization, the Skywalk Memorial Foundation, is currently raising funds for a permanent memorial to honor the 114 people who perished and the 216 people who were injured by the collapse – many of whom were permanently disabled – and to recognize the emergency and medical personnel, firefighters, police officers, public servants, and others who bravely responded immedi-ately afterwards. The site is a small tract of land donated by the City of Kansas City in Hospital Hill Park, just east of the Hyatt facility itself.The preliminary design, prepared by local architect Lorie Bowman,

includes a series of concentric circles in an outdoor gathering space. The concrete plaza will have 114 LED pinlights in the inner circle and 216 pinlights in the next ring. The remaining bands of colored concrete will have hundreds of additional lights in a more dispersed formation, to represent the families, the rescue workers, and those who suffered psychological trauma as a result of the tragedy. The objective is to provide a place for quiet contemplation and small gatherings, with lots of colorful landscaping; to celebrate the lives, but remember the loss.I think that our profession would do well to take up this cause.

We are widely (and wrongly) perceived as mere number-crunchers, rather than front-line preservers of human life, liberty, and happiness. Creation of the Skywalk Memorial, with generous financial assistance from the nation’s structural engineering community, would highlight the crucial role that we play in modern society and the importance of taking further steps – like separate licensure – to reduce the likeli-hood of a similar disaster in the future. Please join me in supporting this worthy endeavor.▪

How to ContributeThe Skywalk Memorial Foundation needs roughly $400,000 to cover design and construction. This translates to only about $12 per recipient of STRUCTURE magazine. To make your tax-deductible donation, or to learn more about the project, please visit www.skywalkmemorial.org.

Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB ([email protected]) is an associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City, Missouri, and chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board.

Remember the HyattBy Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB


January 201110

updates and information on structural materials

Building Blocks

STRUCTURE magazine

A fter over 30 years of techni-cal research and development, engineering and construction professionals no longer consider

fiber reinforced concrete as exotic. This positive assessment is the result of several factors, including:

• Conclusive experience (especially for steel fiber concretes which have been used since the 1970s);

• Technical understanding of the materi-als (formulation, use, physical, chemical and mechanical properties, etc.);

• National and international recommen-dations on the sizing of the structures or structural elements made up of these materials.

ComparisonsThere are now two types of fiber available on the market: steel and synthetic fibers.

Unfortunately, when reviewing the available literature on these two types, certain approxi-mations are made and even errors can be found in the texts.

Our objective is not to call out these discrep-ancies but to offer some of the more objective elements regarding these fibers, so that users can make their own determinations. We have chosen not to make an exhaustive compara-tive analysis between suppliers, but rather to focus on two important problem areas where differences between the fibers can be found. The two problem areas are mechanical per-formance and durability.

Mechanical PerformanceIt is useful to remember the two main points about fiber reinforced concrete. Fiber rein-forced concrete is a composite material made up of a matrix – the concrete, and the rein-forcement (e.g. the fiber). In a fiber reinforced concrete, the fibers distribute the strain across the cracks created in the matrix. In the sim-plest analogy, fibers are only useful if cracks exist in the material. If the material does not present the potential for cracking, there would be no need for the addition of fiber. And, the potential for cracking makes concrete a prime candidate for the addition of fibers.When cracks occur, the mechanical proper-

ties of the fiber are important. The modulus of elasticity defines the rigidity of the fiber. The higher the modulus of elasticity of the fiber, the better it will control the cracks in terms of length and opening. And, it goes

without saying that the anchoring of the fibers is essential as well.Cracks appear at different times over the life

of the material, from the initial shrinkage up to advanced age. Although cracks result from shrinkage, creep and cyclic loading, the struc-tural (e.g. density) and mechanical characteristics (resistance in compression, Young modulus) of concrete, which develop progressively, also have an effect on crack development.

• During the first three hours after place-ment of the concrete, its resistance and Young modulus are very low: compres-sion resistance is lower than 3 MPa, traction resistance is below 0.3 MPa and Young modulus is below 5 GPa. If the concrete cracks during this period, loads to be taken by the fiber and the size of crack openings will be low.

• After 24 hours, the mechanical properties of the concrete increase considerably: compression resistance higher than 10 MPa, traction resistance is above 1 MPa and Young modulus is above 15 GPa. During this maturation period if the concrete is “pushed” again to crack, the load resisted by the fibers and the size of the crack widths will be more significant.

BehaviorSteel fibers have a high modulus of elasticity (200 GPz) and a high resistance in traction (between 800 and 2,500 MPa). At the very earliest age of the concrete matrix, small cracks may appear as the concrete shrinks. Also during this period, the fibers are not yet adequately anchored in the immature concrete matrix. As such, these steel fibers are not very effective

Steel or Synthetic Fiber Reinforcement?By Pierre Rossi

Pierre Rossi is the Research Director at the LCPC (Laboratoires Centrale des Ponts et Chaussées), Paris, France.

In industrial flooring, steel fibers are a proven and recognized solution. Already more than 1/3 square meters is reinforced with steel fibers.

Figure 1: Example of Dramix® steel fibers.

C-BuildingBlocks-Rossi-Jan11.indd 10 12/20/2010 9:41:50 AM

January 2011 STRUCTURE magazine January 201111

In industrial flooring, steel fibers are a proven and recognized solution. Already more than 1/3 square meters is reinforced with steel fibers.

against crack propagation. As the concrete ages, the effectiveness of the steel fibers increases and crack propagation decreases.The most common synthetic fibers used in

concrete mixtures are primarily polypropylene fibers. They have a low modulus of elastic-ity, varying between 3 and 5 GPa. Available polypropylene fibers are typically short in length and small in diameter.Recently, another type of synthetic fiber has

become available for structural applications – polymer fiber, also called macro-synthetic. In comparison to the polypropylene fibers, these macro-synthetics are larger in length and diameter, and have a higher modulus of elas-ticity (between 5 and 10 GPa, approximately).Two other types of synthetic fibers are also used

in concrete, but less frequently. These are polyvi-nyl alcohol (PVA) fibers and aramid fibers, with Young Modulus of 30 and 70 GPa respectively. These fibers are used in very high and ultra high performance fiber reinforced concretes.Polypropylene and other synthetic fibers

restrain plastic shrinkage during the first 24 hours after concrete is poured. This is primar-ily due to their low Young Modulus, making them very reactive to potential cracks. Indeed, slight displacements on the fibers as small crack openings begin generate sufficient loads to combat the propagation of cracks. Some types of polypropylene fibers are fibrillated and therefore anchor into the matrix very well, increasing their effectiveness.Conversely, as the concrete becomes more

mature, synthetic fibers become less effective. Indeed, because of their high elongation or “stretchiness” relative to their low Young modu-lus, synthetic fibers are able to undergo larger displacements as cracks widen. Therefore, in aged and cracked concrete structures with macro-synthetic fibers, cracks can be much wider than with steel fibers and the deforma-tion of these structures may be (too) significant.It is also important to consider mechani-

cal properties related to problems of creep with fibers. The creep of a material describes how it flows in the direction perpendicular in time under sustained strains. Steel fibers in strain in the concrete matrix do not creep, or hardly ever creep. However, creep associated with synthetic fibers is potentially significant. This may have negative effects. Indeed, one may encounter a situation where the concrete with synthetic fibers responds correctly to the specifications of the structure (mechanical stability, deformation, openings of cracks) but the creep of fibers (between cracks) makes the structure “sway” which is not acceptable with deformation (good use of the structure) and crack openings which become too significant (durability problems). Figure 1, taken from

the literature related to the product, illustrates this phenomenon. It presents a comparative study of the creep of pre-cracked girders with steel fibers and macro-synthetic fiber rein-forced concrete. This is only an illustration; the size of the creep depends on the initial opening of the cracks, which is not speci-fied here.

DurabilityApart from some aramid fibers, there is no durability problem associated with synthetic fibers in concrete. Corrosion of steel fibers may occur. Superficial corrosion of the fibers may cause discolorations on exposed surfaces. However, surface corrosion of the fibers does not affect the load carrying capacity of the structures of which it is comprised. This potential corrosion of steel fibers may be minimized in practice by:

• Optimizing the formulation of the fiber reinforced concrete;

• Using non steel frameworks or ones with an “internal skin” (synthetic tissue for example);

• Using galvanized fibers.The second aspect regarding the durability

of fiber reinforced concretes concerns the fire resistance of structures. Steel fibers are not a determining factor in the fire resistance of structures. What we can underscore is that a structure with fiber reinforced concrete behaves no worse in the presence of fire than a normal reinforced concrete structure.Conversely, some synthetic fibers, par-

ticularly polypropylene microfibers, have a significantly positive impact in a fire. This is due to a very simple phenomenon: in the case of a fire, polypropylene fibers disappear (they have reached their fusion point) to leave in place a significant network of fine canaliza-tions (capillaries) shared through the volume of the structure. These canalizations act as expansion vessels for the water vapor gener-ated under pressure by the fire (evaporation of the water present in the concrete).Additionally, the durability of the fiber

reinforced concrete structures is affected by the progression of time. A fiber reinforced concrete matrix must ensure a seal, e.g. pre-vent water infiltrations. As discussed above, the problem of creep with synthetic fibers increases over time. Because of this, the abil-ity of the synthetic fiber and concrete matrix to provide sealing properties to the structure may diminish with time. This problem is not encountered in steel fiber concrete matrixes.Finally, in the case of prefabricated portable

elements, or structures which may come into direct contact with users, safety problems may

arise when using steel fiber concretes. When the steel fibers have small diameters, less than approximately 0.25 mm, any protrusions at the surface may be “sharp” and cause injuries. And, regardless of size, one can never guaran-tee 100% that any steel fiber will not show on the surface of the structure. Designers should examine technical solutions to mitigate this problem. Protrusion of synthetic fibers does not present the same hazard level.

ConclusionsIn conclusion, the following is a brief synopsis of the pros and cons of various fiber additives.

• Steel fiber concretes do not perform in the early stages of the concrete matrix cure, but they are very effective for the cracking in concrete structures which have reached maturity.

• Polypropylene micro fiber concretes are effective in young age cracking (plastic shrinkage).

• Macro-synthetic fibers in concrete are technically less significant than steel fiber concretes in relatively stressed structures, due to varying abilities to maintain certain functions over time;

• Polypropylene microfibers can improve the fire resistance of con-crete structures;

• Care is needed regarding portable structures or surfaces in contact with users when they contain micro steel fibers. These micro steel fibers can cause cuts if no technical solution is adopted.

There are pros and cons to both synthetic and steel fibers; in some cases the two fibers have been combined, which is not as strange as you may have thought.▪

Description of the pictures1. 2. 3. Pouring the foundation of a house in steel fiber concrete.4. Concrete cracks by shrinkage or loads. Adding steel fibers not only works on temperature and shrinkage control, but increases the load bearing capacity.5. Example of synthetic fibers used in protection against fire.6. Creep test–only steel fibers have a creep control and as such strength on age.7. Immediate reinforcement with steel fiber concrete planned according to EN standards.8. 9. 10. Steel fibers are used more and more in heavy structural structures. Caution–using identical rules/criteria as for non-structural macro synthetic fibers would be a mistake.

Steel fibers are increasingly used in arches, partially or completely replacing steel armatures. Introducing polypropylene microfibers into the composition of the fiber reinforced concrete reduces the risks of scaling. The combination of steel fibers and polypropylene microfibers is therefore an optimum solution.

Example of macro synthetic fibers.

This article is a translation of Pierre Rossi’s papers published in Béton Magazine,

March 2009.

C-BuildingBlocks-Rossi-Jan11.indd 11 12/20/2010 9:41:55 AM

January 201112

updates and discussions related to codes and standards

Codes and standards

STRUCTURE magazine

W hen learning reinforced con-crete and structural steel design as an undergraduate in college, one might begin

to think that unlike the potential for local and global buckling that might occur for struc-tural steel elements,

concrete accommodates compression very well. While mostly true, concrete piles used for piers and wharfs may be the exception, at least where global instability is concerned. This article reviews slenderness effects for con-crete compression elements needed for the pile design, and the apparent direction of future codes. It is possible provision changes in ACI 318 may compromise a critical provi-sion for structures similar to wharfs and piers that may be susceptible to overall instability.Typically, wharfs run parallel and are often

connected to the shoreline and piers are ori-ented perpendicular to the shoreline. Both types of structures can have pile lengths varying dramatically over their width and/or length. Because the mudline typically slopes near the shore and then remains fairly flat over a consid-erable distance away from shore, piers generally have far longer piles as a percentage of the total pile count compared to wharfs. However, pile design for wharfs and piers involves one of the more slender concrete compression elements faced by the structural engineer, particularly when the structure must accommodate ships with deep drafts where required water depths along the face needs to be 50 feet or more. While slenderness must be considered for both piers and wharfs, piers are more susceptible to overall pile instability and will thus be the primary focus of this discussion.Because of their economy and availability,

solid 24-inch octagonal prestressed concrete piles are used for many major waterfront

structures along the west coast of the United States. When used in a deep water pier, pile lengths near the shore can be 40 to 50 feet long from the soffit of the pier deck to an assumed point of fixity below the mudline, resulting in an average slenderness ratio of l/r = 85 for the 24-inch octagonal pile section. Piles farthest from shore can often support decks in water as deep as 50 feet or more, resulting in a pile slenderness of l/r = 175 or greater between soffit to point of fixity for the typical octagonal pile section.Piles supporting a pier may be installed in

a plumb (vertical) or battered configuration. In the high seismic region of the west coast, plumb piles are typically preferred, where resistance to lateral loads is due exclusively to flexural resistance of the pile at the top and bottom. Consequently, the effective length factor must be larger than k=1, and generally a value of k=1.2 is used as a minimum assuming a pile length with good fixity at the pier deck and good knowledge of the location of fixity of the pile below mudline. When considering that the average length of a pile for a long pier can be over 65 feet long, the pier is effectively a 5- to 6-story building with virtually all of its mass at the roof.To accommodate a wide variety of present and

future demands, owners are more frequently requiring piers and wharfs to be designed to accommodate substantial live load, in the range of 600 to 1,000 pounds per square foot. The large gravity load requirements and long slen-der piles in flexural resistance coalesce into a fairly extreme stability demand on the piles. Design standards, such as the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures by the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7-05 and others, typically specify the require-ments of the 2005 edition of the Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete by the American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-05.

ACI 318 and Pile Stability

By Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. and C. Scott Branlund, P.E., S.E.

Stephen P. Schneider Ph.D., P.E., S.E. is a Project Manager and helps with the technical aspects on a variety of projects at BergerABAM. Steve can be reached at [email protected].

Scott Branlund, P.E., S.E. is a Senior Project Manager/Diver in the Waterfront division and has been with BergerABAM for 27 years. Responsible for the design and QA/QC on numerous pier and wharf projects, Scott also leads dive teams on underwater inspection of piles after constructed. Scott can be reached at [email protected].

Three-dimensional schematic showing a typical container wharf and an example of highly variable pile lengths. Water is cut away to show slenderness of waterside piles, often having a length of 60 feet or more from deck level to the mudline below. Piers would be oriented normal to the shoreline with many long piles being needed to support the pier deck.

Blok-Flash®

Tough, lightweight, embeddable Blok-Flash® flashing system delivers the surest, most cost effective control of moisture and mold growth in exterior single-wythe CMU wall systems.

Simply insert “with Insect Barrier” into Mortar Net specs.

Call today for more information

and samples.

See our complete line of Masonry Moisture Control Products, including HouseNet®, BlockNet®, Stone&StuccoDrain & Weep Vents

TotalFlash®

·EVERY Moisture control element built into each lightweight, easy to install panel.·Everything arrives in one order. Just open the carton and start installing.·Available in sizes for new construction, restoration, renovation and remediation.

C-CodesStand-Schneider-Jan11.indd 12 12/20/2010 9:43:09 AM


The design of slender elements such as these and the method in which elastic buckling is considered in the ACI provisions may not necessarily be apparent. This article summarizes our understanding of the current design philosophy of ACI 318-05 Chapter 10.10 “Slenderness Effects in Compression Elements” and, more importantly, our understanding of the future provisions in ACI 318-08.In general, the ACI 318 provisions for slender column design address

column instability exclusively by the moment magnification method. The 1989 ACI suggests that this is “similar to the procedure used as part of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) specifica-tions.” However, there are some distinct differences in the way each code accommodates instability that may not be apparent by casual inspection. In structural steel, the column demand is intended to be amplified for the P-δ and P-∆ effects (slenderness along the element chord and slenderness due to frame sway), in all cases. In addition, the column compressive capacity is limited by either elastic Euler buckling or by the inelastic behavior of the column considering residual stresses. In contrast, the capacity of a long concrete column is the same as the short column capacity (the axial load-moment P-M interaction surface for the cross section) and is therefore not reduced for Euler buckling directly. For long concrete columns, slenderness is accommodated by the moment magnification method in which the moments are amplified depending on if the applied loads induce sway or no sway on the structural system. The general form of this moment amplification is:

δMs = ( ) Ms Equation 1

where δ is the moment amplification factor and Ms is the moment on the column induced by loads producing sway of the structural

system. Non-sway moments, Mns, are amplified by a similar method with associated factors needed for the P-δ effect. ACI 318-05 allows amplified moments, δMs, to be computed by one of three methods:

a) A second-order elastic frame analysis, often called a P-∆ analysis.

b) Use of the approximation Q = ΣP∆/ΣVh , where ΣP is the sum of all of the gravity loads in the story, ∆ is the story drift, ΣV is the total story shear and h is the story height. Q is termed the “stability coefficient” by other codes such as ASCE 7-05, Chapter12.8.7.

c.) Substituting Q with the ratio of ΣPu/ 0.75ΣPc where ΣPu is the sum of the factored gravity loads in a story, ΣPc is the sum of the critical buckling loads for all columns in the story and 0.75 is a stiffness reduction factor, φk.

Regardless of which method above is used in computing the ampli-fied moments, it is important that the stiffness is reduced for the

11 – Q

Section of wharf showing the dramatic variation in pile lengths.

Blok-Flash®

Tough, lightweight, embeddable Blok-Flash® flashing system delivers the surest, most cost effective control of moisture and mold growth in exterior single-wythe CMU wall systems.

Simply insert “with Insect Barrier” into Mortar Net specs.

Call today for more information

and samples.

See our complete line of Masonry Moisture Control Products, including HouseNet®, BlockNet®, Stone&StuccoDrain & Weep Vents

TotalFlash®

·EVERY Moisture control element built into each lightweight, easy to install panel.·Everything arrives in one order. Just open the carton and start installing.·Available in sizes for new construction, restoration, renovation and remediation.

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org



cracked moment of inertia and for creep under sustained loads. These conditions effectively reduce the Euler buckling load to the critical buckling load, Pc, of a concrete column.While the moment magnifier method is

intended to account for slenderness and ultimately elastic buckling, it is clearly more effective when applied loads, such as wind and seismic, induce large column end moments. A structure that has large axial loads, such as a pier loaded by large grav-ity loads only, may not necessarily induce large column moments and therefore may be subject to only the minimum required eccentricity of the axial load. Because the concrete column capac-ity is not reduced directly by the elastic Euler buckling, and the P-δ magnification would not necessarily amplify the small bending moments induced by gravity loads beyond the minimum eccentric moment, column capacities supporting large gravity loads may not be reduced properly for Euler buckling.One set of provisions that are particularly applicable to this situation

are found in Chapter 10.13.6 of ACI 318-05. Ironically, these require-ments are within the moment magnification for sway section of the column slenderness provisions of ACI 318-05; however, heavy gravity loads only do not necessarily cause large second-order moments in the sway case, even in a long pier with highly variable pile lengths. Per Section 10.11.4, if applied loads do not cause second order moments greater than 5%, only the nonsway moment magnification provisions of Chapter 10.12 must be considered and there is no need to use provisions of Chapter 10.13. Although not codified, it is intended that a lateral deformation is induced on the structural system, or a “unit load” imposed, to determine if the second-order effects are larger than 5%. So if performed properly, heavy gravity loads in sidesway frames would most likely induce second-order effects larger than 5% which would ultimately lead to the overall frame stability provisions.The provisions of ACI 318-05 Chapter 10.13.6 are particularly

applicable to piers and wharfs, since these structures inevitably have variable pile lengths and can be susceptible to large axial loads. With the variable pile lengths, it could be argued that a single pile cannot buckle individually. Thus, even though all piles might be plumb piles which would qualify it as a sway frame having an effective length factor of k=1.2 minimum, if an individual column cannot buckle indepen-dently the effective length can be assumed more consistent with a nonsway frame column, or k<=1. Thus, the pier is only susceptible to instability if all columns are on the verge of buckling, or if enough columns are on the verge of buckling and there is insufficient lateral restraint by the piles not near Euler buckling to prevent global instabil-ity. Consequently, determining if the sum of all columns are close to Euler buckling is the appropriate method to determine if a structure with dramatically different pile (column) lengths is near instability.The provisions of ACI 318-05 Chapter 10.13.6 require the amplifica-

tion of δMs for Methods a. and c. to be less than 2.5 and the Q value in Method b. to be less than 0.6 (which effectively makes it consistent with Methods a. and c.). The understanding of this provision is prob-ably best illustrated by resolving the requirement in Method c. to:

ΣPu = 0.6 * 0.75 * ΣPc = 0.6 * φk * ΣPc Equation 2

where Pc is in effect the Euler buckling capacity reduced for cracked sectional properties and creep. This requirement is comparable to the elastic buckling portion of the AISC steel column capacity require-ments Pu < φc 0.877 Pe.

When the provisions of Methods a., b. and c. are plotted for applied axial load vs. the amplification factor, the curve becomes asymptotic to the buckling capacity as predicted by each method. The predicted asymptotic value, without reduction for cracked moment of inertia and creep, is an indicator of how well that provision predicts the Euler buckling capacity. Method a. becomes asymptotic at Euler buckling provided the second-order analytical model is performed properly. Method b. provides the least accurate estimate for elastic buckling, actually overestimating Euler buckling by 1.22 times for the end restrained sway case for plumb piles in piers and wharfs. Method c. results in a value 0.75 times Euler buckling because of the stiffness reduction value, φk, included in the denominator. Consequently, the method chosen in analysis may have significant consequences on the true estimate of instability of the structure.Noticing this scatter in the stability estimates from ACI 318-05, it

is of interest to compare how the new provisions of the code, ACI 318-08, accommodated this global instability requirement. As has been the case with many concrete code cycles, the slenderness provi-sions for concrete columns changed. Instead of the global stability provisions being embedded within the Magnified Moments – Sway Frame of ACI 318-05, the ACI 318-08 has lumped this into a single general provision of Chapter 10.10.2.1. This provision states that the demand on the structure from second-order effects cannot exceed 1.4 times the linear elastic demand on the system. With this reduction in the limit of second-order effects, the commentary of ACI 318-08 suggests it is no longer necessary to retain the ACI 318-05 Chapter 10.13.6 global instability provisions.However, we also understand that the ACI column committee is

considering adopting the requirement of Chapter 10.10.2.1 of ACI 318-08 as a seismic condition only. It is possible this provision was always intended to be a seismic requirement since the commentary for this section also compares it to the ASCE7-05 Chapter 12.8.7 that is strictly a seismic criterion. In addition, pier and wharf structures are often designed to Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS), which also has a limitation on second-order effects for seismic behavior and is nearly identical to ASCE7-05.Consequently, another provision to limit the amount of P-∆ influence

on the seismic behavior of the structural system is not really needed by the ACI 318 provisions, at least for most structures using ACI as a reference code for concrete. Plumb piles on a wharf or pier design is perhaps one of the more slender elements experienced in the design of many types of structural systems. A consistent, effective and accurate methodology to prevent the instability of the piles is needed. If the current ACI 318-08 Chapter 10.10.2.1 becomes limited to a seismic provision, the global stability provision of ACI 318-05 Chapter 10.13.6 should be reinstated and should be revised so that regardless of the method used, the predicted overall stability capacity of the structure is consistent.▪

Elevation of wharf showing pile slenderness.


Structural Exam with confidEncE!

PassPassPassPassPassPass thE

Prepare for exam day success with this new course designed by the National

Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), Kaplan Engineering

Education, and leading structural engineers from across the industry.

The exam will undergo significant changes in April 2011, making it

even more challenging. Be prepared with our online exam review course!

Structural Engineering Exam Live Online Review Course

• Virtual, synchronous review course delivered via Stream 57 Technology

• 24 hours of Instructor-Led seminars over multiple sessions

• New material for the new 16-hour Structural PE exam

• Includes a Kaplan Engineering Learning System (a $194.95 value)

Live Online Course Dates: January 29–30 - Vertical Forces Review February 12–13 - Lateral Forces Review

Course Fee: $1199 | Modules Also Available Individually: $749

REgiStER tODay! 1-800-420-1432 www.kaplanaecengineering.com/livereview

Featured instructors:Donald R. Scott, S.E. Force Distribution / Wind

Jennifer Butler, P.E. Analysis Methods

Joe Miller, Ph.D., P.E. Wood (Vertical & Lateral), Light Gage

John Lommler, Ph.D., P.E. Foundations / Retaining Structures (Vertical & Lateral)

Lawrence Novak, S.E., FaCi, LEED® aP BD+C Concrete

Rafael Sabelli, S.E. Structural Steel (Vertical & Lateral)

Ravi Kanitkar, S.E. Concrete

Susan M. Frey, P.E., S.E. Masonry (Vertical & Lateral)

timothy W. Mays, Ph.D., P.E. Format of Exam, Lateral Forces, Force Distribution / Seismic, General (Lateral)

For more information please contact: Lauren Comstock1-317-319-8681 | [email protected]

Visit www.kaplanaecengineering.com/LiveReview for a complete course syllabus and instructor biographies.

Blank.indd 1 12/15/2010 10:04:46 AM

January 201116

practical knowledge beyond the textbook

Structural PracticeS

Becoming a Results-Oriented Structural Engineer

Part 1: Technical Skills

By John P. Miller, P.E., S.E.

John P. Miller, P.E., S.E. is a Principal with KPFF Consulting Engineers, St. Louis, MO. He may be contacted at [email protected].

STRUCTURE magazine

As newly minted structural engi-neers, we were all eager to get settled in with our employer and get to work crunching numbers

and working on projects. This is great – every firm needs fresh young talent for many reasons. Most young engineers tend to be task-oriented, whose metrics might include: How many hours did I work this week? Was my day filled with productive work? Did I complete my assignment on time? Was the input data on my structural model correct? Did I learn something new today?As younger engineers grow and become

more experienced in their field, some will be interested in maturing into something other than task-oriented engineers. Many firms have in-house training and mentoring programs that help younger engineers transi-tion into becoming results-oriented engineers. For results-oriented engineers, it matters less

how many hours they work than what results are achieved from that work. Measurable results might include new

clients, profit, revenue, problem solving, good risk management, creative solutions, and whether a client is happy with your work.This is a two-part article that identifies and

describes sixteen key skill sets that engineers in a structural engineering practice should have in order to achieve results and make significant contributions to the firm. These skill sets follow two broad themes; techni-cal and management. Part One covers the technical theme.Each skill set starts with a set of questions to

help you assess your overall maturity level for that particular shell. These are followed by sug-gested ways to improve within each skill set.

Familiarity with All Structural Project Types and Materials

Are you familiar with all of the project types that your firm normally works on? How many of these have you actually worked on? Are you familiar with all of the usual structural mate-rials, like reinforced masonry and concrete, structural steel, light gage, post-tensioning, stick-framed wood and timber, engineered lumber, etc.? Are you familiar with all of the normal structural systems, like flat plates, pan slabs, pre-engineered metal building systems, composite steel, metal deck, steel joists and joist girders, retaining walls, etc.? Are you familiar with customary lateral force resisting systems like shearwalls, Eccentrically Braced Frames (EBF), Special Concentrically Braced

Frames (SCBF), Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF), chords and collectors, etc? Are you familiar with various foundation sys-tems and ground improvement techniques?

Improvement Tasks• Review drawings of other project types

that you have not worked on• Ask questions• Make it known that you would like

to work on a certain building type or structural material that interests you or that you are not very experienced with

• Educate yourself by reading books, trade magazines, engineering journals, etc.

• Take classes and attend seminars• Join a professional organization• Be curious about other people’s projects

and discuss them together, even if you are not associated with that project

• Review drawings for projects pre-pared by other engineering firms whenever possible to see how other firms do things

Ability to Simplify a ProblemDo you know how to bracket a problem? How precise of an answer is required on a particular problem? Can you look at a prob-lem and reduce it down to its simplest form? Can you recognize where a detailed analysis is required and where an approximate solu-tion is good enough? How efficiently do you spend your time?

Improvement Tasks• Learn to run quick hand calculations to

check your work• Know the answer by approximate meth-

ods before you model it in the computer• When an exact answer is not required

or achievable, simplify• Learn to work fast and efficiently• Know when to use software and when

NOT to use software• Use rules of thumb and short cuts

whenever it makes sense

Completeness and Thoroughness of Drawings

How well are your drawings coordinated with other disciplines? Is there a “perfect” set of documents? How well do the general notes and specifications agree with the draw-ings? How well organized are your plans and details? How clear are your structural draw-ings to the end user? Do you know who the end users are? How complete is the informa-tion on your drawings and specifications? Will this project be reviewed by an outside party and does that affect the level of completeness?

C-StrucPract-Miller-Jan11.indd 16 12/20/2010 9:44:57 AM


Improvement Tasks• A set of drawings that goes to the

Principal for final review should represent the best possible and most complete effort on your part

• Make sure the general notes, specifica-tions and drawings always agree

• Make sure your drawings follow common drafting rules and office standards

• Make sure drawings are well organized and appropriate for the project

• Discuss the drawing organization at the start of the project

• Determine if the project size or com-plexity warrants the need to over-do a set of drawings

• Read the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Code of Standard Practice and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Detailing Manual

• Review the drawings for constructability

Technical SkillsAre you conversant with all the computer software available in your office? How is your knowledge of Building Code requirements? Do you have a good understanding of struc-tural analysis and design techniques? Are you familiar with all the various material codes? Do you have a detailed understanding of the basis for seismic loads, wind loads, snow loads, etc.? How much experience do you have with geotechnical issues? Are you familiar with all the various framing systems? Do you have a good inventory of rules of thumb?

Improvement Tasks• Read and learn the International

Building Code (IBC), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) codes and other similar building codes

• Be familiar with all material codes (AISC, ACI, National Wood Products Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel Deck institute, Steel Joint Institute, etc.)

• Be familiar with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)

• Learn about Factory Mutual (FM) requirements and Underwriters Labs (UL) assembly ratings

• When you review a geotechnical report, you should have an intimate understanding of all geotechnical aspects of the site. Read the geotechni-cal report AT LEAST three times

• Become familiar with all available structural engineering software in the office – go through the software guide and practice every program or go through every tutorial

• Take a class or two in areas in which you are weak or inexperienced

Writing SkillsAre you able to clearly and succinctly express a thought or technical concept in writing? Are your paragraphs and sentences grammati-cally correct? Is your writing professional and liability free? Are you as careful with emails as you are with other types of correspondence?

Improvement Tasks• Read The Business Writer’s Handbook

(St. Martins Press) or Handbook of Technical Writing (St. Martins Press) or similar books on how to write

• Practice writing as often as you can• Write correspondence and reports in

third person active voice• Read Design Professional Insurance

Corporation’s (DPIC) Lessons in Liability booklet to understand the problem with words like “all”, “final”, “inspect”, “certify”, “best”, “worst” and scores of others.

• Read everything you write AT LEAST three times before you send it out to catch grammatical and syntax errors. Then read it again from the perspective of a lawyer, and then again from the perspective of the intended recipient.

• Try using the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) instead of MS Word’s thesaurus

Quality and Organization of Calculations

Are your calculations neat and orderly, easy to follow, complete, and correct? Why do you perform calculations? Do you dive into the detailed beam design first thing on a proj-ect? Does your level of effort change if you know your calculations will be reviewed by an outside party? Do the calculations help the contractor? Should you save calculations after the project is constructed?

Improvement Tasks• Organize calculations into sections

such as foundations, floor framing, lateral analysis, etc.

• It is helpful to have a calculations index on larger projects

• Develop a written design criteria document tailored for each project so that you and all other engineers on the project work with the same parameters

• Imagine someone who did not work on the project having to read and under-stand your thought process by reading your calculations

• Cite conclusions in the calculations and indicate any assumptions made

• Cite references when appropriate• Pay special attention to organization

and completeness when you know the project will be reviewed out-of-house

• Remember that, although most building departments require struc-tural calculations to be submitted for building permit, they are not part of the construction documents and are only used as a guide to assist in making engineering decisions

• Consider purging your files of the calculations when a job is complete as a part of your records retention policy

Desire to Learn New ThingsDo you embrace new software? Do you view

Building Information Modeling (BIM) as a hindrance or an advantage? Do you want to work with new materials and building types? Do you want to learn how the consulting business operates? Are you open to new structural systems? What are your thoughts on Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and Design/Build (D/B) delivery?

Improvement Tasks• Do not be afraid to use new software• Take a class or two and go to seminars

– continue your education• Ask to review the office or company

financials with one of the principals• Take a leading role in the implementa-

tion of BIM in your office• Become an expert in emerging technol-

ogy or techniquesYou may find it surprising that many

of the architects, contractors, and build-ing owners who hire structural engineers don’t always know, or care, whether we’re technically superior compared to the next engineer or another firm. They may take it for granted that all structural engineers have a similar level of technical ability. Having a command of the technical aspects of our profession is certainly essential and basic, but many of the consumers of our services value other skill sets, like our ability to make good decisions, our ability to take ownership, whether we embrace BIM and IPD, and our capability to understand a project from their point of view. In Part Two, we will explore a broad set of man-agement skills that should be mastered to round out your ability to make a significant contribution to the success of your firm and achieve results.▪

C-StrucPract-Miller-Jan11.indd 17 12/20/2010 9:44:57 AM

January 201118

new trends, new techniques and current industry issues

InSIghtS

STRUCTURE magazine

Glass

Outside Inside

Section ViewNo Scale

Frame

Anti-ShatterFilm (applied toexposed glassonly)

Film not held in frame,glass breaks herealong entire frameedge

Catcher Bar Attached to Wall

Wall

Window Frame

Glass with Anti-Shatter Film onInside Surface

Elevation ViewNo Scale

Glass

Outside Inside


Frame

Anti-ShatterFilm

Film anchoring deviceattached to frame

Film extended ontoframe surface

When an explosion occurs near a populated building, flying fragments from broken windows and glazed doors

cause the vast majority of non-fatal injuries. Conventional annealed or heat strengthened glass shatters into relatively large, jagged shards that can produce multiple lacerations on anyone unfortunate enough to be sitting or standing nearby when the shock wave arrives. Tempered glass tends to break into smaller “rock salt” fragments, but these are then propelled at high velocity into the room.Laminated glass offers much better perfor-

mance and is the preferred solution for new construction. An adhered interlayer of poly-vinyl-butyral (PVB) is sandwiched between two panes of annealed or heat strengthened glass. When subjected to airblast effects, the PVB holds the glass together, even if it cracks, and stretches out considerably in response

to the overpressure. However, proper replacement of exist-ing glazing systems with laminated glass can be a difficult

and expensive proposition, often requiring replacement or reinforcement of framing members and connections as well.A popular alternative is to apply a polyester

fragment retention film (FRF) to the interior surface of the glass, which performs much like the PVB interlayer in laminated glass. The four most common retrofit configurations are as follows.

Daylight-Applied FRF – The simplest, least intrusive and least expensive way to reduce the fragment hazard from glazing is to apply FRF only to the exposed interior surface of the glass (Figure 1). A thickness of 4 to 7 mils is usually

sufficient, and there is virtually no impact on appearance or functionality. However, the perimeter of the pane remains vulnerable to shear failure in a blast event, such that the entire sheet of filmed glass could be blown out of its frame and into the building, posing a risk of blunt force trauma. Furthermore, in an insulating glass unit (IGU), only the inboard lite is filmed, so it is still possible for fragments from the outboard lite to pose a hazard to occupants.

FRF Plus Catcher Bar – One way to improve the protection provided by daylight-applied FRF is to install a rigid bar across the filmed glass, on the interior, either horizontally or vertically (Figure 2). In a blast event, the FRF will hold the glass together, and if it shears off around the perimeter, the pane will wrap around the catcher bar and slap together – likely dislodging a few fragments. Substantial anchorage is required at both ends of the rod, which protrudes into the room and may be an impediment if the window is intended to be operable. Thicker FRF – typically 7 to 11 mils – is required, and for an IGU, frag-ments from the outboard lite will be largely unimpeded.

FRF Plus Net Curtain – Another enhance-ment for daylight-applied FRF is to install a polyester curtain that is hung from a rod above the filmed glass, on the interior, and has weights sewn into it at the bottom, where excess material is housed in a box (Figure 3). Once again, in a blast event, the FRF will hold the glass together; in this case, if it shears off around the perimeter, the net curtain will catch the entire pane and drop it to the floor. Substantial anchorage to the wall is required for both the rod and the box, and

Figure 1: Daylight-applied FRF.

Figure 2: FRF Plus Catcher Bar.

Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB, BSCP ([email protected]), is an associate structural engineer and the Director of Antiterrorism Services at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City, Missouri. He is vice-chair of the SEI Codes & Standards Committee on Blast Protection of Buildings.

By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB, BSCP

Glazing Retrofits for Blast Mitigation

C-InSights-Schmidt-Jan11.indd 18 12/20/2010 9:46:21 AM


Curtain Rod Attached to Wall

Wall

Window Frame

Net Curtain

Glass with Anti-Shatter Film onInside Surface

Curtain Box Attachedto Wall (holds excesscurtain and weightedcurtain edge) Elevation View

No Scale

Glass

Outside Inside


Frame

Anti-ShatterFilm

Film anchoring deviceattached to frame

Film extended ontoframe surface

AD

VERTISEMEN

T - For Advertiser Inform

ation, visit ww

w.STRU

CTUREm

ag.org

the curtain must be removed and washed regularly – hopefully not on a day when an explosion occurs!

Attached FRF – Th e most eff ective tech-nique using FRF involves fastening it to the frame around the glass along either two opposite sides or all four sides (Figure 4). Needless to say, it is also the most complex, most intrusive and most expen-sive option, requiring thicker FRF – 7 mils minimum – as well as mechanical attachment or the application of a struc-tural silicone sealant. As with laminated glass, it may be necessary to replace or reinforce the framing members and con-nections in order to ensure that the entire assembly is not dislodged from the wall in a blast event.

Figure 3: FRF Plus Net Curtain.

Figure 4: Attached FRF.

One thing that all retrofi ts using FRF have in common is the limited service life of the fi lm itself – typically about 10 years. When evalu-ating replacement vs. retrofi t, it is important to keep this life-cycle cost consideration in mind. A somewhat larger up-front investment in laminated glass may pay off by eliminating the need for removal and replacement of FRF in the future.▪

AcknowledgmentMuch of the information in this article and

all of the accompanying fi gures are taken from the Window Analysis Guide, published by the US Army Corps of Engineers Protective Design Center (pdc.usace.army.mil) as part of the Help fi le for its Window Fragment Hazard Level Analysis (HazL) software.

C-InSights-Schmidt-Jan11.indd 19 12/20/2010 9:46:22 AM

ICC and NCSEA––Partners in Building SafetyIntroducing the NCSEA Affi liate BookstoreAs part of ICC’s continued partnership with NCSEA, and in appreciation for your shared commitment to building safety, we are happy to offer 10–20% off the list price on select codes, standards, and structural references. These items will assist you with the important life-saving work you do every day.

2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE®

Publisher: ICCIncludes bonus downloads. (704 pages)#3000S09 List $111 | NCSEA Affiliate $88.80

2009 IBC: CODE AND COMMENTARYPublisher: ICCRead expert commentary printed after each code section. Understand code intent and improve application.2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 1 (CHAPTERS 1–15)

#3010S091* List $114 | NCSEA Affiliate $91.20

2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 2 (CHAPTERS 16–35)


2009 IBC HANDBOOK: STRUCTURAL PROVISIONSAuthors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., and John Henry, P.E.Discusses IBC Chapters 16–23 using 200+ color fi gures to clarify application and intent. A bonus CD contains the complete Handbook and many helpful structural references. (681 pages)#4001S09* List $95 | NCSEA Affiliate $76

2009 IBC CHECKLIST™: STRUCTURAL PROVISIONSEditor: Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O.The most comprehensive structural plan check book available! Go step-by-step through the 2009 IBC structural requirements to ensure compliance. Bonus CD contains lists in PDF and editable RTF fi les. (375 pages)#4008S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20

STRUCTURAL LOAD DETERMINATION: UNDER 2009 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCEPacked with fl owcharts, load diagrams and illustrated design examples solved in a step-by-step fashion. (380 pages)#4034S09* List $65 | NCSEA Affiliate $52

DESIGN OF LOW-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS: BASED ON THE 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05, ACI 318-08Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCEA straightforward approach helps engineers analyze, design and detail low-rise cast-in-place reinforced concrete buildings. (384 pages)#7034S09 List $79 | NCSEA Affiliate $63.20

GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF OUT-OF-PLANE WALL ANCHORAGE: BASED ON THE 2006/2009 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05Author: Timothy W. Mays, Ph.D., P.E.Loaded with example problems, this unique guide is the solution to out-of-plane wall anchorage analysis. (175 pages)#7043S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20

A GUIDE TO THE 2009 IRC® WOOD WALL BRACING PROVISIONSFrom: APA and ICCLearn correct application of the lateral bracing requirements of the 2009 IRC––one of the most common sources of confusion and misapplication. Includes 200 color tables and fi gures. (255 pages)#7102S09* List $41 | NCSEA Affiliate $32.80

PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN: EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT STEEL STRUCTURESAuthors: Subhash C. Goel and Shih-Ho Chao Filled with examples, formulas, tables, and drawings. (280 pages)#7032S List $98 | NCSEA Affiliate $78.40

SEISMIC DESIGN USING STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS: 2006 IBC, 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Jaehong Kim, and Farhad H. Shad Effective answers to many common questions. (204 pages)#9183S09 List $54.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $43.96

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE WIND LOAD PROVISIONS OF ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDEAuthor: T. Eric Stafford, P.E.Each update is explained in straightforward language. (160 pages)#9591S10 List $73 | NCSEA Affiliate $58.40

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE SEISMIC LOAD PROVISIONS OF ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDEAuthors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., Susan Dowty, P.E., Prabuddha Dasgupta, Ph.D., P.E.Provides brief summary of updates, diagrams and examples. (192 pages)#9590S10 List $83 | NCSEA Affiliate $66.40

GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGMS, CHORDS AND COLLECTORS: BASED ON THE 2006 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05 #7042S06 List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20

2006 IBC STRUCTURAL Q&A#4003S06 List $45 | NCSEA Affiliate $36

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: IN THEORY AND PRACTICEAuthor: Alan Williams, Ph.D., S.E., C. Eng.A comprehensive reference fi lled with equations, calculations, and modeling instructions. It covers classic methods of analysis and recent advances in computer applications. (624 pages) #9320S List $89.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $80.96

REINFORCED MASONRY ENGINEERING HANDBOOK: CLAY AND CONCRETE MASONRY, 6TH EDITIONPublisher: MIAEliminates repetitious calculations and offers detailed explanations, hundreds of drawings and 70+ step-by-step examples. (648 pages)#9346S6 List $99.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $89.96

ASCE/SEI 7-05: MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES#9002S05 List $125 | NCSEA Affiliate $112.50


2005 NDS WOOD DESIGN SPECIFICATION PACKAGE#9542S List $150 | NCSEA Affiliate $135

TMS 402-08/ACI 530-08/ASCE 5-08#9026S08 List $100 | NCSEA Affiliate $135

ANSI/AF&PA SDPWS-08: 2008 SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC STANDARD#9580S08 List $50 | NCSEA Affiliate $45

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE IBC®, 2009Authors: Doug Thornburg, AIA, and John Henry, P.E.Comprehensive, practical analysis of critical changes between the 2006 and 2009 IBC. Hundreds of color fi gures (365 pages)#7024S09 List $42.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $36.51

MASONRY STRUCTURAL DESIGNAuthor: Richard E. KlingnerComplete guide to masonry materials and structural design using the 2009 IBC and 2008 MSJC. (588 pages)#9355S List $118 | NCSEA Affiliate $100.30

DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES ASD/LRFD, SIXTH EDITIONAuthors: Donald Breyer, Kenneth Fridley, Kelly Cobeen, David Pollock, Jr. The fi eld’s leading text demonstrates all necessary steps and techniques, provides practical design examples. (1,025 pages)#9047S6 List $79.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $67.96

AISC 325-05: STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, 13TH ED.#9206S05 List $350 | NCSEA Affiliate $297.50

and select CODE MASTERS

START SAVING TODAY! 1-800-786-4452 | www.iccsafe.org/ncsea

People Helping People Build a Safer World™

10%10% offoff

20% offoff

15%15% offoff10-04029

SAVE

10-20% at www.iccsafe.org/NCSEA

To get your discount, enter Promotional Code: NCSEA

in your shopping cart.

*Also available in PDF Download.

10-04029_Structure_ad_Jan2011_FINAL.indd 1 12/2/2010 3:10:43 PM

Blank.indd 1 12/3/2010 11:31:09 AM

ICC and NCSEA––Partners in Building SafetyIntroducing the NCSEA Affi liate BookstoreAs part of ICC’s continued partnership with NCSEA, and in appreciation for your shared commitment to building safety, we are happy to offer 10–20% off the list price on select codes, standards, and structural references. These items will assist you with the important life-saving work you do every day.

2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE®

Publisher: ICCIncludes bonus downloads. (704 pages)#3000S09 List $111 | NCSEA Affiliate $88.80

2009 IBC: CODE AND COMMENTARYPublisher: ICCRead expert commentary printed after each code section. Understand code intent and improve application.2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 1 (CHAPTERS 1–15)


2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 2 (CHAPTERS 16–35)


2009 IBC HANDBOOK: STRUCTURAL PROVISIONSAuthors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., and John Henry, P.E.Discusses IBC Chapters 16–23 using 200+ color fi gures to clarify application and intent. A bonus CD contains the complete Handbook and many helpful structural references. (681 pages)#4001S09* List $95 | NCSEA Affiliate $76

2009 IBC CHECKLIST™: STRUCTURAL PROVISIONSEditor: Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O.The most comprehensive structural plan check book available! Go step-by-step through the 2009 IBC structural requirements to ensure compliance. Bonus CD contains lists in PDF and editable RTF fi les. (375 pages)#4008S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20

STRUCTURAL LOAD DETERMINATION: UNDER 2009 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCEPacked with fl owcharts, load diagrams and illustrated design examples solved in a step-by-step fashion. (380 pages)#4034S09* List $65 | NCSEA Affiliate $52

DESIGN OF LOW-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS: BASED ON THE 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05, ACI 318-08Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCEA straightforward approach helps engineers analyze, design and detail low-rise cast-in-place reinforced concrete buildings. (384 pages)#7034S09 List $79 | NCSEA Affiliate $63.20

GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF OUT-OF-PLANE WALL ANCHORAGE: BASED ON THE 2006/2009 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05Author: Timothy W. Mays, Ph.D., P.E.Loaded with example problems, this unique guide is the solution to out-of-plane wall anchorage analysis. (175 pages)#7043S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20

A GUIDE TO THE 2009 IRC® WOOD WALL BRACING PROVISIONSFrom: APA and ICCLearn correct application of the lateral bracing requirements of the 2009 IRC––one of the most common sources of confusion and misapplication. Includes 200 color tables and fi gures. (255 pages)#7102S09* List $41 | NCSEA Affiliate $32.80

PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN: EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT STEEL STRUCTURESAuthors: Subhash C. Goel and Shih-Ho Chao Filled with examples, formulas, tables, and drawings. (280 pages)#7032S List $98 | NCSEA Affiliate $78.40

SEISMIC DESIGN USING STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS: 2006 IBC, 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Jaehong Kim, and Farhad H. Shad Effective answers to many common questions. (204 pages)#9183S09 List $54.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $43.96

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE WIND LOAD PROVISIONS OF ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDEAuthor: T. Eric Stafford, P.E.Each update is explained in straightforward language. (160 pages)#9591S10 List $73 | NCSEA Affiliate $58.40

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE SEISMIC LOAD PROVISIONS OF ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDEAuthors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., Susan Dowty, P.E., Prabuddha Dasgupta, Ph.D., P.E.Provides brief summary of updates, diagrams and examples. (192 pages)#9590S10 List $83 | NCSEA Affiliate $66.40

GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGMS, CHORDS AND COLLECTORS: BASED ON THE 2006 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05 #7042S06 List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20

2006 IBC STRUCTURAL Q&A#4003S06 List $45 | NCSEA Affiliate $36

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: IN THEORY AND PRACTICEAuthor: Alan Williams, Ph.D., S.E., C. Eng.A comprehensive reference fi lled with equations, calculations, and modeling instructions. It covers classic methods of analysis and recent advances in computer applications. (624 pages) #9320S List $89.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $80.96

REINFORCED MASONRY ENGINEERING HANDBOOK: CLAY AND CONCRETE MASONRY, 6TH EDITIONPublisher: MIAEliminates repetitious calculations and offers detailed explanations, hundreds of drawings and 70+ step-by-step examples. (648 pages)#9346S6 List $99.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $89.96



2005 NDS WOOD DESIGN SPECIFICATION PACKAGE#9542S List $150 | NCSEA Affiliate $135

TMS 402-08/ACI 530-08/ASCE 5-08#9026S08 List $100 | NCSEA Affiliate $135

ANSI/AF&PA SDPWS-08: 2008 SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC STANDARD#9580S08 List $50 | NCSEA Affiliate $45

SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE IBC®, 2009Authors: Doug Thornburg, AIA, and John Henry, P.E.Comprehensive, practical analysis of critical changes between the 2006 and 2009 IBC. Hundreds of color fi gures (365 pages)#7024S09 List $42.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $36.51

MASONRY STRUCTURAL DESIGNAuthor: Richard E. KlingnerComplete guide to masonry materials and structural design using the 2009 IBC and 2008 MSJC. (588 pages)#9355S List $118 | NCSEA Affiliate $100.30

DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES ASD/LRFD, SIXTH EDITIONAuthors: Donald Breyer, Kenneth Fridley, Kelly Cobeen, David Pollock, Jr. The fi eld’s leading text demonstrates all necessary steps and techniques, provides practical design examples. (1,025 pages)#9047S6 List $79.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $67.96

AISC 325-05: STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, 13TH ED.#9206S05 List $350 | NCSEA Affiliate $297.50

and select CODE MASTERS

START SAVING TODAY! 1-800-786-4452 | www.iccsafe.org/ncsea

People Helping People Build a Safer World™

10%10% offoff

20% offoff

15%15% offoff10-04029

SAVE

10-20% at www.iccsafe.org/NCSEA

To get your discount, enter Promotional Code: NCSEA

in your shopping cart.

*Also available in PDF Download.

10-04029_Structure_ad_Jan2011_FINAL.indd 1 12/2/2010 3:10:43 PM

Blank.indd 2 12/3/2010 11:31:35 AM

January 201122

issues affecting the structural engineering profession

PROFESSIONAL ISSUES

STRUCTURE magazine

Every single player in the design and execution of the built environment plays a major role in the sustain-ability of our future. � e process of

creating a green building by today’s standards requires the input and cooperation of every professional on the design team. � e process beckons for a form of leadership equipped with the capability to envision and realize a rational end product amongst an ocean of competing objectives. It could be argued that, as structural engineers, we are the best out� tted among consultants to take the lead in this respect. By doing so, our e� orts would at once drive the evolution of modern sus-tainable design and the enhancement of the structural engineering profession.� ere are indisputable truths worth noting.

In the United States and around the world, more available resources go into creat-

ing buildings than any other manmade enterprise in exis-tence today. These resources – manifested as energy, raw materi-

als, and available land for both the building itself and the waste generated – are largely non-renewable. As builders, our collectively unchecked consumptiveness continues to negate the positive impact our industry may otherwise have on modern society.It is also an unassailable fact that the face

of contemporary building design and con-struction is changing. Design teams face ever greater motivation to consider and address the impact their work will have on the world around them. � e annual number of new cer-ti� ed green building projects and accredited sustainable designers continues to increase dramatically. Every year, more clients demand sustainability in the design of their projects throughout the country and, in turn, they face impressive public support for their business practices in the form of real estate sales and press coverage.Beyond these established realities, there is

much uncertainty. � e very de� nition of a “green building” remains elusive and the criteria for certi� cation by prominent orga-nizations remains fundamentally � awed. It has been shown time and again that building green is marketing gold, but how much of our e� ort in promoting sustainability stems from our humanitarian sense of social respon-sibility? Even for the engineers, architects, consultants and builders who have accepted the concept of sustainable design with open arms, it remains to be fully decided how these

principles will ultimately settle upon profes-sional � elds that are themselves in a constant state of � ux.

SymbiosisEnter the structural engineer. With extensive technical training and an a� nity for interpret-ing complex systems, structural engineers have the capacity to preserve and enhance the principles behind modern sustainable design. By harnessing these principles, the structural engineering industry could in turn reap tremendous symbiotic opportunities to enhance their role in the design process and the quality of the end product.Commonly accepted and often implemented

tactics of the sustainable-minded structural engineer center on responsible materials selec-tion. Recycled and low energy materials, as well as locally produced sources, are the most apparent contributions a structural engineer can make to the “greenness” of a project. Because they are easily quanti� able, these additions are recognized by current metric standards such as LEED. However, this is far from the end of the contributions to be made. Structural engineers can lead a project toward enhanced sustainability by doing what they commonly do: take a proactive role at the design table and facilitate solutions to prob-lems requiring a multidisciplinary approach.An enhanced building feature, whether it

serves to bene� t the structure’s mechanical e� ciency, energy consumption or recycled content often requires the cooperation of numerous constituencies across varied building trades. It is the nature of the design process that enhancements in one area may lead to added complications in others. When a building feature is considered non-essential (as many modern-day green building fea-tures often are), such a complication is often solved quickly through exclusion. Vigilance is required to realize any complex design approach that is not strictly required by the client’s scope. By taking an assertive role in facilitating collaboration across disciplines,

Sustainability and the Structural Engineer

A Dialectic of the Structural Engineer’s Role in Sustainable Building Practice

By Zak Kostura, M.Eng, EIT, LEED AP and Jennifer Pazdon, EIT, MSE

Zak Kostura is a practicing structural engineer with Arup. Mr. Kostura also currently serves as editorial advisor for several industry-related publications. He is an adjunct professor within the Graduate School for Architecture, Planning and Preservation at Columbia University. Zak may be reached at [email protected].

Jennifer Anna Pazdon is a structural engineer at Robert Silman Associates. She is the acting Programs Chair for SEAoNY and a contributing author for the ASCE SEI Sustainability Committee’s 2010 publication: “Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural Engineer”. Jennifer may be reached at [email protected].

C-ProfesIssues-Jan11.indd 22 12/20/2010 9:47:56 AM


the structural engineer can uphold and pro-mote the design team’s sustainable objectives.Bearing in mind the already considerable

complexity of our profession, the di� cult balance of market interests, building secu-rity concerns, architectural intentions, and technological advances, one might pro� er that a leadership role in sustainability is a second helping on an already too full plate. But how do we prioritize? As the industry advances, we should look toward making the process better and not simply faster. In truth, the fact is that the choice is no longer one to be made. � e building industry, via bodies such as the USGBC, the AIA COTE, the GSA, a swarm of publications such as Ecostructure and Metropolis Magazine, pri-vately funded research, and a multitude of inspired individuals have already blazed a path in the direction of sustainable building practices. It is now vital to the profession that the structural engineer take a primary lead in the further development of techniques, metrics and standards related to sustainability.� e holistic � ber of sustainability is often

touted, meaning that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Consequently, by assert-ing a lead role in this domain, we increase our primacy as members of the design, construc-tion, political and societal spheres. Technical � elds may grow more specialized, but the world in which they exist grows evermore interconnected. Any single action on behalf of an individual can have resounding impli-cations. � e speci� c duties of the structural engineer are generally opaque to the public due to their complexity and in some cases as a result of disinterest. Little attention is paid the structural engineer at the completion of design as compared with the architect or owner. When interest is spurred, it is often in the wake of disaster and failure. Firms devote portions of their revenues to developing an attractive website and other marketing mate-rials in order to appeal to clients as well as potential employees. � ere is no question that, with ampli� ed participation in sustain-able design, we increase the accessibility and appeal of our persona. It is certainly in the interest of safety that the structural engineer must remain sober to interests of self-pro-motion that might compromise the integrity of our work, but it is also true that public perception will sway how we are valued by clients and other consultants. � is, combined with the additional services we can provide as sustainable minded consultants and the demand for sustainable buildings in the real estate market, will translate to greater job security and accordingly higher fees.

Structural engineers are equipped with excellent analytical tools; if they lack in any � eld, it is in regard to communication and leadership skills. Favorably, the altruistic nature of interest in sustainability is often accompanied by a personality interested in people and communication. � us, in addi-tion to bene� ting the practicing engineer by enhancing the value associated with our work by others, respecting sustainability increases the appeal of our industry to the kind of employees � rms seek to hire and keep.

ConclusionBy approaching structural engineering in a sustainable fashion, structural engineers have the opportunity to serve as role models within the building community, which col-lectively contributes in enormous proportion to the ever growing levels of consumption and waste in America. Change begins with small steps, such as individual engineers adhering to practical and proven methods of design with greater sustainability. Such a mindset is in fact practical, not idealistic. If a substantial portion of the professional engineering com-munity can be convinced of this, the approach will grow. Guidelines will improve and many of the most progressive green building tac-tics may someday become industry standard. Someday, perhaps green buildings will just be called buildings.� e nature of structural engineering is what

we make of it. � e duties and responsibilities mandated by the global building industry are virtually endless. With all the talk about hand-o� of risk and responsibility and tasks that we as structural engineers don’t want to do, who’s talking about what we do want to do? � e � eld can be as mundane or as challenging as we seek it to be. Our choices set the stage for the future. If we adopt technically chal-lenging – and socially responsible – aspects of 21st Century building design, we realize an industry that will attract a generation of young, innovative designers and problem solvers; fuel innovation in sustainable living, working and development; and continue the bold traditions of visionary engineers that have come before us.▪

� is article was originally published in the Winter 2006 issue of Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) Cross Sections. It is reprinted with permission.

AD

VERTISEMEN


ation, visit ww

w.STRU

CTUREm

ag.org

C-ProfesIssues-Jan11.indd 23 12/20/2010 9:48:01 AM


Structural Performance performance issues relative to extreme events

To limit damage of wood-framed light commercial buildings, multi-family structures and homes against lateral forces from earth-

quakes and high wind, the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC) allow several bracing methods. These include shear walls and braced wall panels built on-site, and pre-fabricated shear panels as allowed under the alterna-tive materials section of the code. From an engineering standpoint, these are all workable solutions – depending on the specific wall design and building characteristics.However, pre-fabricated shear panels offer

a number of advantages to consider, such as consistent and predictable performance to satisfy code requirements, and the ability to accommodate high loads in narrow wall segments and other applications. For wood-framed structures, wood pre-fabricated shear panels also help simplify work for building crews when compared to steel panels.

Structural ApplicationsBecause many modern building designs call for numerous window and door openings along a wall line, the required length of site-built shear wall segments or braced wall panels may be too wide to meet the architect’s desired aesthetic. For engineered designs, the code-established height (h) to width (b) ratios are 3.5 to 1 for wind-controlled design loads and 2 to 1 for seismic-controlled design loads (with an exception for 3.5 to 1 for seismic if the allowable shear load is multiplied by 2b/h). For prescriptive design, even though the height-to-width ratios can be increased beyond 3.5 to 1 under certain rules, the required brace wall length may still be limited by the architectural design.Pre-fabricated shear panels are tested to

industry standards, and can thus exceed code limits on height-to-width. This allows for accommodating high loads in narrow wall segments. For example, a 24-inch wide by 8-foot tall wood pre-fabricated shear panel can have an allowable shear load of 4,435 lbs based on seismic controlled designs or 4,880 lbs based on wind controlled designs.

Some pre-fabricated shear panels can also be used as part of a single- or double-portal frame system installed on a concrete foun-dation. Code-evaluated portal frames have been tested as an assembly consisting of 1 or 2 panels with a header spanning the opening and connected to the panel(s) with a moment-resistive connection. Load capacities vary by manufacturer and for steel versus wood shear panels but, as an example, an 18-inch wide by 9-foot tall wood shear panel in a single-portal system can have an allowable seismic shear load of 1,905 lbs and an allowable wind shear load of 2,090 lbs. The same size panel in a double-portal system can have an allowable seismic load of 3,810 lbs and an allowable wind load of 4,180 lbs.Pre-fabricated shear panels have also been

tested and used successfully in tall walls up to 20 feet high and in two-story structures to meet the latest code requirements. Refer to ICC-ES ESR-2652, April 1, 2010, for details on one such product. The code evalua-tion report justifies using the panel as a shear wall in Type V construction, wood-framed buildings and as a one-to-one replacement for braced wall panels specified in IBC Section 2308.9.3 and IRC Section R602.10.Because they come in a variety of sizes

(heights ranging from 7 to 20 feet and widths ranging from 12 to 48 inches), wood pre-fab-ricated shear panels provide design flexibility for a variety of wall sizes and loading condi-tions. As these details vary by product, it is important to confirm specific capabilities in the manufacturer’s literature.

Ease of ConstructionBeyond structural considerations, specifying wood pre-fabricated shear panels can help streamline construction. Although ensuring a stable, code-compliant structure is the top design concern, taking into account the chal-lenges building crews face on the jobsite can help reduce labor time and costs.Due to the extensive list of components

for site-built shear walls or braces (e.g., studs, plates, sheathing, anchor bolts, hold-downs, nails, etc.), site-built shear walls and braced wall panels can be difficult and

Renee Strand, P.E., is a senior engineer for iLevel by Weyerhaeuser. She can be reached at [email protected].

By Renee Strand, P.E.

Wood Pre-fabricated Shear Panels for Lateral Force Resistance

Wood pre-fabricated shear panels can accommodate high lateral loads in narrow wall segments.

time-consuming to build. If contractors do not follow design details closely, there is also a risk of red tag delays due to mistakes such as over-driven nails, incorrect nail spacing, nails that miss framing members, misplaced hold-downs and over-bent straps, to name a few.Wood pre-fabricated shear panels are easier

to install than site-built options since they come in one-piece units and have simple brackets for attachment to the building’s foundation (additional fasteners are required at the top). Because of their consistency and pre-attached hold-down components, pre-fabricated shear panels also typically can pass inspection easier than site-built shear walls and braced wall panels.While engineers often specify steel shear

panels given a general familiarity with them, such panels can be more difficult to use on-site than wood pre-fabricated shear panels for contractors working on wood-framed build-ings. Steel panels require additional framing materials to attach finish products, and the ability to modify the panels in the field is lim-ited. Wood pre-fabricated shear panels, on the other hand, can be nailed, making them easier for contractors to attach exterior siding and interior wallboard. Crews can also trim some wood panels in height, which allows modifica-tions to fit uneven foundations and varying wall heights. In addition, wood pre-fabricated shear panels can be drilled to accommodate wiring or plumbing. It is important to follow the manufacturer’s guidelines for field trim-ming or drilling.For more information, contact a shear panel

manufacturer. They can provide details on product sizes, applications, allowable loads, and code compliance.▪

C-StrucPerform-Strand-Jan11.indd 24 12/20/2010 9:49:00 AM

IN THE SPECSON THE JOB

AT YOUR SERVICE™

Strong-Bolt™ 2• The only 3⁄8" diameter anchor

solution for 3 1⁄4" thick concrete

• Available in Stainless Steel

• Code listed ICC-ES ESR-3037

© 2011 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SAS-STB211

Sometimes sequels are even better than the original. The new Strong-Bolt™ 2 wedge anchor features a redesigned tri-segmented clip made of a special high-strength alloy that enables it to outperform many other cracked-concrete wedge anchors. The product line includes a 3⁄8" diameter anchor – the only anchor on the market for shallow embedment in cracked concrete. As a Category 1 anchor, Strong-Bolt 2 offers increased reliability in the most adverse conditions, including performance in cracked concrete under static and seismic loading. Available in carbon or type 316 stainless steel, the Strong-Bolt 2 wedge anchor is code-listed under the 2009 IBC requirements for post-installed anchors in cracked and uncracked concrete.

Continue to look to Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems for all of your cracked concrete anchoring solutions. For more information, call (800) 999-5099 or visit www.simpsonanchors.com/cc.

Cracked &Uncracked CONCRETE

IBC®

2009

ESR-3037ICC-ES

Cracked&Uncracked CONCRETE

IBC®

2009

ESR-3037ICC-ES

Cracked &Uncracked CONCRETE

IBC®

2009

ESR-3037ICC-ES

SAS-STB210_8_3-8x10_7-8.indd 1 12/8/10 4:05 PMBlank.indd 1 12/9/2010 9:53:15 AM

meet the newest member of our waterproofing products family:

mel-rol® preconTM

MEL-ROL PRECON does double-duty when used in horizontalapplications for underslab waterproofing and vaporproofing. Notonly does it block water, it Inhibits vapor intrusion creating anenvironmentally friendly indoor environment.

MEL-ROL PRECON’s dual functions make it a great fit for all yourwaterproofing and vaporproofing needs – plus, it works seamlesslywith all our other MEL-ROL products.

For innovation and performance in moisture-proofing products,trust W. R. MEADOWS, a family-owned and operated companyfor more than 65 years.

One source. One system. One family. Choose W. R. MEADOWSfor your next waterproofing project.

Visit www.wrmeadows.com or call 1-800-342-5976for more information.

You’ve trusted W. R. MEADOWS to protectyour structure from the harmful effectsof moisture intrusion for years. Nowwe’re proud to introduce our newest water-proofing technology – MEL-ROL PRECON –a dual function underslab and blindsidewaterproofing membrane.

MEL-ROL PRECON goes where conventional waterproofingproducts are impractical – such as positive-side waterproofingwhere access is prohibited due to the soil retention system.MEL-ROL PRECON fabric bonds tenaciously to poured concretewalls to create solid waterproofing protection. Superior to traditionalclay-type products, MEL-ROL PRECON features a greater seal to stopwater in its tracks. A flexible, rubberized asphalt core also createsstronger protection than clay-type products currently used.

MEL-ROL – MEL-ROL LM – MEL-ROL LM (ALL SEASON) – MEL-ROL PRECON - MEL-DRAIN™ – PROTECTION COURSE

VERTICAL HORIZONTAL

WR_MeadowsMel-RolPreconStructure2

Blank.indd 1 12/14/2010 11:24:57 AM


Use of Shrinkage-Compensating Concrete in Post-Tensioned Buildings

Th is is the second of a two-part article presenting case studies of four projects which demonstrate the eff ective use of shrinkage-compensating concrete to mitigate restraint-to-shortening (RTS) cracking in post-tensioned concrete buildings. Two of these projects were built more than 40 years ago, one has been in service for 12 years, and one is new, completed just 19 months before this writing. Th e fi rst two buildings surveyed were presented in the April, 2010 issue of STRUCTURE magazine.

John Wayne Airport Parking Structures A2 and B2, Santa Ana, CA

Construction began on Parking Structures A2 and B2 at John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana, CA in the early 1990s. Virtually everyone in the Southern California construction community during that period was aware of the project because of its dramatic RTS cracking problems and the ultimate resolutions.Th e buildings are framed with cast-in-place, monolithic post-tensioned

concrete slabs, beams, and girders. Each contains three elevated levels (L1, L2, and L3), and each is three bays wide (about 175 feet) in the direction of the beam spans, and very long (over 1,000 feet) in the direc-tion of the slab spans. Th e long direction is separated into independent sections, each slightly over 300 feet in length, with two permanent expansion joints. Each independent section has two pourstrips.Th e buildings were built in two phases: fi rst an initial level (L1), and

then two upper levels (L2 and L3) as the need for additional parking arose. Th e fi rst elevated level (L1), built with normal-weight portland cement concrete, was completed in the early 1990s and immediately began to crack severely. Eventually, over 70,000 linear feet of cracks

were measured and repaired in the 480,000 square feet of fl oor area in both structures. Prior to repair, some of the cracks allowed the passage of water through the slab, resulting in unsightly effl orescence at the slab soffi t and potential damage to cars below (Figure 1).Construction proceeded on the upper two levels in the late 1990s.

Th e most signifi cant structural change made in the upper levels was the use of Type K shrinkage-compensating concrete. Virtually all other details relating to RTS were unchanged: dimensions, pourstrips, join-ery details, and the contractor executing the work. Th e two expanded structures were completed and went into service in 1998.A visual inspection of all three elevated levels of both structures was

made in February 2009, about eleven years after completion of the second phase. Th ere is a striking diff erence in the performance of the upper levels (L2 and L3) where shrinkage-compensating concrete was used, and the lower level (L1) where it was not. Th e L1 level is laced with thousands of feet of unsightly repaired cracks (Figure 2). Th e upper two levels, L2 and L3, are virtually crack free. Since the only signifi cant and relevant variable is the use of shrinkage-compensating concrete in the upper levels, the performance diff erence can be reason-ably attributed to the cement.

L3 (top level) of Parking Structure B2 looking north.

Figure 1: Effl orescence at crack on L1 slab soffi t.

Figure 2: Typical repaired cracks on structure A2 Level L1. Figure 3: Top of slab near expansion joint, structure A2 Level L1.

continued on next page

Part Two: A Four-Building SurveyBy Kenneth B. Bondy, S.E., FACI

SF-Bondy-Jan11.indd 27 12/20/2010 9:51:23 AM

STRUCTURE magazine January 201128 STRUCTURE magazineFyfe Ad-Oct 2010.indd 1 12/1/10 10:55 AM

Figure 3 (page 27) shows the top of the slab at a double column straddling the expansion joint at the L1 level. Diagonal cracks radi-ate off the columns in an orientation consistent with RTS on either side of the expansion joint. Figure 4 shows the top of the slab on the L2 level, exactly one floor above the location shown in Figure 3. The slab is crack free at this location.

Ridgecrest Community Residence, University Of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

The building is an 8-story student dormitory and parking structure built on-campus for the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. In this building, the use of shrinkage-compensating concrete resulted in the elimination of pourstrips in large post-tensioned slabs with cost sav-ings and excellent performance.All of the floors are framed with cast-in-place post-tensioned flat

plates (solid thickness slabs supported on concrete columns with no drop panels or shear caps). The lower three elevated slabs are roughly 650 by 300 feet in plan dimension, separated by a central permanent expansion joint running in the 300’ dimension. The slab-on-ground and the first two elevated slabs (7¼ inches thick) are used for parking; the third elevated deck (11-12 inches thick) is the first residential floor and forms two large courtyard areas with landscaping. Type K cement was used in the lower three slabs but not in the upper residential slabs (7¼ inches thick) where Type 1 was used (with pourstrips).The photograph in Figure 5 was taken in April, 2009 when the

building was structurally complete but architectural finish work was still underway.The original design of the building used light steel framing in the

upper residential floors. Bearing walls were supported on the third floor concrete deck on a grid of deep concrete transfer beams, with a post-tensioned slab outside and between the beams. On the lower two elevated parking slabs, each of the two 300- by 300-foot pieces were divided temporarily into four smaller pieces by pourstrips, specified to be kept open for 9 to 12 weeks.Bids came in substantially over the approximately $70 million

budget. The structural engineers, Structural Design Group (SDG) of Birmingham, AL, value-engineered the job for cost-cutting measures. They eliminated steel framing and changed to post-tensioned concrete slabs in the upper residential floors, using the same column layout as the parking area below. That eliminated the grid of transfer beams at the third level. They used KSC™ shrinkage-compensating concrete in the lower three elevated slabs in order to eliminate pourstrips. This resulted in direct savings in the cost of building pourstrips, and a

significant savings in construction time. SDG did a complete rede-sign of the building based on these and other cost-saving measures.Bids on the redesigned job came in under budget. Net savings realized

by eliminating pourstrips was estimated at $250,000, including the premium for the KSC concrete. Total savings realized by the redesign was about $3 million.Construction started in 2007 and the building was completed in

2009. During an onsite inspection of the parking level slabs in April 2009, they were found to be in excellent condition. No cracking was evident related to RTS or applied load. Careful observation of the far corners of each of the sections separated by the expansion joint – where the most RTS cracking could be expected – revealed these critical areas to be crack-free. An experienced observer of post-tensioned slabs would rate the performance and condition of these large slabs as outstanding.In a published article describing the building, the structural design-

ers state:“The real proof is the slab itself – there are virtually no cracks in more than 420,000 square feet of slab. Further, the concrete frame was bid and completed 42 days ahead of (a very aggres-sive) schedule.”

The first elevated slab of this building was extensively instrumented to measure short and long-term concrete strains and curvatures. The testing program was directed by Dr. Jim Richardson, professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Alabama. Data collected 14 months after construction of the slab has been published in the ACI Structural Journal.Measurements made 14 months after the slab concrete was placed

show that total shortening in the first-floor slab (ε = 0.000435 in/in) was less than half that predicted for conventional (i.e., non-shrinkage-compensating) concrete normally used for this application. That is extremely significant, since studies of concrete shrinkage versus time show that over 80% of total shrinkage has occurred at 14 months, and the remaining 20% progresses with dramatically decreasing rate over the next 20 years. If it is assumed that another 10% of the final total strain will occur between 14 months and 5 years, predicted total strain at 5 years would be 0.000435/0.9 = 0.000483 in/in., a value reasonably consistent with the 5-year strain of 0.00034 in/in measured in the Santa Monica Structure #2. Continuing strain mea-surements made on the Ridgecrest structure should lead to important new information on creep relaxation and temperature change effects.This is an extremely important building whose significance cannot

be overestimated. Its success will help establish a relationship between post-tensioned concrete and expansive concrete that should have a

Figure 4: Same Location as Figure 3, One Floor Up On Level L2. Figure 5: North elevation showing three lower parking levels and five upper residential levels.


January 2011 STRUCTURE magazine January 201129Fyfe Ad-Oct 2010.indd 1 12/1/10 10:55 AM

great impact on future design and construction practices. Things were done in this building that could not have been done without the use of shrinkage-compensating concrete, and they resulted in outstanding performance and significant cost savings.

ConclusionRTS (along with tendon corrosion) is one of the two biggest problems

ever faced by the post-tensioning industry. Looking back over the growth of post-tensioned concrete for 5 decades, and the early efforts to solve the shortening problems, it seems that the use of shrinkage-compensating concrete may have made the solution to the RTS problem easier.Observations of the four buildings included in this survey (including

the two discussed in the April 2010 issue) indicate that, on most post-tensioned concrete buildings, the use of shrinkage-compensating concrete

(when properly mixed, placed, finished, and cured) can substantially eliminate pourstrips; and, with due consideration of temperature effects, can realistically increase the maximum length between expansion joints to approximately 500 feet, with equivalent or superior performance.The author gratefully acknowledges the staff of CTS Cement

Manufacturing, Inc., whose products include KSC shrinkage-com-pensating cement, and in particular its president, my old friend Ed Rice, for their assistance with this article.

Soffit of First Level slab (standing on slab-on-ground) looking northwest. The first supported level is the most susceptible to RTS cracking.

Slab-column joint at First Level near northwest corner of slab.

Kenneth B. Bondy, S.E., FACI, is the current President of the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) and was, in 2005, inducted into the PTI Hall of Fame, Legends of Post-Tensioning. He serves on numerous ACI committees. Mr. Bondy can be reached at www.kenbondy.com.

The online version of this article contains references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.

ReferencesChusid, M., A Perfect Match: Post-Tensioning and Shrinkage-

compensating Concrete Form a Durable Union at John Wayne Airport, PTI Journal, Post-Tensioning Institute, July 2007, pp. 77-82.Eskildsen, S., Jones, M., Richardson J., No More Pour Strips,

Concrete International, American Concrete Institute, October, 2009 pp. 42-47.Richardson, J., Eskildsen, S., Schiller, B., and Jones, M., Measured

Strains in a Post-Tensioned Concrete Parking Deck, pending publica-tion in the Structural Journal of the American Concrete Institute.Bondy, K. B., Post-Tensioned Concrete in Buildings: Past and

Future – an Insider’s Viewpoint, PTI Journal, Post-Tensioning Institute, December, 2006, pp. 91-100.

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org


Solutions to Structural Distress in the South Tower of the Milwaukee City HallPart 2

This article is the second of a three-part series on the rehabilitation of the South Tower of the historic Milwaukee City Hall. Part 1, published in the November, 2010 issue of STRUCTURE®, addressed the investigation of significant masonry cracking in the structure. Part 3 will discuss the design for durability of the reconstructed masonry.

A fter the completion of the inves-tigation outlined in Part 1 of this three-part series, the City of Milwaukee elected to proceed

with design for the repairs of the South Tower of Milwaukee City Hall (Figure 1). National engineering firm Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH) teamed with architect Engberg Anderson and engineer Bloom Companies, LLC for the repair design. The City of Milwaukee quickly established a goal for the repairs to last 100 years, with regular mainte-nance for wear and tear of the materials. The City awarded the construction contract to J.P. Cullen & Sons, Inc. of Janesville, Wisconsin.

Finite Element AnalysisSGH performed finite element (FE) analyses to determine the most likely causes of the observed cracking patterns in the tower and to help design the structural repairs. These analyses included global models evaluating the tower steel structure and the masonry walls, and component models to study the effect of brick pointing on a wall section and the performance of critical masonry piers.

Steel Structure FE Model

The interior steel structure (the core truss, Figure 2) of the tower extends from the 10th floor to the lantern at the apex of the roof, 86 feet above the 13th floor. The truss was analyzed using a two-dimensional model rep-resenting one plane of the three-dimensional trusswork. This model calculated the load distribution through the truss under the weight of the roof and wind loads acting on the roof, and provided the reactions of the steel structure on the masonry for the design of masonry rehabilitation.With the exception of the 13th-floor plate

girders that span between the core truss and the masonry walls and the steel columns immediately above, all members of the core truss were modeled to carry only tension and compression. The plate girder members were modeled as beam elements to capture the important bending behavior of the girders and the effects of the eccentricity of the con-nection of the diagonal truss members and the plate girders.The steel structure is supported on two steel

trusses spanning diagonally across the tower Figure 1: Milwaukee City Hall’s South Tower.

By Mark D. Webster, LEED AP, P.E., Gunjeet Juneja, P.E. and Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.

STRUCTURE magazine January 201130 STRUCTURE magazine

F-MilwaukeeCityHall-Jan11.indd 30 12/20/2010 9:53:54 AM

at the 10th floor. The flexibility of this support was accounted for using elas-tic springs at the base of the analytical model. The spring stiffness was calcu-lated based on the elastic deformation of the diagonal truss considered as a simply supported beam resting on the masonry. Rotational restraints were used at the ends of floor beams where they are embedded in the masonry walls.Cross-sectional properties were cal-

culated from the structural shapes specified on the drawings for the steel tower, and from field measurement of some members.The steel truss supports 3-inch-thick

terra cotta roof tile and copper clad-ding, the weight of which we modeled as concentrated masses at nodal locations. Other miscellaneous weights, such as the lantern weight at the top of the core truss, were also included. The weight of the floor at various levels was modeled as concentrated masses at the beam-column intersection nodes.The wind load was calculated in accordance with Minimum Design Loads for

Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-02), using 90 mph as the basic wind speed for Milwaukee.The steel structure incorporates tie rods that appear intended to help resist tower

overturning forces between the 12th and 13th floors. The tower was analyzed with and without these tie rods. The results show that the tie rods do not significantly influence the stresses in the members or the tower deformations.The steel stresses throughout the model were found to be within allowable limits,

based on standard design practice at the time the tower was built.

Masonry Wall FE Model

The reactions from the steel truss analysis were applied to a FE model of one side of the masonry tower from the 9th to 13th floors. The effect of the adjacent perpen-dicular walls at the tower corners was modeled by applying a symmetric boundary condition about a 45-degree plane through the center of the corner pier. Figure 3 shows the FE mesh of the masonry tower model.The cross-sectional properties of the wall and piers were computed, incorporating

the offsets in the wall at different levels. The various colors in Figure 3 represent the different section and material properties used in the model. SGH analyzed the wall for gravity loads including the reactions from the steel tower. The resulting stress values were used to design the repairs at and above the 11th floor.

Elements of the Structural DesignFigure 4 (page 32) schematically shows the locations of some of the major structural elements that we discuss below.

Durability

SGH addressed the durability goals of the project by careful selection of systems, materials, and details. Much of the tower structure, both interior and exterior, is exposed to the elements and subject to temperature extremes, rain, snow, and humidity, at heights where the wind can drive precipitation into every corner, so it presented exceptional durability challenges.Galvanized steel was specified for all new structural steel. As a value engineering

step, the final construction utilized a durable three-coat paint system, comprised of an inorganic zinc-rich primer followed by an epoxy intermediate coat and finished

Figure 2: The core steel truss within the South Tower.

Figure 3: FE mesh of the tower masonry.



with a polyurethane coat. SGH specified stainless steel or hot-dip galvanized components for all post-installed anchors and threaded rods. For concrete elements, epoxy-coated reinforcement and wire-welded fabric was specified for all applications, and a minimum concrete strength of 5,000 psi.

Ring Beam

The structural analysis found excessive horizontal tension stresses in the perimeter masonry at the 13th level. These walls supported four solid masonry gables, incorporating 15-foot diameter clocks, and massive solid masonry corner turrets, as well as a portion of the load from the sloping steel-framed roof.To resist the stresses at the 13th level, we designed a reinforced

concrete “ring beam” that is 1 foot 3 inches wide by 4 feet 6 inches deep. Because the gable walls and corner turrets were in poor condi-tion, and constructing the ring beam required removing the masonry at this level, it was determined that the solution that best matched the economic and durability goals of the project was to remove and reconstruct the masonry from the 13th level up, incorporating modern materials and systems while maintaining the historical appearance of the tower.The ring beam was designed using forces derived from the computer

model of the steel roof, as well as loads from the 13th floor and the clock gables.The ring beam at each face is supported by the corner turrets and

by four intermediate piers, which also required reconstruction due to extreme deterioration.

Corner Turrets

At each corner of the tower, the ring beams frame integrally into the massive concrete cores of the reconstructed corner turrets. The solid concrete cores are over 7 feet in diameter and nearly 11 feet tall.The ACI 301 Specifications for Structural Concrete Checklist states that

heat of hydration should be considered for elements with minimum dimensions over 2.5 feet. Because the turrets are large by this standard, special procedures were specified to address the potential for excessive heat gain in these elements. The use of up to 30% flyash or 50% slag replacement of cement was permitted to reduce the heat of hydration. A maximum differential concrete temperature of 35 degrees Fahrenheit and a peak temperature of 135 degrees Fahrenheit was specified.To verify that the contractor’s mix design would meet these goals,

SGH required the contractor to submit thermal and strength analysis of the mass concrete mix, including heat-of-hydration analysis of the cement, concrete strength tests, adiabatic heat signature tests on 6-inch by 12-inch cylinders, and simulation studies.The mix design for the 5,000 psi turret concrete included 615 lb/cy

of cementitious materials, 32% of which was a combination of Type C fly ash and slag, as well as a set-retarding/water-reducing admix-ture. The contractor engaged a consultant to perform heat analyses of the pour, which predicted a maximum temperature of 130 degrees Fahrenheit and a maximum temperature differential of 32 degrees Fahrenheit, assuming a placement temperature of 50 degrees and ambient temperature ranging from 45 degrees to 50 degrees.There were some concerns about the actual pour, because the deliv-

ered temperature of the concrete was 70 degrees Fahrenheit and the air temperature was below 40 degrees, but temperature sensors cast into the northwest turret recorded a maximum temperature of 115 degrees Fahrenheit in the middle of the turret and a maximum temperature differential of about 30 degrees Fahrenheit, satisfying specified goals. No significant cracking was observed in the concrete when the contractor removed the forms.

Clock Gables

The clock gables were originally constructed using solid mass masonry with embedded structural steel framing. Precast concrete panels attached to new structural-steel framing were used to reconstruct the gables. This solution offered structural system continuity with the steel framing in the core truss, eliminated any embedded structural-steel framing that would be vulnerable to future hidden corrosion, and provided a stable backup surface for the brick veneer cavity wall system used to face the new gables.Three 6-inch precast panels were specified to frame the face of

each gable (Figure 5) and two panels for the cheek walls, nominally reinforced with #5 bars at 12 inches on center each way at panel mid-thickness. The panels were designed to resist their self-weight, out-of-plane wind, and seismic forces, providing connections with slotted and oversized holes between the precast and steel to isolate the panels from other loads that were intended to be supported by the steel framing.

Cintec Ties

To address vertical cracking and spreading of the tower walls at the 11th floor, the installation of three horizontal 54-foot long, Cintec 1-inch diameter deformed stainless-steel rods were specified in each masonry face. The rods were sized using the tensile stress results from the FE analysis of the masonry wall. In the Cintec system, the rods and associated fabric socks are inserted into cored holes, drilled horizontally in the plane of the walls at mid-thickness, and grouted. The fabric socks prevent uncontrolled dispersal of the grout while “keying” into voids and irregularities in the base material.

Figure 4: Schematic diagram showing location of major new structural elements.



Pier Reconstruction

Each tower face had four solid brick masonry piers that needed to be reconstructed at the 12th story: two round piers approximately 1 foot 9 inches in diameter, and two roughly rectangular piers with overall dimensions of approximately 5 feet 6 inches by 2 feet 6 inches. The replacement piers were designed as reinforced composite masonry elements to strengthen them beyond what was inherent in the original unreinforced brick piers. The piers are reinforced with #6 vertical bars and #4 ties.In these composite masonry elements, the

veneer brick served as formwork for the grout. The brick was constructed in two-foot lifts. After the mortar set, the brickwork was braced as needed and filled with masonry grout. The grout needed to be sufficiently fluid to fully engage the perimeter brick and carefully consolidated to ensure composite action with the brick.

Construction SequenceThe construction sequence for the tower reconstruction presented special challenges. The top story of masonry had to be completely rebuilt, while the sloping roof structure above remained supported and capable of resisting live, snow, and wind loads. In the construc-tion documents, a specific demolition and construction sequence was recommended that would maintain the structural integrity of the tower during construction, as follows.

1) Remove the clock gable and corner turret masonry down to the 13th floor.

2) Remove the steel elements that were embedded in the clock gables and the steel framing between the gable faces and sloped roof framing.

3) Repair or replace remaining corroded steel members as required.

4) Install Cintec anchors at the 11th floor.5) Reconstruct the floor system at the 12th story. The replace-

ment floor framing was designed to carry shoring loads needed to complete the following steps.

On one side of the tower at a time, complete Steps 6 through 10, allowing at least one week of curing time at a given side before pro-ceeding to the next side:

6) Shore the central core truss and the 13th floor down to the new 12th floor.

7) Remove all the masonry at the 13th-story and 12th-story piers, including one contiguous corner turret.

8) Reconstruct the 12th-story piers and corner turret up to the bottom of the ring beam.

9) Cast the new concrete ring beam and remaining portion of the associated corner turret.

10) Resupport all roof framing and floor framing on the newly constructed ring beam as required.

11) Reconstruct clock gables.

The contractor elected to modify the proposed sequence, for schedul-ing reasons, by constructing the ring beams at the 13th floor before constructing the 12th-story piers. Since the piers support the ring beams, SGH was especially concerned about establishing tight joints between the tops of the piers and undersides of the beams. Following constructive dialog with the contractor, a sequence was settled upon in which the contractor constructed each composite masonry pier to the bottom of the terra cotta capital, cast in place the concrete backup for the capital, leaving a 2-inch gap below the ring beam, and then finally filled the gap beneath the ring beam with dry-pack.

ConclusionThe South Tower of the Milwaukee City Hall had serious structural damage that related to its original design, but had been aggravated by decades of exposure to a very aggressive environment. Using a combination of tailored construction materials and techniques, structural repairs and reconstruction procedures were developed that were designed to revitalize and extend the useful life of the South Tower of the magnificent Milwaukee City Hall, while preserving its important historical features.▪

Figure 5: View of the ring beam, corner turrets, and clock gable precast backup during construction.

Mark D. Webster, LEED AP, P.E., is a Senior Staff II – Structures and project manager at national engineering firm Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. He can be reached at [email protected].

Gunjeet Juneja, P.E. is a Senior Staff II – Structures at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.. She can be reached at [email protected].

Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E., is a senior principal at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. He can be reached at [email protected].

Photos courtesy of Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH)



HaywardBaker Structure JanFeb10.pdf 1 12/3/2010 3:58:45 PM

Blank.indd 1 12/3/2010 4:03:16 PM


FOUNDATIONFoundation Firms Seeing Improvement

beginning to move o� the bottom with slow growth over the next few years.” e company has recently been building its ground improvement

business. “It’s more diversi� cation for us. Our approach has always been to be diversi� ed across di� erent but related techniques and applications.” e company, which has been in business for 60 years, is geographically diverse, too, covering the 12 Western states including Alaska and Hawaii. It also maintains regional o� ces in California.

Tony Jacobsen, Senior Engineer at Grip-Tite (www.griptite.com) of Winterset, Iowa, which has been manufacturing earth anchoring products for almost 90 years, is seeing a rise in

demand, too. “We’re starting to see a pick-up in industrial work. We’re also seeing some increase in residential retro� t, usually two stories or less.”

That’s the word from foundation companies. Although projects are not coming along as fast or as plentifully as they did before the recession, company o� cials are seeing a slow but steady

improvement in the pace of inquiries, bids and projects.“Clearly, there’s been a reduction in the amount of work because

of the economy,” says Jim Hussin, Director at Hayward Baker, Inc. (www.haywardbaker.com), headquartered in Odenton, Maryland. “But we’ve turned the corner. ere’s not a rapid rise, but we’ve seen some improvement… we’ve de� nitely seen a pick-up in the past year.”Hayward Baker o� ers a full range of pre- and post-construction

services for foundation rehabilitation, settlement control, liquefaction mitigation, soil stabilization, groundwater control, slope stability, exca-vation support, and underpinning. e company has 20 o� ces across the United States, as well as locations in Central and South America, and Canada. “Soil mixing is growing rapidly, and the techniques of handling soft soils has evolved over past years,” Hussin notes. “We’re now � nding more applications in areas that were thought to be too expensive, but are now economically viable.” He adds: “We have a full range of techniques that are available to clients, and we can get creative and o� er innovative solutions to their problems.”In the near term, Hussin forecasts that

more of their work will be in horizontal markets such as infrastructure, roads and bridges. In vertical markets, he sees more work in hospitals, education and power. “We’ll see a recovery in commercial � rst, and then residential will follow.”

Bob Carnevale, Business De-velopment Manager at Seattle-based DBM Contractors, Inc.

(www.dbmcm.com), agrees that business is improving. “ e construction industry is su� ering compared to two or three years ago, but we have been diversi� ed across public and private work. Traditionally, when one is up, the other is down. Prior to the most current downturn, though, they were both up. Since then the private sector has dwindled, so like most other construc-tion companies, we’ve been making our living from public sector projects.” He adds: “We think we’re bouncing along the bottom and our indicators during the last six months seem to show that we’re

10dB102DbmStructuresBwAd.indd Ad size: 4.75" x 5" wide

December 2010

800-562-8460 www.dbmcontractors.com

Design/Build

Earth Retention

Foundation Support

Slope Stabilization

Ground Improvement

Dewatering

By Larry Kahaner

Business is getting better.

continued on next page

AD

VERTISEMEN


ation, visit ww

w.STRU

CTUREm

ag.org

F-Advertorial-Foundations-Jan11.indd 35 12/20/2010 9:55:51 AM


FOUNDATIONbusiness,” says Petres, who has been involved with helical piles for 39 years. “We continued to hire people to do R&D work.”� e company serves both the utility market and the civil market

with a complete line of helical piles, from small to large, says Petres, Product Manager – Anchoring Products. “We’re trying to o� er an alternative product for engineers who are not familiar with helical piles. We want to address the issues of why engineers are not using more helical piles.”To this end, the company has done two things. First, it came up

with their Strength Squared coupling system. Petres notes that engi-neers are wary of using pipes with drilled holes, fearing that they will deform. “So we came up with a square engagement system which gives engineers con� dence that they’re not going to have bolts that shear. We’re o� ering strength to structural engineers.”Second, the company submitted its helical piers for testing by an

accredited laboratory. “We spent money to submit some of our products to an ICC AC-358 evaluation program, about a year and a half ago. We expect certi� cation this year [2011].” He says that the company has already been assigned preliminary certi� cation num-bers for their 1½-inch, 1¾ -inch, 2⅞ -inch and 3½-inch products. “After certi� ca-tion, structural engineers will have the con� dence to use our products because they have been tested by an accredited lab. � ey can study the data themselves.”Petres is con� dent about the growth

of helical piles as engineers are asked to squeeze even more costs out of their proj-ects. “� ere’s greater pressure for SEs to cut costs, and I think they’re becoming more open minded about alternatives like helicals,” he says. (See ad on page 38.)

Monotube Pile Corporation (www.davidsonpipe.com), part of the Davidson Group

of Companies, is dedicated to manufac-turing steel piles for exclusive use in the deep foundations industry. � e Canton, Ohio company mainly serves the United States market, says General Manager Sam Kosa. “It appears that highway work is increasing slightly. We’re seeing more bid-ding action.” He adds: “We’re starting to see more activity in government projects,

Jacobsen is seeing a trend toward larger diameter helicals, especially the 2⅞ -inch and the 3½-inch, both for new construction. “We are within six months of providing a 4½-inch diameter helical for three-story concrete building and lateral loads.” He adds: “We’re pushing toward a 1¾-inch square bar for retro� t and tie backs for new construction…next year we’ll see a 2¼-inch square bar, helical shaft, mainly for new construction.”Jacobsen notes that the new diameters will allow the company to

get into higher density materials and provide some bene� ts in highly-expansive soil, like that found in the Front Range in Colorado, which is the most populated region of the state.

Also touting the bene� ts of helical piles is Stephen Petres of MacLean Dixie (www.macleandixie.com), located in Franklin Park, Illinois. “� e market has shrunk, but we’ve doubled our

P.O. Box 7339 • Canton, OH 44705-0339 / Ph. 330.454.6111 • Fax 330.454.1572Executive Office: 5002 Second Avenue • Brooklyn, NY 11232 Email: [email protected] / www.monotube.com.

In the infrastructure space across America, it’s estimated that more than 8,600 projects are shovel-ready and simply awaiting funding to get under-way. Coincidentally, polls show we Americans arestrongly in favor of major investment in our aginginfrastructure. However, concurrent with this favor-able opinion is a strong demand for accountabilityand measurable efficiencies in how our tax dollarsare going to be spent. We as corporate citizens,whether manufacturer, designer, engineer or contractor, have a serious interest in this.

Monotube tapered steel foundation piles have consistently delivered capital-saving measurability for more than 80 years.

Using conventional equipment, a Monotuberequires a shorter driven length to achievedesign load capacity, fewer man-hours and lessenergy to install than competing products. Wehave numerable test site data provingMonotube pile’s superior performance and it’syours free for the asking.

America is about to embark on a historicexpenditure of taxpayer dollars. We atMonotube Pile Corporation know we canhelp you keep costs in check. Give us a calltoday because, as always, we’re ready todeliver solid economics.

Request our Free Catalog

Monotube® Piles. Solid Economics

Put infrastructure spendingon a solid foundation.

Blank.indd 1 11/3/2009 1:42:27 PM

continued on page 38

e market has shrunk, but we’ve doubled our business. We continued to hire people to do R&D work.

“”

AD

VERT

ISEM

ENT

- For

Adv

ertis

er In

form

atio

n, v

isit w

ww

.STR

UCT

URE

mag

.org


P.O. Box 7339 • Canton, OH 44705-0339 / Ph. 330.454.6111 • Fax 330.454.1572Executive Office: 5002 Second Avenue • Brooklyn, NY 11232 Email: [email protected] / www.monotube.com.

In the infrastructure space across America, it’s estimated that more than 8,600 projects are shovel-ready and simply awaiting funding to get under-way. Coincidentally, polls show we Americans arestrongly in favor of major investment in our aginginfrastructure. However, concurrent with this favor-able opinion is a strong demand for accountabilityand measurable efficiencies in how our tax dollarsare going to be spent. We as corporate citizens,whether manufacturer, designer, engineer or contractor, have a serious interest in this.

Monotube tapered steel foundation piles have consistently delivered capital-saving measurability for more than 80 years.

Using conventional equipment, a Monotuberequires a shorter driven length to achievedesign load capacity, fewer man-hours and lessenergy to install than competing products. Wehave numerable test site data provingMonotube pile’s superior performance and it’syours free for the asking.

America is about to embark on a historicexpenditure of taxpayer dollars. We atMonotube Pile Corporation know we canhelp you keep costs in check. Give us a calltoday because, as always, we’re ready todeliver solid economics.

Request our Free Catalog

Monotube® Piles. Solid Economics

Put infrastructure spendingon a solid foundation.

Blank.indd 1 11/3/2009 1:42:27 PM


FOUNDATIONand we’re anticipating more government jobs this year.”� e company o� ers four diameters, four

gauges, and three rates of taper that allow the designer to select a Monotube suitable for a wide variety of economical applica-tions. For fully embedded foundation piles, the most commonly used diameters are 12 and 14 inches, with design loads up to 150 tons, contingent on soil capacity. Kosa notes that one advantage of the Monotube pile is the ability to nest a tapered section into an extension to produce a compact bundle. � is process reduces shipping and storage volume by as much as 40 percent.

Felix Ferrer, President and CEO of Fair� eld, New Jersey-based SAS Stressteel, Inc. (www.stressteel.com),

says that business is de� nitely getting better. “Some projects that were stopped two years ago are coming back to life. Developers are now talking to us about new sites, new developments and new projects in New York City. We have picked up some work, and it’s getting pretty exciting.”He says that his company o� ers 3-inch

diameter grade 150 bar anchors, each with a capacity of 1,028 kips. � ese anchors are being used to tie down One World Trade Center – about 230 anchors that are about 90 feet deep – and also will be used on the other buildings in the complex. “� at’s pretty signi� cant for foundations, that we’re using this type of tie-down technology.”

In the area of ground improve-ment, Lyle Simonton, Director of Business Development for St.

Louis-based Subsurface Constructors (www.subsurfaceconstructors.com), says the company has done well in the past year. “We had an extremely busy year. � ere is still a lot of work: DOTs, wastewater, schools, medical, etc.” � e 100-year old company is working on some high pro� le projects, like deep founda-tions for the new Mississippi River Bridge Missouri approach and ground improve-ment work for the Indiana Department of Transportation. He further notes that some

TM

Strength Squared™ Steel Cast Coupling System

www.MacLeanDixie.comCopyr ight ©2011 MacLean Dix ie HFS

Increased Torque Capacity

Bolt Holes Align for Faster Assembly

Bolts Do Not Shear During Installation

Lighter Weight Leads and Extensions

Hot Dip Galvanized to ASTM A-153

SASS T R E S S T E E L

CONTINUOUSLY HOT-ROLLED THREADED STEEL BARS FOR DEEP FOUNDATION ELEMENTS, MICRO PILES, MULTI-BAR CAISSONS, TIE-BACKS, DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTED ANCHORS, FORMWORK TIE ROD SYSTEMS, POST-TENSIONING SYSTEMS, HOLLOW CORE SELF DRILLING ANCHOR SYSTEMS, GRADES 80, 97, 150, 160 KSI, 60 FOOT MILL LENGTHS OR GREATER, DESIGNED FOR HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, HIGHER LOADS, BETTER ENGINEERING, BETTER DESIGN

100 NEW DUTCH LANEFAIRFIELD, NJ 07004

P: 973 . 244 . 5995F: 973 . 244 . 0544WWW.STRESSTEEL.COM

GRADE 97 FOUNDATION DOWEL REINFORCEMENT FOR WTC TOWER 2

SAS HIGH STRENGTH BAR REINFORCEMENT

Blank.indd 1 12/3/2010 11:36:54 AM

continued on page 40

AD

VERT

ISEM

ENT

- For

Adv

ertis

er In

form

atio

n, v

isit w

ww

.STR

UCT

URE

mag

.org

AD

VERT

ISEM

ENT

- For

Adv

ertis

er In

form

atio

n, v

isit w

ww

.STR

UCT

URE

mag

.org


Blank.indd 1 12/3/2010 11:36:54 AM


FOUNDATIONretail commercial projects are coming on line, too, such as senior living facilities.Simonton says that the company has been highlighting the green

bene� ts of soil mitigation using its Vibro-Stone Column machines. “We can often build stone columns without having to pre-drill. � is limits how much spoil we generate, so that’s positive for a more sustainable construction approach.”

A lso touting the green bene� ts of soil improvement is Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. (www.geopier.com), based in Mooresville, North Carolina. “Our biggest role has been as

a developer of technologies suited for any site. We have a variety of systems to treat virtually any soil condition. Impact systems allow us to treat to deeper depth, up to 45 feet in a cost-e� ective way,” says Brendan FitzPatrick, P.E., Director of Engineering and Development, North America. � e company highlights its Rammed Aggregate Pier (RAP) system, which FitzPatrick says lowers a project’s carbon foot-print because they’re not using steel and concrete for driven piles or caissons, both of which have larger carbon footprints. “Massive

earthmovers also have large carbon footprints. We are faster and use less equipment.” He adds: “As many owners are also developing more sustainable construction projects, they are exhibiting preference for this soil reinforcement approach for the LEED bene� ts and reduced carbon footprint, compared to more conventional foundation sup-port options.”� e RAP system is also more cost e� ective, says FitzPatrick. “Design

teams, contractors and owners are all challenged to build more with less. Many project teams are opting for the schedule and cost bene� ts o� ered by a RAP system, as opposed to costly over-excavation and replacement, or deep foundations.”

“Things are looking up on the testing side of the founda-tions business,” according to Gina Beim, P.E., senior consulting engineer-marketing at GRL Engineers

(www.pile.com) in Cleveland, Ohio. “We see an increase in remote testing. Business seems to be picking up.” She credits the increase to several factors, including the cost savings involved with remote testing as opposed to on-site testing. “We have been seeing some results of campaigns to help DOT understand remote testing. Lots of structures are transmitting data now. � is is a trend. We’re feeling the pull for this.” She notes that AASHTO’s LRFD bridge design standards will lead to more testing, and that the cost e� ectiveness of remote testing will become of greater interest. “We hope that testing in a more economical way will give the market a method to keep standards high while o� ering cost-saving methods.” Aside from the savings of not needing someone on site to check readings, another cost bene� t is not having to ship wires and cables to the project site.Beim adds that the company is introducing a product aimed at the

drilled shaft market. It will include remote sensing. “� e � ermal Integrity Pro� ler (TIP) inspects the integrity of a drilled shaft using a temperature method,” says Beim. Now in prototype, the product is expected to be available in spring or summer. “We can inspect the drilled shaft that has been � tted with the temperature sensor remotely. It’s imbedded in the shaft itself and will indicate how good the concrete is.”▪

www.pile.com [email protected]

Pile Driving Analyzer® Model PAX

Dynamic Load Testing of Deep Foundations

Tests on Location or Remotely with

iCAP™: instant capacity by signal matching

Smart (wireless) Sensors eliminate cables

Complies with ASTM D4945

Cleveland, OH USA+1 216-831-6131

iCAP

Blank.indd 1 12/3/2010 3:02:54 PM

ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIESSTRUCTURE® magazine is planning several

additional SPECIAL ADVERTORIALSin 2011.

To discuss advertising opportunities, please contact our ad sales representatives:

CHUCK MINORPhone: 847-854-1666

DICK RAILTONPhone: 951-587-2982

[email protected]

AD

VERT

ISEM

ENT

- For

Adv

ertis

er In

form

atio

n, v

isit w

ww

.STR

UCT

URE

mag

.org


Blank.indd 1 12/3/2010 3:02:54 PM

January 201142

significant structures of the past

Historic structures

STRUCTURE magazine

Dr. Debra F. Laefer is an American who is a tenured lecturer in Civil Engineering at the University College Dublin in Ireland and past Interim Director of Conservation Research for their Master’s in Urban and Building Conservation. She is also Chair of the Heritage and Existing Structures Committee for the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Dr. Laefer may be reached at [email protected].

By Dr. Debra F. Laefer

Critical Skills for Structural Engineers Encountering Historic Structures

Unlike some parts of Europe, America has yet to develop a formal designation or description of a “Preservation Engineer”; yet

many members of the structural engineering community regularly inspect, evaluate, and recommend repairs, interventions, and modi-fications for the thousands of buildings on national and local historic registers and the many others that qualify for such status (Figure 1). Because of the predominance of vernacular structures and small religious buildings that constitute this specific building stock and the proportionally modest resources generally available for their maintenance and upgrading, small local firms are often engaged on their behalf. The nature of these firms, and in fact that of most structural engineering firms, is that few have engineers on staff with specialized training in assessing historic buildings.

“Old” BuildingsAlthough it is true that Newton’s pre-cepts do not differ based on a building’s age or architec-tural significance, there needs to be an

acknowledgment that material production, material selection, structural systems, and join-ing options are all constantly evolving topics. This is problematic, as what is taught in most civil engineering programs focuses exclusively on new construction with only the rarest of curriculum providing any instruction in tradi-tional or “archaic” technologies. This fact leaves the majority of today’s engineers ill-equipped to address the problems of older structures, because these buildings include materials and structural systems that behave in ways that fun-damentally differ from modern construction.A common example of the criticality of this is

in understanding the traditional role of lime-based mortars and their expected strength capacity. Portland cement’s general displace-ment of lime as the main binder in late 20th century mortars was a failure to recognize a major role of mortar as the sacrificial element in the building fabric. As buildings move due to a wide range of external factors, from temperature-based expansion to differential settlement because of non-uniform loading,

they tend to develop small cracks. In traditional masonry, the weak lime-based mortars tend to crack, instead of the substantially stronger brick. This is intentional. In part this is because the mortar has the ability to heal itself to some extent (referred to as self-annealing), because of the carbonation based curing process which relies on air (as opposed to the hydration based curing for concrete, which is dependent upon free water). A soft mortar can also be periodi-cally removed from between the facing side of the bricks in the process of repointing. With Portland cement based mortars, the mortar is nearly as strong, if not stronger, than the brick. Thus the brick is as likely to develop cracks,as the mortar, and periodic maintenance cycle of repointing is nearly impossible without risking damage to the bricks as the mortar is removed from the joints. As seen in this example, failure to understand material properties and their roles in distinction to those of modern ones, jeopardize the long-term viability of preserv-ing buildings.Not only is this problematic with respect

to preserving architectural heritage but, as America tries to come to terms with sustain-ability, life-cycle, and embodied energy issues, two things need to be acknowledged. The first is that an existing structure represents an enormous previous investment from an envi-ronmental perspective. Thus, its replacement represents a complete loss of that investment and requires the major environmental expen-diture of manufacturing new materials and energy investment in their assembly, as well as the further energy needed for demolition, removal, and disposal of the existing structure.Another example relates to the plaster ren-

derings over adobe walls. When removed, the structures fair much worse from a durability perspective. They also become more vulner-able to damage and subsequent collapse when exposed to seismic loading. Similarly, if the ren-dering is repaired with a cement-based product, the subsequent performance tends to be vastly inferior to the application of traditional, local materials. So not only are non-local materials inferior to those originally used, they often require higher levels of embodied energy as they must be shipped greater distances.

Figure 1: Inspection of Masonry Façade. Courtesy of Dr. Debra F. Laefer.

To stack

Preheat Fire CoolMovement of cars Movement of gases

Waste heat to drier Preheated air for burners

Figure 2: Tunnel Kiln. Courtesy of Dr. Debra F. Laefer.

C-HistStruct-Laefer-Jan11.indd 42 12/20/2010 9:57:21 AM


Acquiring the Knowledge and Skills

The situation is complicated. In some cases, gaining the specialty skills and background needed to sensitively and cost-effectively work with historic buildings can be rela-tively straight forward as is the case with documentation, where surveying skills and conservation theory are areas where the field is well established and literature is readily available. Even legislation and standards from around the world are now readily available through the power of the Internet.Other areas, such as masonry evaluation and

timber intervention, are arguably less accessible through self-study. In fact, at a recent workshop for the development of curricula in Preservation Engineering held at the University of Vermont in collaboration with the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, there was a fairly strong consensus amongst academics and practitioners alike that to best understand masonry and timber not only did specialty con-tent need to be developed, but that the ideal situation would include firstly the introduc-tion of formal courses on modern masonry and timber. This approach might on the surface seem counter-intuitive. However, because current practices are based on much more homogenous materials, where the variability of performance is highly controlled through modern production and material inspection methods. Thus, first studying the contemporary design methodolo-gies is actually much easier.The vast majority of older brick and timber

structures in America are vernacular and were designed and built without the benefit of an engineer, even when the engagement of engineers for larger structures was already common practice. Consequently, the configu-ration of a large percentage of these structures was based on common practices. Although some of these are documented in a few early 20th century handbooks, the texts are hard to access, arguably incomplete, and do not approach the subject in a way that would be familiar to a modern engineer. For example, modern practice is based upon a certain probability that the materials are within a particular performance range. That perfor-mance level is in part an outgrowth of testing methods that the structural engineering com-munity has developed and adopted through consensus documents, such as those published by ASTM. Since most of these standards did not exist until recently, the limited testing data from the period of original construction is hard to evaluate in a modern context. A per-fect example is stiffness. In the few available documents where deformation of masonry piers was documented, the reported results

are on the final deformation at the time of failure. Current practice dictates determin-ing the Young’s modulus early in the loading curve and through a series of discrete measure-ments. Accurate properties are essential for the analysis of an historic structure.The issue is further complicated by the higher

variability of traditional materials compared to their modern counterparts. An easy to understand example of this is in brick making. Modern brick production employs a tunnel kiln to dry and fire the units. The equipment is highly controlled with respect to the tem-perature levels and exposure time of the bricks to the heat. Furthermore, the conveyor belt-like arrangement of the tunnel kiln promotes a uniform heat exposure (Figure 2). In traditional kilns there was little heat flow so that bricks located closer to the heat were more thoroughly fired than those further away, resulting in mate-rial variabilities with coefficients of variation in excess of 20%, even after hand culling of the material (Figure 3). Finally, just to further complicate the matter, the modern engineer must evaluate what decades (if not centuries) of exposure has done to material capacity.Another problem is that many of the subjects

that the modern structural engineer needs to study in preservation engineering fall into the category of either developing technologies or emerging fields. Some examples of the former include non-destructive analysis, sensors, sta-bilization, repair, and treatment strategies. Base-isolation is a good example of something that was nearly completely unknown 30 years ago but is now becoming a more mainstream (although still quite expensive) option for the seismic protection of historic buildings. In the latter category is the field of disaster management, where training and expertise are rapidly evolving along with changing com-munity expectations.Perhaps the geotechnical community can

provide a partial model on how structural engineers can move forward to incorporate fundamental training for engineering students that would be appropriate for interacting with historic buildings. Geotechnics is an area where specialty products have long been developed for heritage buildings, because of the potential liability during subsurface construction when it occurs adjacent to one of these facilities. From a financial impera-tive, several sub-specialties have developed including compensation grouting, jet grout-ing, micropiles, and screw piles, just to name a few. From 1970 through the early 1990s, these technologies faced great difficulties in gaining wide spread acceptance and adoption, especially on public projects because of an absence of widely available testing data and clearly defined specifications. Since then, the

industry has gone to greater transparency, in part as a function of the expiration of patents and also in recognition that government agen-cies often control the means and methods used on a project. Thus, the permitted technologies must cooperate in facilitating verification of products and procedures. Increasingly, the teaching of these techniques is occurring at the master’s level. Additionally, many faculty member use examples in the classroom involv-ing major historic monuments to illustrate the criticality of understanding fundamental soil mechanics. A common example is teaching primary and secondary clay consolidation calculation using the Tower of Pisa as a mini-case history. Such an approach enlivens the classroom and introduces, in an indirect way, the fundamental role of engineers and engi-neering in historic preservation.Unfortunately, there are topics that cannot

be addressed effectively through any of these means. Teaching forensics is a good example, as even the most fundamental skills such as con-ducting a load take down and understanding a building with respect to code development requires more than “chalk and talk” instruction. Teaching preservation ethics in a meaningful way is another good example. In both instances fieldwork, case histories, and mentoring by experienced engineers are inherent components to the process. Such experiential learning can only be obtained through mentored profes-sional practice or through the creation of highly specialized graduate level courses.

ConclusionIn summary, America’s structural engineers have much to learn about historic buildings, if we want them safely preserved for the sake of both architectural heritage and environmental protection. Some of this information is readily available for self study and some from spe-cialty courses, but eventually the community will have to embrace and financially support the dual concepts of preservation engineer-ing as a formal master’s level endeavor and of preservation research as a scholarly pursuit worthy of tenure at top academic institutions and funding at a national level. Such is already the case in parts of Europe.▪

Figure 3: Traditional Scove Kiln.

C-HistStruct-Laefer-Jan11.indd 43 12/20/2010 9:57:24 AM


Great achievements notable structural engineers

STRUCTURE magazine

C. C. Schneider

Schneider’s Second Stoney Creek Viaduct.

Fraser River Bridge.

Niagara Cantilever from a postcard.

Charles Conrad SchneiderBy Frank Griggs, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., P.L.S.

Charles Schneider was born in Apolda, Germany and received his engineering education at the Royal School of Technology at

Chemintz, Germany. After graduating in 1864, he worked as a mechanical engineer before immigrating to the United States in 1867. He went to work for the Paterson Locomotive Works for four years before going on to the Michigan Bridge and Construction Company in Detroit. This was his first profes-sional involvement with bridges which would occupy most of his career. In 1873, he went to work for the Erie Railroad in New York City. Here he worked for Octave Chanute, who designed the Kansas City Bridge, the first bridge over the Missouri River in 1867-68. In addition, George Morison, who had worked with Chanute on the Kansas City Bridge, was there as his Principal Assistant Engineer. While with the Erie, “one of his duties was to check the strain sheets and plans submitted by bridge companies... Bridge work up to this time had usually been let on a competitive lump-sum basis. Mr. Schneider soon found that this method was unsatisfactory, and the Railroad Company’s officials decided to make their own plans; and it was Mr. Schneider’s duty to prepare them...”In 1875, he went with Chanute who was

selected as one of the Board of Engineers to review proposals for a bridge at Blackwell’s Island across the East River in New York City. While reviewing them, he met Charles Macdonald who eventually won the com-petition. After leaving this position, he went to work for a year with the Delaware Bridge Company and Macdonald. During this period the Delaware Bridge Company had an agreement with the Edgemoor Iron Company to fabricate all of their bridges. Schneider was stationed at the Edgemoor Company, where he designed and supervised construction of several bridges including the Pennsylvania Railroad Rockville Bridge, 23 spans of 160 feet with two tracks, over the Susquehanna River and the Cohoes Bridge over the Mohawk River on the Delaware and Hudson Railroad.From 1879-1883, he was associated with

George Morison on the Plattsmouth, Bismarck and Blair Bridges across the Missouri River as well as the Snake River

Bridge at Ainsworth, Washington. His men-tors, Macdonald, Chanute and Morison were some of the most renowned bridge engineers of the time.In 1883, he set himself up in business as a

“civil engineer in New York making a specialty of designing and superintending bridges and structural work for buildings.” One of his first large clients was the Canadian Pacific Railway which was racing westward in com-petition with Jim Hill’s Great Northern. One of Schneider’s first jobs was to design wooden Howe Trusses, his most famous being the Stoney Creek Viaduct in the Selkirk

Mountains. The only iron in the bridge was the wrought-iron verticals and miscellaneous bolts and plates. Even though built of wood and considered to be a temporary bridge, it survived until 1893 and was replaced by a steel arch bridge designed by Schneider.He was asked to design an iron bridge,

just west of his Stoney Creek Viaduct, over the Fraser River. This river was a fast flow-ing stream which precluded placement of falseworks in the river bed. Schneider, based upon his previous exposure to the Blackwell’s Island Bridge competition, decided to build this bridge using cantilever techniques. He

completed a design of the 525-foot span, located 125 feet above the river, in the spring of 1882. Due to slowness of the iron delivery, even though it was the first cantilever designed by Schneider, it would not be completed until 1887. It lasted until 1910, when it was replaced by a new steel bridge.On October 13, 1882, the Michigan

Central Railroad asked Schneider to submit a proposal for a bridge across the Niagara Gorge near Roebling’s suspension bridge. They wanted “an estimate for a double-track railroad bridge of 900 feet clear span, for the purpose of ascertaining the probable cost of bridging the Niagara below the Falls... intimating that a braced arch reaching from cliff to cliff might be the proper design for the proposed structure.” He submitted his completed design to the Central Bridge Works of Buffalo, New York who in turn submitted a tender to the Niagara Bridge Company. The tender was accepted by the Board of Directors on April 11, 1883.The erection technique worked out by

Central Bridge Company and Schneider became the pattern which was followed on many cantilevers in the future. They started by building their towers and anchor spans from falsework resting on rock banks. They designed and built two travelers to erect the rest of the bridge. The travelers worked out-ward on each cantilever until they reached the end of the cantilever span. The suspended span was 120 feet long and the maximum reach of each traveler was 40 feet. Schneider did not want the traveler to go beyond the end of the cantilever span, as he did not want to overload the cantilever span or anchor-age. This left 40 feet of suspended span that could not be erected by the travelers. He

solved this by placing wooden beams across the 40-foot gap and erecting the rest of the truss by hand methods.The speed at which the bridge was erected

was impressive, with the entire bridge taking four months. What Schneider and Central Bridge did was to erect the superstructure of a new style bridge, using new techniques, over 900 feet long and 230 feet over the Niagara River in less than two months.In June 1885, three commissioners were

appointed to oversee building of a bridge across the Harlem River near John Jervis’ High Bridge. They set up a design com-petition and offered premiums of $1,500, $1,000 and $500 to the top three entries. On December 3, 1885 seventeen designs were submitted. Designs of the Union Bridge Company, Edward Shaw, Julius Adams, C. C. Schneider and Wilhelm Hildenbrand were favored by the commission. To help them in making a decision, they formed a Board of Experts consisting of Theodore Cooper, P. P. Dickinson, Edward Kendall and McAlpine to review the plans. The Commission rec-ommended Schneider’s design for the first premium. The design was modified by the Union Bridge Company, and the bridge was completed on February 22. It wasn’t totally opened until December 1889, when residents tore down the barricades and started using the bridge.In 1886, he entered into a partnership with

the Pencoyd Iron Works to design, fabricate and erect their bridges. During this period, Schneider designed or built the Delaware River Bridge for the Pennsylvania Railroad, L. L. Buck’s record setting arch bridge over the Niagara River below the falls, The James River Bridge for the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad and many other smaller bridges in the United States, Mexico and Japan.One of his potentially greatest bridges was at

Blackwell’s Island where, in 1893, the Long Island Railroad Company was planning a bridge across the East River. Schneider was selected as engineer and designed a cantilever bridge crossing the two river channels and the island. It had two identical cantilever

D-GreatAch-Griggs-Jan11.indd 44 12/20/2010 9:59:04 AM


Niagara Cantilever from a postcard.

Washington Bridge over the Harlem River.

Schneider’s Blackwell’s Island Plan.

solved this by placing wooden beams across the 40-foot gap and erecting the rest of the truss by hand methods.The speed at which the bridge was erected

was impressive, with the entire bridge taking four months. What Schneider and Central Bridge did was to erect the superstructure of a new style bridge, using new techniques, over 900 feet long and 230 feet over the Niagara River in less than two months.In June 1885, three commissioners were

appointed to oversee building of a bridge across the Harlem River near John Jervis’ High Bridge. They set up a design com-petition and offered premiums of $1,500, $1,000 and $500 to the top three entries. On December 3, 1885 seventeen designs were submitted. Designs of the Union Bridge Company, Edward Shaw, Julius Adams, C. C. Schneider and Wilhelm Hildenbrand were favored by the commission. To help them in making a decision, they formed a Board of Experts consisting of Theodore Cooper, P. P. Dickinson, Edward Kendall and McAlpine to review the plans. The Commission rec-ommended Schneider’s design for the first premium. The design was modified by the Union Bridge Company, and the bridge was completed on February 22. It wasn’t totally opened until December 1889, when residents tore down the barricades and started using the bridge.In 1886, he entered into a partnership with

the Pencoyd Iron Works to design, fabricate and erect their bridges. During this period, Schneider designed or built the Delaware River Bridge for the Pennsylvania Railroad, L. L. Buck’s record setting arch bridge over the Niagara River below the falls, The James River Bridge for the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad and many other smaller bridges in the United States, Mexico and Japan.One of his potentially greatest bridges was at

Blackwell’s Island where, in 1893, the Long Island Railroad Company was planning a bridge across the East River. Schneider was selected as engineer and designed a cantilever bridge crossing the two river channels and the island. It had two identical cantilever

spans of 810 feet in the clear, 840 feet center to center of piers, making them the longest cantilevers in the United States. Foundations were started, and steel contracts for the super-structure awarded in March 1895. After a fast start the company ran out of funds and construction halted.He remained with Pencoyd until 1900, when

it was purchased by the American Bridge Company, a J. P. Morgan led consolidation of 28 of the largest steel fabricators and construc-tors in the United States. At American Bridge Company, he was appointed Chief Engineer as well as Director and Vice President until 1903, and then until his death as Consulting Engineer. The President of the firm noted, “Mr. Schneider, without question, stood at the very head of his profession. And, in addi-tion, I believe never had an enemy in his entire career.” In 1903 he, along with Theodore Cooper, was appointed by the Government of Japan to develop sets of plans for Japanese railroad bridges,Around 1895, Theodore Cooper suggested

Schneider should take his place as consulting engineer before construction of the Quebec Bridge commenced, due to his age and declin-ing health. The bridge company did not accept this recommendation, and Cooper continued in nominal charge with the Phoenix Bridge Company taking over more and more of the design. In 1907, after the August failure of the bridge, Schneider was selected to investigate the failure of Cooper’s Bridge. He wrote an extensive report on the bridge design which was included with the Report of the Royal Commission. He was asked to respond to three questions, the most important being, “The advisability of discarding the present plans of the Quebec Bridge, and recom-mendations as to a new design.” Schneider’s report was finished early in 1908, but not released until the Commission’s report was released. He, after a lengthy structural analysis of the bridge, had eight conclusions, the most important being, “The present design is not well adapted to a structure of the magnitude of the Quebec Bridge and should, therefore, be discarded and a different design adopted for the new bridge, retaining only the length of the spans in order to use the present piers.”On May 17, 1911, Schneider was

appointed a full member of the Board that was to oversee design and construction of the replacement bridge, serving with Charles Monsarrat and Ralph Modjeski. Schneider died January 8, 1916, eight months before another major bridge failure when the sus-pended span being lifted into place slipped off its supports into the river resulting in

the deaths of 13 men. The bridge was finally opened on October 27, 1917.Schneider was active in ASCE, serving as

Director, Vice-President and President in 1905. He won the Rowland Prize for his paper The Cantilever Bridge at Niagara Falls in 1886, the Norman Medal for his paper The Structural Design of Buildings in 1905 and Movable Bridges in 1908. In addition, he contributed to many discussions of the papers of his colleagues.His memoir in the Transactions ASCE noted,

“Mr. Schneider was dearly beloved by his many friends on account of his sterling character and his kindly disposition. He was always willing and ready to assist brother engi-neers with advice, giving to them freely from his rich fund of knowledge, and large indeed is the number of engineers today in responsible positions, who owe their training and their position to him. He was most democratic in his ways and of a lovable disposition, and gained, in the highest degree the respect of everybody who came in contact with him. He always stood for good work, good designs, and good details, and the Engineering Profession is greatly indebted to him for the present high standard that has been obtained in bridge and structural work. His was a most useful life, well lived, an example and an inspira-tion to the Profession, that will remain in the memory of all who had the privilege of knowing him.”▪

Dr. Griggs specializes in the restoration of historic bridges, having restored many 19th Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He was formerly Director of Historic Bridge Programs for Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP in Albany, NY, and is now an independent Consulting Engineer. Dr. Griggs can be reached via email at [email protected].

D-GreatAch-Griggs-Jan11.indd 45 12/20/2010 9:59:06 AM


Product Watch updates on emerging technologies, products and services

STRUCTURE magazine

SIPs Provide Green Building Benefits in Traditional and Cutting-Edge DesignsBy Joe Pasma, P.E.

In the 1970s, geodesic domes were the vision of efficient, futuristic build-ings. It seems that every community had a least one of these Buckminster

Fuller-inspired creations – whether a home, restaurant, office, church or motel.Today, green buildings typically look no

different than conventional buildings. The unseen systems and materials are often more important than the outward appearance. A case in point is structural insulated panels (SIPs). SIPs contribute to a range of envi-ronmentally responsible design goals, while meeting the structural and aesthetic needs of a host of building types and architectural styles.

Structural AttributesStructural insulated panels are high-per-formance, engineered wall, roof, and floor components for use in single- and multi-family homes, as well as schools, worship facilities, offices, retail, and other light com-mercial buildings. The panels are made of two outer sheathing layers (typically oriented strand board – OSB) laminated to a rigid insulating foam core (such as expanded poly-styrene – EPS). The skins and foam core work together to achieve high strength in a manner comparable to other engineered structural components, such as I-joists.In wall applications, SIPs provide exceptional

strength in racking and diaphragm shear capac-ities, making them suitable as shear walls and

structural diaphragms to resist high winds and earthquakes. They have been proven for use in seismic design categories D, E and F.In roof applications, SIPs perform well under

gravity and snow loads. Designers can specify SIPs to create vaulted, open interior spaces. Since they have long clear span capability – typically up to 20 feet – SIPs can reduce the need for intermediate structural supports. They can also be employed in roof struc-tures without an engineered truss system. The results are large, soaring rooflines, open and vaulted ceilings, and overall extra indoor space for applications otherwise very difficult to achieve with stick-built construction.Most SIP manufacturers work with design-

ers and specifiers to ensure their panels are accepted by local building code officials and are in compliance with the building codes, including the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC). This process includes providing alternative material evaluation or listing reports for SIPs showing evidence of compliance with code requirements as an alternate method of construction.

Green Building AdvantagesIn addition to their ability to meet a range of structural needs, SIPs support green building goals, including improved energy efficiency and indoor air quality.The key environmental advantage of designing

and building with SIPs is their ability to create

a tight, high-performance building envelope. The rigid foam core offers continuous insulation across the panels’ width and length, reduc-ing the thermal bridging created by lumber. Additionally, the large-size panels have signifi-cantly fewer joints that require sealing.The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE)

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) evaluated the energy performance of SIPs versus stick-built framing. Their analysis of complete wall assemblies found that SIPs had an approximately 47 percent higher whole-wall R-value than a comparably sized stud wall (i.e., 3.5-inch-thick core SIP versus 2 by 4 studs at 16 inches on center).Because of SIPs’ capabilities, more design

professionals are using them in net zero-energy buildings. The panels can help reduce annual heating and cooling demands by 50 to 60 percent compared to stick framing, going a long way toward reducing overall energy needs. This is particularly important in states such as California, where energy efficiency is mandated. California’s Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings require net-zero energy construction by 2020 for homes and 2030 for commercial buildings. All across the country, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) has put forth its AIA 2030 Commitment, calling for all new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2030.The tightness of the SIPs’ envelope also

makes buildings less prone to infiltration by

SIPs provide a strong and stiff base for a living roof at the Bend, Oregon, Metro Parks and Recreation District headquarters.

For walls, SIPs provide exceptional strength in racking capacities.

D-ProductWatch-Pasma-Jan11.indd 46 12/20/2010 10:00:14 AM


common pollutants such as radon, molds, pollen, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), lead dust and asbestos. As such, SIPs can be an important part of creating a healthier indoor environment, which is especially important in homes, schools and healthcare facilities.For these and other green building advan-

tages, including reduced construction waste, SIPs can help design professionals earn up to 36 or more points in the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program for homes, and up to 23 points for com-mercial construction.

Design FlexibilityDesign teams are using SIPs in a range of architectural styles, from traditional to ultra-modern. SIP buildings look no dif-ferent than other construction materials, and can also enable innovative designs.For example, architects working for Brad

Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation to help rebuild New Orleans, developed a “Float House” that uses SIP walls and roofs as part of a modular structure built on a chas-sis designed to fl oat. In Bend, Oregon, the Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District opened a new headquarters with a green “living” roof placed on top of structural insulated panels. Pushing the design enve-lope even further, a commercial building in Seattle used six cargo shipping containers with a roof made of SIPs. Each of these projects incorporated a host of other green features; the design teams selected the SIPs as a key part of that, as well as for their abil-ity to meet aesthetic and structural needs.

ConclusionSIP technology is not new, having been around for several decades. What has

Helping speed construction, SIPs arrive at the jobsite in large, ready-to-install sections. SIPs meet a wide range of structural needs in roof, wall and fl oor systems.

changed is a growing recognition of their contribution to green building and ability to work well with a range of building designs. For structural engineers and other design team members who have not yet designed a structure with SIPs, to get started, contact a panel manufacturer or dealer for detailed information on load capacities, panel sizes, code acceptance and other related factors.▪

Joe Pasma, P.E., is the technical manager for Premier Building Systems, a fi rm that develops and manufactures high-performance, energy-effi cient structural insulated panels. A licensed structural engineer, Pasma has worked with SIPs for almost two decades. Joe may be reached at [email protected].

AD

VERTISEMEN


ation, visit ww

w.STRU

CTUREm

ag.org

Pier

ce C

ount

y Te

rmin

al, T

acom

a, W

ashi

ngto

n

D-ProductWatch-Pasma-Jan11.indd 47 12/20/2010 10:00:28 AM


LegaL PersPectives discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers

STRUCTURE magazine

Dispute Resolution TechniquesBy David J. Hatem, PC and Jordan S. Rattray

Construction projects are built through the application of ideas, decisions and judgments made by different individuals and stake-

holders in the project. Misunderstandings and differences of opinion are daily occurrences, even on successful projects. It is common for some issues that arise during the course of a project to become a dispute. There are as many ways to resolve disputes as there are ways for disputes to arise. Disputes are resolved through techniques ranging from court judgments to negotiations between business partners. In response to the restric-tiveness and uncertainty in taking disputes to trial, alternative methods of resolving disputes have become commonplace.The occurrence of a dispute is often antici-

pated by parties, and dispute resolution procedures are agreed to and defined in contracts. Other times, a dispute resolution process is developed in response to the cir-cumstances surrounding the dispute and the needs of the parties. This article will describe some of the more typical dispute resolution techniques, and the benefits and limitations to each option. The parties to a dispute should look at the issues and circumstances involved in their dispute when choosing a dispute reso-lution technique.

Traditional Dispute ResolutionLitigation

Litigation is the traditional way of formally resolving a dispute that parties are unable to resolve on their own. Litigation is the pro-cess of resolving a dispute through the court system, which commences when one party, the Plaintiff, files a Complaint against another party, the Defendant. The parties to the litiga-tion are represented by attorneys. Ultimately the court, through either a jury verdict or a judge’s decision, will enter a judgment in favor of one party. The litigation process is defined and governed by Rules of Civil Procedure, which can be rigid and inflexible when compared to alternative methods of dispute resolution.Litigation is typically the final step in the

process, initiated only after the parties have been unable to resolve the dispute and need the assistance of a decision maker, the judge

or jury. Through the process of litigation the parties identify the issues in dispute, exchange information and documents, gather testimony from people with knowledge, and retain expert witnesses to render opinions. Ultimately, after what might be several years, the parties will present their factual and legal arguments to a judge or jury which will render a decision, thereby resolving the dispute. In its simplest form, a litigation case will involve one Plaintiff and one Defendant; however, it is common, especially in construction related cases, for cases to involve multiple parties, cross-claims, counter-claims, and multiple claims for damages.Litigation is very expensive, and requires a

lot of time from both attorneys and from the project personnel and representative princi-pals of the firm. The costs associated with the exchanging of information, especially in the era of emails and electronic documents, and preparing for trial can be daunting, especially when there are multiple parties. Once a law-suit is filed, it does not mean that the parties must give up trying to resolve the dispute on their own. The parties are permitted, and are usually strongly encouraged by the Court, to try to resolve the dispute on their own using Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques, any time before a judgment is entered by the Court. Once a judgment has been entered, either party has the option of appealing the decision to a higher court. It often takes years for a case to be resolved once litigation is initiated.

Alternative Dispute ResolutionIn response to the expense, formality and risk of an adverse finding inherent in litiga-tion cases, Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) methods have been developed. The most common forms of ADR are Arbitration or Mediation. ADR also covers informal negotiation or other methods of resolving a dispute other than through a judgment entered by a court. All ADR methods are voluntary and must be agreed to by the par-ties. Contracts often set forth the method(s) of dispute resolution that the parties do or may agree to should a dispute arise. Contractual dispute resolution processes can be straight forward or can set forth numerous steps the parties must take before the final resolution method (typically litigation or arbitration) can be commenced.

Arbitration

Arbitration involves the resolution of a dispute through the issuance of an award by a single arbitrator or an arbitration panel. Arbitration is similar to litigation in that all parties will present their factual and legal arguments to a decision maker, who will issue an award, which is intended to be a final resolution of the dispute. There are however some sig-nificant, and important, differences between litigation and arbitration proceedings.The most significant shortcoming of arbitra-

tion is that, with the exception of a few very limited circumstances, there is no right to appeal an award once issued. This removes an important check and balance which is inherent in the litigation process, the right to appeal a bad decision. Any party should consider the lack of appeal before agreeing to arbitrate a dispute. Other differences are that the parties must pay for the time of the arbitrator(s), and discovery is typi-cally not allowed, or limited by agreement. Resolution of the dispute is often efficient

D-LegalPersp-Hatem-Jan11.indd 48 12/20/2010 10:02:05 AM


AD

VERTISEMEN


ation, visit ww

w.STRU

CTUREm

ag.org

Model * Load * Analyze * Design * Report * Succeed!

Aluminum DesignGreat Looking Reports

IBC 2009, ASCE 7-10

iesweb.comQuick Easy Versatile

Integrated Engineering Software519 E. Babcock St, Bozeman, MT 59715toll free: 800-707-0816 or [email protected]

and a decision is typically issued more quickly than in litigation. Additionally, the proceed-ings are confi dential and are not a matter of public record. Another important diff erence is that an arbitrator may also consider issues of equity or fairness, and are not limited by legal precedent like a court is. Depending on your position, this can either be helpful or harmful. Th e parties have the right to agree to any of the factors of an arbitration proceeding, such as whether the award will be binding or non-binding.

Mediation

Mediation is a non-binding, strictly voluntary, entirely confi dential process which uses the assistance of a third party neutral, a media-tor, to achieve a settlement of the dispute. Mediation is fl exible process that can be tailored to the needs of the parties and the dispute. Mediation involves the mutual agree-ment of all parties to enter into the mediation and the mutual selection of the mediator. Th e mediator has no authority to bind the parties and merely facilitates resolution of disputes through the exchange of informa-tion and settlement negotiations. Th e parties to a mediation are bound by confi dentiality, and cannot use any of the information that is shared through the mediation process against the other party at any time (i.e. at an arbitration hearing or trial).Th rough mediation, the parties will

educate the mediator of their position. Often, but not always, the parties will exchange mediation statements or presen-tations with each other. Th e mediator’s communications with each side cannot be shared with the other side. While most mediations involve a one- or two-day session which will or will not result in a settlement, other mediation processes can involve numerous informational exchange sessions followed by negotia-tion sessions

Less Formal ProcessesTh ere are also less formal methods of resolving disputes which do not involve the use of third-parties. Often contracts will require, as a fi rst step to resolving a dispute, less formal negotiation or part-nering sessions as a way to talk through and resolve issues before a dispute arises.

Partnering

Partnering is sometimes required by contract as a means of identifying and discussing contentious issues with the

ultimate goal of moving the project forward. Participants in a partnering session will be the project personnel and principals. Th e parties will identify issues and discuss them as they arise. If resolution of issues cannot be achieved at the partnering session, the parties often discuss ways to work around the dispute until it is resolved. While a partnering session is a method of resolving issues, it is also intended to encourage communication and maintain good working relationships.

Negotiation

Negotiation of a dispute, whether it involves a casual conversation between long time business partners or structured settlement discussions, can be a cost eff ective way to resolving any dispute. At the beginning of a dispute, parties to the dispute may sit down and try and negotiate a resolution of some or all of the issues in dispute. If not entirely successful, a negotiation session may result in the narrowing of issues in dispute. Successful negotiations are dependant on the parties understanding of the issues in dispute and other factors which infl uence the ability to resolve the dispute together.

ConclusionTh ere are numerous techniques for resolving a dispute. Some techniques are formal, while others are informal and are tailored to the needs of the dispute. Th e parties to a dispute can agree to any method of resolution and often contracts spell out a resolution process. When agreeing to a dispute resolution pro-cess, whether it is in the contract negotiation stage or after the dispute has arisen, each party must weigh the benefi ts and limitations of each available dispute resolution technique. All alternative methods of dispute resolution are voluntary, and must be agreed to by all parties. Th erefore, they are often more suc-cessful methods of resolving a dispute in a timely and cost eff ective manner.

David J. Hatem, PC, is the founding Partner of the multi-practice law fi rm Donovan Hatem LLP. He leads the fi rm’s Professional Practice Group. Mr. Hatem can be reached via email at [email protected].

Jordan S. Rattray is an associate in the Professional Practices Group at Donovan Hatem LLP. Ms. Rattray can be reached via email at [email protected].

D-LegalPersp-Hatem-Jan11.indd 49 12/20/2010 10:02:06 AM

NOTEWORTHY news and information


ANCHOR UPDATES news and information from anchor companies

Matthew Salveson Retires from STRUCTURE® Editorial BoardOn January 1, 2011, Matt Salveson, Ph.D., P.E. completed his tenure on the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board. Dr. Salveson, a senior engineer with Dokken Engineering and an Associate Professor with California State University in Sacramento, will be concentrating on his academic commit-ments going forward. Jon Schmidt, Chair of the Editorial Board, had this to say about Matt’s tenure, “Matt has been a real asset to the Editorial Board over the last four years. I am sorry to see him go, but wish him all the best in his other endeavors.”Regarding his departure from the Board, Matt added, “I have genuinely

enjoyed my service on the Editorial Board. My colleagues on the Board are among the best in the � eld and the magazine’s authors have always given me fresh insight into professional structural engineering practice. As my own career shifts towards academia, I will continue to rely on STRUCTURE

magazine to keep me abreast of critical issues in professional practice. � ank you very much for giving me the opportunity to serve.”

SEI has appointed Brian Miller to succeed Matt as one of its three representatives on the Editorial Board. Brian was a representative of AISC on the Board, but separated from AISC at the end of September. Mr. Miller will continue to work with the Editorial Board on behalf of SEI. � e STRUCTURE magazine leadership continues to work towards � lling the vacant steel industry seat.Please join us in thanking Matt Salveson for his service over the last four

years and wishing him well.

All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2011 Editorial Calendar are now available on the website, www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Listings are provided

as a courtesy. STRUCTURE® magazine is not responsible for errors.

Bentley SystemsPhone: 800-236-8539 Email: [email protected]: www.bentley.comProduct: RAM Connection V8iDescription: RAM Connection V8i includes base plates for different column supports. Choose between uniaxial or biaxial analysis, design the base plate per AISC 360-05 (additional seismic check per AISC 341-05 included), design the anchor bolts per ACI 318-05 appendix D in seconds, and get all the detailed reports and structural details.

Halfen Anchoring SystemsPhone: 210-658-4671Email: [email protected]: www.HalfenUSA.comProduct: HALFENDescription: Adjustable anchoring systems for façade and structural connections. Cast-in channels and T-bolts with high load capacity for curtain wall, precast, masonry, elevator, balcony, and other applications. Anchors for dynamic loads and with 3-dimension adjustability are available in galvanized carbon steel or stainless steel.

Hayward Baker Inc.Phone: 800-456-6548Email: [email protected]: www.HaywardBaker.comProduct: AnchorsDescription: Hayward Baker Inc., a member of the international Keller Group, provides permanent, temporary, and removable ground and rock anchors for support of excavations, permanent resistance of hydrostatic uplift forces on bottom slabs, and resistance of wind-induced uplift forces. Hayward Baker also provides a full range of geotechnical construction services.

Heckmann Building Products, Inc.Phone: 800-621-4140Email: [email protected]: www.heckmannanchors.comProduct: Thermal Pos-I-Tie® Brick Veneer Anchoring SystemDescription: The THERMAL POS-I-TIE Brick Veneer Anchoring System reduces thermal conductivity to the backup wall. System can be used with steel stud, concrete, CMU, ICF, brick and wood backup walls. The Thermal Pos-I-Tie can penetrate exterior insulation and gypsum board to screw directly into the backup while sealing the penetration hole.

Hilti, Inc.Phone: 800-879-8000Email: [email protected]: www.us.hilti.comProduct: Hilti HIT-HY 150 MAX-SDDescription: Every project is unique – that’s why Hilti offers a broad portfolio of leading mechanical and adhesive anchoring options. Our innovative HIT-HY 150 MAX-SD is the fi rst and only fast cure adhesive with ICC-ES approval per AC 308 for cracked concrete. Download free Profi s Anchor Design Software at our website.

ITW Red HeadPhone: 630-694-4780Email: [email protected]: www.itwredhead.comProduct: Overhead Trubolt+Description: Overhead Trubolt+ is the ONLY U.S. manufactured complete overhead anchoring system for rod hanging. This product is ICC-ES listed (2427) and achieves high performance values using shallow embedments.

Powers FastenersPhone: 985-807-6666Email: [email protected]: www.powers.comProduct: Construction FastenersDescription: FREE – anchor design software – POWERS DESIGN ASSIST (PDA). Download from the Powers website. Will help designers deal with ACI 318 APPENDIX D. NEW...16 new anchor/fastener Code Compliance ICC ES Reports!

RISA TechnologiesPhone: 949-951-5815Email: [email protected]: www.risa.comProduct: RISABaseDescription: When accuracy counts, RISABase delivers. RISABase uses an automated fi nite element solution to provide exact bearing pressures, plate stresses, and anchor bolt pull out capacities, eliminating the guess work of hand methods. Defi ne bi-axial loads and eccentric column locations. Choose from several connection types and specify custom bolt locations.

SAS Stressteel, Inc.Phone: 973-244-5995Email: [email protected]: www.stressteel.comProduct: Hot-rolled Fully Threaded Steel BarsDescription: Innovative products + Solutions. SAS hot-rolled steel thread bar sizes from #6 to #24 in grades 80, 97, 150 and select 160ksi are used in a wide range of applications from rock + soil anchors to multi-bar caissons to high strength reinforcing steel systems for high-rise concrete structures.

Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor SystemsPhone: 800-999-5099Email: [email protected]: www.simpsonanchors.comProduct: Strong-Bolt™ 2 Wedge Anchor for Cracked ConcreteDescription: The Strong-Bolt 2 by Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems is an innovative, new wedge anchor that includes a ⅜ -inch diameter anchor for 3¼-inch thick concrete. As a Category 1 anchor, Strong-Bolt 2 offers increased reliability in adverse conditions, including cracked concrete under static and seismic loading. ICC-ES code-listed (ESR-3037).

Williams Form Engineering Corp.Phone: 616-866-0815Email: [email protected]: www.williamsform.comProduct: Anchor SystemsDescription: Williams Form Engineering Corporation has been providing threaded steel bars and accessories for rock anchors, soil anchors, high capacity concrete anchors, micro piles, tie rods, tie backs, strand anchors, hollow bar anchors, post tensioning systems, and concrete forming hardware systems in the construction industry for over 85 years.

D-AnchorUpdate-Jan11.indd 50 12/20/2010 10:03:18 AM


Spotlightaward winners and outstanding projects

The New DC: The Atrium at 300 New Jersey AvenueBy Azer Kehnemui, D. Sc., P.E., Hakan Onel P.E., S.E. and Rupa M. Patel

Smislova, Kehnemui and Associates, P.A. received an Outstanding Project Award for the 300 New Jersey Avenue project in the 2010 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering awards program (Category – New Buildings $10M to $30M)

Veiled in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol, the atrium at 300 New Jersey Avenue displays one of the most contemporary integrations

of architectural vision and engineering cre-ativity in Washington, DC. The expansive, full-height atrium was designed and con-structed as part of a new, 10-story concrete office building and six-story below grade park-ing garage. It is the first commercial office building to be designed and built in the United States by the world renowned archi-tectural firm, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners (formerly the Richard Rogers Partnership), who collaborated with Smislova, Kehnemui and Associates, P.A. (SK&A), the structural engineer of record and HKS Architects, the project architect and architect of record, to create one of the most unique structures in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Hakan Onel, P.E., S.E., an associate at SK&A, led the structural design of the atrium and Tolga Cubukcu, now retired, was responsible for the office building portion of the project. Azer Kehnemui, D.Sc., P.E., principal and co-founder of SK&A, served as the principal in charge of the entire project, leading both design teams and coordinating efforts between the engineers, architects, and owner.The LEED GOLD certified 270,000 SF

office building is constructed adjacent to an existing historic 1935 office building and its 1953 addition. The atrium is the proj-ect’s most notable feature and serves as the common convergence space between the three buildings–blending past and present in a three-dimensional cascade of glass and steel. Linked by the canopy of a skylight and a full-height hanging glass facade in front, the buildings come together in a series of glass walkways and platforms that extend out from the main “tree” structure in the center of the space. Supporting the skylight is a complex, bright yellow boomerang truss that extends the length of the atrium and is punctuated at each end with two lattice columns that, at first glance, appear to be sculptures placed for aesthetic appeal.The luminous glass curtain wall at the

entrance of the atrium falls about one

hundred feet from cantilevered beams at the top floor of the building. Steel cables extend from the top level of the structure to support the hanging wall against vertical and lateral forces. Lateral movement is also restricted by horizontal kipper trusses at each level, and springs at the bottom of the wall and at the attachment to the existing building prevent loads from being transferred to the glazing system below the curtain wall and to the existing building.The boomerang truss, seemingly hovering

over the length of the atrium, is offset from the supporting tree structure with tie-back rods that help support it at mid-span. The truss has a tapered triangular section with circular chord and web members. The depth of the truss tapers from eight feet to zero at the ends. A noteworthy feature of the support system for the truss is the tension rods that support it and its stair platforms. These tie rods are pre-tensioned so that they remain tensioned during all phases of construction and provide initial camber to the steel truss. The two steel lattice columns supporting the truss at each end are constructed of steel HSS pipe sections in compression and pre-ten-sioned cables with roller pins at each outrigger to allow for zero loss in pre-tensioning fric-tion. Structural redundancy in the columns has been provided using double cables at each of the three lines of cables around the main pipe section.The skylight covering the atrium is com-

posed of ladder frames that were assembled off-site and transported to the project site. The frames are constructed of steel channels and HSS tube steel sections that were field bolted together on-site to create the framework that supports the glass panels of the skylight.The atrium tree is the primary structural

steel moment frame tower that supports the skylight, the boomerang truss, and the eleva-tor shaft and platforms. The 18-inch diameter steel HSS round columns that make up the tree structure’s vertical members had to be filled with concrete and designed as composite columns in order to carry the high axial loads. The elevator support cage and transparent elevator shaft are constructed with elevator

sheave beams supported on a dedicated steel cage system, which itself is supported on atrium tree beams and the main truss at the top. The guide rails are laterally supported by slender steel forks attached to the tree beam members. The stair treads are Z-shaped bent plate sections that were specifically designed to provide lateral stiffness to the stair frame. Steel bridges extend from the main atrium tree structure, spanning each level between the two historic buildings and the new contem-porary structure. The bridges are framed with stiff kink post truss structures with slender members and walking platforms composed of multilayer laminated glass panels.Residents and tourists alike are now witness

to a timeless vision of engineering and archi-tectural ingenuity that punctuates a sleepy morning commute or casual stroll through Capitol Hill. This part futuristic, part whim-sical atrium structure is a welcome contrast to the stern, conservative personality of the traditional DC skyline, introducing a truly spectacular integration of art and ability.▪

Azer Kehnemui, D. Sc., P.E., Consulting Structural Engineer, is Founding Principal of Smislova, Kehnemui & Associates, PA (SK&A).

Hakan Onel P.E., S.E. is an Associate of SK&A.

Rupa M. Patel is a project engineer at SK&A.

D-Spotlight-Jan11.indd 51 12/20/2010 10:05:04 AM


NC

SEA

New

sN

ew

s fo

rm th

e N

atio

na

l Co

un

cil

of S

truc

tura

l En

gin

ee

rs A

sso

cia

tion

s

STRUCTURE magazine

NaTioNal CoUNCil of STRUCTURal ENgiNEERS aSSoCiaTioNS2011 WiNTER iNSTiTUTE fEbRUaRy 25-26, 2011

Deferred Submittals: What the EOR Needs to Know and Showfrom Design to ConstructionOmni Amelia Island Plantation Resort

Friday, February 25 8.0 Professional Development Hours

Deferred Submittals Gone WrongIntroduction of topic and personal experiences. Ben Nelson, Martin/Martin, Inc., Lakewood, CO, Tom DiBlasi, DiBlasi Associates, P.C., Monroe, CT, and Tom Grogan, Haskell, Jacksonville, FL.

Building Officials Have Their SayCan SE’s get themselves into trouble by improperly dealing with deferred submittals? No question, according to these building officials. Take this opportunity to gain a better understanding of the permitting process using deferred submissions. Ron Lynn, Clark County, NV, and Jim Schock, Jacksonville, FL.

Non-Standard Steel JoistsWhat are the responsibilities of the project registered design professional and the joist manufacturer for non-standard steel joists? What do you know about steel joist calculation submittals? Tim Holtermann, Canam Steel Corporation, Washington, MO.

Design Responsibility for Engineered Precast SystemsHow do you divide design responsibilities when specifying precast concrete components and systems? Discussion will include how best to convey necessary design information in the contract documents and how to deal with issues related to precast concrete lateral load resisting systems, as well as approaches to avoid RFIs and design omissions. Tim Salmons, Salmons, P.C., Albuquerque, NM.

Moderated tours of the Canam Steel Joist Facility and the Gate Concrete Products Facility, Jacksonville, FL

Saturday, February 26 7.5 Professional Development Hours

Specifying Wood and Cold-Formed Steel Trusses – Avoiding Pitfalls and Unnecessary LiabilityPre-manufactured trusses: Who is responsible for what, when it comes to the SER, the truss industry, contractors, and the building department? What are some of the pitfalls of specifying pre-manufactured trusses? Ed Huston, Smith and Huston, Inc., Seattle, WA.

Cold-Formed Steel Submittals – Expectations and Performance of Structural and Specialty EngineersWhile some cold formed steel (CFS) products require specialty engineering, others do not. What are the responsibilities of all members of the construction team, particularly the Structural Engineer of Record and the Specialty Structural Engineer? Who assumes liability for design? Steve Walker, Light Gauge Steel Engineering Group, Inc., Oakland, Florida.

Current Trends in Professional Liability & Risk ManagementWhat are the duties and limitations when providing construction phase services? Which contract provisions are frequently the subject of difficult negotiations? How can poorly worded provisions impact the design professional? Brian Hadar, Suncoast Insurance, and Colleen Palmer, Beazley Insurance.

N-NCSEAnews-Jan11.indd 52 12/20/2010 10:06:05 AM


NC

SEA N

ews

Ne

ws fro

m th

e N

atio

na

l Co

un

cil o

f Struc

tura

l Eng

ine

ers A

ssoc

iatio

ns

Lunch Presentation Sponsored by Fyfe CompanyHow do you avoid deferred submittal problems when specifying fiber reinforced polymer for the structural upgrade of concrete? Scott Arnold, P.E.

Deferred Submittal Documentation – What You Really Need to Show Regarding Deferred SubmittalsWhy is it important to clearly identify, in the contract documents, what scope is covered by the EOR and what scope requires design by a specialty engineer? How can you avoid unnecessary risks? C. Ben Nelson, Martin/Martin, Inc., Lakewood, CO.

Deferred Submittals – Panel Discussion of Lessons LearnedProblem prevention, pre-engineered metal buildings, incorrectly-prescribed foundations, inordinate numbers of changes, and more.

Networking Opportunities:Reception Thursday evening, February 24, 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.Reception Friday evening, February 25, 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

sponsored by the Florida Structural Engineers Association

Cost and Registration:Breakfast, lunch, breaks and receptions included in price:$350 per day, or $595 for both days

January 25, 2011: Heavy Timber Connections: Mistakes and Lessons Learned – Ben Brungraber

February 10, 2011: Detailing of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Structures to Minimize the Effects of Restraint to Shortening – Bryan Allred

March 1, 2011: Building Information Modeling in Structural Engineering Practice Today – David J. Odeh

March 10, 2011: Post-Tensioned Slabs on Ground Design – Bryan Allred

April 19, 2011: Code Issues in Existing Buildings: Archaic and Obsolete Structures – Donald Friedman

May 17, 2011: AISC T.R. Higgins Lecture–The AISC Seismic Design Provisions: Past, Present and Future – James O. Malley

NCSEA/Kaplan Structural Engineering Exam Review CourseObtain two weekends (12 hours each) of targeted review, sitting in front of your computer, with 24/7 playback. Review

anytime. Instructors are knowledgeable, hand-picked and recommended by your peers:January 29-30: Vertical Forces Review.February 12-13: Lateral Forces Review.

Visit www.ncsea.com and follow the “Hot Topics” link for the NCSEA/Kaplan SE Exam Review Course, to register and for more information on the course and the instructors.

Register at www.ncsea.com

Upcoming NCSEA

Webinars:

Ron Lynn Jim Schock Tim Holtermann Tim Salmons

Brian Hader

Ed Huston

Colleen Palmer

Steve Walker

C. Ben Nelson

Accommodations:Omni Amelia Island Plantation ResortAmelia Island, FL 32035NCSEA Winter Institute rate until February 9: $149Reservations: 1-888-261-6165Group number: 022011NCSEAWINT or National Council of Structural Engineers AssociationsFree roundtrip airport transportation to/from Jacksonville airport, provided you reserve 72 hours in advance.

N-NCSEAnews-Jan11.indd 53 12/20/2010 10:06:21 AM


Th

e N

ew

sle

tter o

f th

e S

truc

tura

l En

gin

ee

ring

Inst

itute

of A

SCE

Stru

ctur

al C

olum

ns

STRUCTURE magazine

Spring 2011 Fazlur R. Khan Distinguished Lecture Series at Lehigh University

Call for New MembersASCE/SEI Athletic Field Lighting Structures Standards CommitteeThe Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of ASCE is seeking

members for the newly forming Athletic Field Lighting Structures Standards Committee. The committee is developing a national consensus guideline for the proper specification, design, installa-tion, and on-going maintenance of athletic field, or other similar large area lighting system support structures. Membership on SEI/ASCE standard committees is open to all those who might reasonably be expected to be or who indicate they are directly affected by the activity without dominance by any single inter-est group: Producer, Consumer and General Interest, including Regulatory. Those interested in serving on the committee should apply online at www.seinstitute.org/committees/codeform.cfm. For more information, please contact Lee Kusek, ASCE Standards Administrator, at [email protected] or 703-295-6176.

Upcoming ConferenceSEWC 2011 – April 4-6, 2011Villa Erba, Lake Como, ItalyThe Structural Engineers World Congress (SEWC) is an inter-

national conference with worldwide participation by structural engineers. The primary purpose of SEWC2011 is to focus on the overall practice of structural engineering for both technical and theoretical aspects, including materials, actions, design, construction, research and tests. The conference will address the practical needs of structural engineering world-wide, and improve co-operation among persons who share the same interests. For more information, see the conference website: http://sewc-worldwide.org/index.php/sewc2011-italy.

Online Game is Part of ASCEville’s Green MakeoverSolar panels. Mixed use development. Permeable pavement. If you haven’t been to ASCEville lately you’re in for a surprise.

Visitors to ASCE’s kids Website will find these features and more on the new home page, which features new graphics, new video content, and a fun, scavenger hunt game highlighting themes of sustainability. Kids, parents, teachers and, yes, even engineers will love learning how civil engineers are making local communities more livable. See if you can find all 20 features and discover how civil engineering contributes to healthier built and natural environments!Teachers, especially, will find the site useful in supporting their lessons on sustainability topics. A FREE companion poster,

What makes ASCEville Greenville?, is available for classroom use. All 20 features of the scavenger hunt are visible on the poster. The poster back also contains two classroom activities to jump start explorations of water management and recycling, and a profile of a young engineer who is having a positive impact on the world through his work as a bike trails designer. To order the poster, email [email protected]. Write ASCEville goes GREEN in the subject line.

2012 SEI/ASCE Student Structural Design CompetitionThe Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE is sponsoring a structural design competition for

universities. Innovative projects demonstrating excellence in structural engineering are invited for submission. Awards include cash prizes and an opportunity to present their designs at the 2012 SEI Structures Congress in Chicago, IL. Deadline for Submissions: June 30, 2011For competition guidelines, entry form and a poster to promote the competition, visit

http://content.seinstitute.org/StudentStructuralDesignCompetition.html.

The Fazlur Rahman Khan Distinguished Lecture Series honors Dr. Fazlur Rahman Khan’s legacy of excellence in structural engineering and architecture. Initiated and organized by: Dan M. Frangopol, Fazlur Rahman Khan Endowed Chair of Structural Engineering and Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ATLSS Center, Lehigh University.

1st Lecture: David Scott, Arup, America’s Building Practice Leader, Past Chairman, CTBUH, New York, NY“Extreme Engineering” – Friday, February 18, 2011 – 4:10 pm

2nd Lecture: Masayoshi Nakashima, Kyoto University, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto, and E-Defense, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Kyoto, Japan

“Safeguarding Quality of Life: the Role of Large-Scale Testing” – Friday, March 25, 2011 – 4:10 pm

3rd Lecture: Chris D. Poland, Chairman & CEO, Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, CA“Building Disaster Resilient Communities” – Friday, April 8, 2011 – 4:10 pm

For more information about the lecture series, see the Lehigh University website at www.lehigh.edu/frkseries.

www.asceville.org

The 2010 winning team from Villanova University

N-SEInews-Jan11.indd 54 12/20/2010 10:09:03 AM


The

Ne

wsle

tter o

f the

Struc

tura

l Eng

ine

erin

g In

stitute

of A

SCE

Structural Colum

nsREgiSTRaTion iS opEn for the 2011 Structures CongressGreen Valley Ranch Resort and Spa Las Vegas, Nevada

April 14-16, 2011Register early to take advantage of reduced rates-see the SEI Website for more details: www.SEInstitute.org

Earn more than 16 PDHs!

Structural Engineers from around the country will be gathering at the Green Valley Ranch Resort in Las Vegas from April 14-16 for the 2011 SEI Structures Congress to learn, share and network among friends and col-leagues. Opening bright and early on Thursday, April 14th the Congress is packed with 2½ days of technical sessions, committee meetings, fascinating keynote and plenary speakers, concluding with a closing plenary technical session after lunch on Saturday – an opportunity to earn more than 16 PDHs during one mega-event!

ErrataSEI posts up-to-date errata information for our

publications at www.SEInstitute.org. Click on “Publications” on our menu, and select “Errata.”

If you have any errata that you would like to submit, please email it to Paul Sgambati at [email protected].

More than 100 different technical sessions on such topics as:

• Seismic Strengthening of Buildings• SEI/ASCE Chile Earthquake Assessment

Team Report• New Provisions of ASCE 7-10• Lateral Systems of Buildings• How the Future of Structural Engineering

sees the Future of Structural Engineering• Lessons Learned from Arbitration,

Mediation and Litigation• Vulnerability Assessments of Bridges

and Tunnels• and Masonry, Concrete, Steel, Wood, Blast,

Wind and much, much more!Special events will include the opening plenary

speaker F. Dave Zanetell, P.E., PMP, the Federal Highway Administration’s project manager of the brand new $240 million Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge. On Saturday, the plenary speaker will be Ron Lynn, the Director/Building Official for Clark County Department of Development Services and immediate Past-President of ICC, who will discuss some of the unique challenges of building in Las Vegas.You won’t want to miss the Grand Opening

Reception on Thursday and be certain to attend Friday’s special Evening at the Hoover Dam with exclusive tours, savory and appetizing hors’ d’oeuvres, and refreshments.

HOUSINGGreen Valley Ranch Resort2300 Paseo Verde ParkwayHenderson, NV 89052 www.greenvalleyranchresort.com/

Reservations: 702-617-7777 Toll free: 866-782-9487 When registering refer to ASCE Code: GCIASCE

This magnificent Las Vegas hotel, resort and spa attends to its guests with unmatched special touches and an impeccable service philosophy. The elegant decor and hotel accommodations, world-class cuisine and lively entertain-ment create an exciting experience for the senses. They have combined these standards and amenities with the grandeur of their grounds and facilities to make GVR the choice in luxury hotels in Las Vegas.

Reservation Cutoff Deadline: Friday, March 11, 2011

Room Rates*:• Single: $135.00• Double: $135.00• Triple: $165.00• Quad: $195.00

* The group rate has been extended for three (3) days before and three (3) days after the conference dates, on a space availability basis.

Visit the SEI Website for more information about Conference Registration and housing: www.SEInstitute.org.

N-SEInews-Jan11.indd 55 12/20/2010 10:09:18 AM


The

Ne

wsl

ette

r of t

he

Co

un

cil

of A

me

rica

n S

truc

tura

l En

gin

ee

rsC

ASE

in P

oint

STRUCTURE magazine

SAVE THE DATE! CASE Winter Planning Meeting Scheduled for February

CASE Risk Management Convocation in Las Vegas Next Spring

The CASE Winter Planning Meeting will take place on Wednesday and Thursday, February 23-24, 2011, at the Amelia Island Plantation, Florida in conjunction with the NCSEA Winter Institute. On Wednesday afternoon, the CASE Executive Committee will meet and set the agenda for the next day’s com-mittee planning sessions. The committee breakout meetings will take place on Thursday for the National Guidelines, Contracts, Programs & Communications, and Toolkit Committees to continue work on their respective assignments.

As part of the Committees’ ongoing activities, face-to-face meetings and informal discussions are held twice a year to explore current issues and work on projects like new and revised Risk Management Tools, Guidelines and Contracts, as well as Publications and Risk Management Convocations. These meetings also allow the various CASE committees to interact across all of CASE’s activities. For more information on the CASE committees and CASE in general, visit their website at www.acec.org/CASE.

The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in conjunction with the Structures Congress at the Green Valley Ranch Resort in Las Vegas, NV, April 14–16, 2011. For more information and updates go to www.seinstitute.org.

The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to take place on Friday, April 15:

8:30 AM – 10:00 AMHow Structural Engineers Can Work Effectively with Architects Who Use AIA C401Speaker: William Geisen, Esq., Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP

If your firm works as a sub-consultant to architects, come examine CASE’s Commentary on AIA Document C401, the Standard Form of Agreement Between Architect and Consultant. AIA Contract Document C401 incorporates by reference AIA Contract Document B101, the Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. The interplay between C401 and B101 cannot be over-emphasized. Using C401 without under-standing fully the interrelationships with B101 is a recipe for disaster. This presentation will cover how the engineer’s rights and obligations are impacted by these two agreements, and CASE’s recommended provisions to include in your contract with the architect. Understanding and using B101 effectively can give you more leverage in collecting fees, getting paid for Additional Services and collecting more reimbursable expenses.

10:30 AM – 12 NoonThe Changing Face of Indemnity: Meaner and Uglier!Speaker: Brian Stewart, Esq., Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart

This program will present an overview of some recent California cases having received national attention, which could present potentially disastrous results for the engineering community. The discussion will center on how and why the cases were decided the way they were, and what is being done as a result of the holdings in those cases. The program will conclude with a description of some legislative and practical efforts to defend against this unfortunate tide.

1:30 PM – 3:00 PMNew Tools for Managing Risk and Project ImplementationSpeakers: Stacy Bartoletti, President and COO, Degenkolb Engineers Nils V. Ericson III, Project Manager, The Di Salvo Ericson Group John Aniol, Vice President, Thornton Tomasetti Brent White, President, ARW Engineers

The CASE Tool Kit Committee has developed a number of new tools that will be presented in this session. Developing a Culture of Quality provides a white paper and PowerPoint presentation used to engage firm leaders in a discussion about their firm culture and key aspects that contribute to quality. A new tool on staffing projections provides a method for firms to project future revenues and staffing demands based on contract values and potential work. Project Work Plans set the stage early for project success and a new work plan template will be presented. Finally, a new tool titled Managing Computer Software Use will be presented. This tool provides a white paper on key aspects and responsibilities of the project manager and principal in charge relative to software use on projects.

3:30 PM – 5:00 PMLessons Learned from Arbitration, Mediation and LitigationSpeakers: John O. Woods, Jr., P.E., President, WOODS PEACOCK Engineering

Consultants, Inc., Bruce E. Titus, Esq., Principal Rees Broome, PC Charles Vonderheid CBIZ

This panel discussion will focus on applying lessons learned from the speakers’ involvement with arbitration, mediation and litigation. The speakers, who are a practicing structural engineer & arbitrator, an attorney specializing in construction law, and a professional liability insurance agent, will share some of their own lessons learned and anecdotes.

N-CASEnews-Jan11.indd 56 12/20/2010 10:07:39 AM


CA

SE is a p

art o

f the

Am

eric

an

Co

un

cil o

f Eng

ine

erin

g C

om

pa

nie

sC

ASE in Point

2011 ACEC Convention Offers Political Insights, Business OpportunitiesLeaders of the new Congress, noted jour-

nalist Bob Woodward and procurement officials from more than a dozen federal agencies will highlight the 2011 Annual Convention and Legislative Summit, March 30-April 2, in Washington, D.C.Incoming Speaker of the House

John Boehner (invited), new House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (invited), and former U.S. Representative Tom Davis will brief attendees on the dynamics of the new Congress and what they mean for the engineering industry.Attendees will also get the inside track on new market opportu-

nities with federal agencies including GSA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Energy, and Homeland Security.

Looking for a few good people!CASE is looking for a few good engineers who would like to devote their time to

improving the business practice experience of engineering firms. A brief description of each committee is below; if you are interested in learning more, contact Heather Talbert, [email protected] or 202-682-4377.

Investigative Journalist Bob Woodward will provide an “Insider View of the Presidency.”

Programs and Communications Committee – Responsible for the planning and organizing all CASE education sessions at the SEI Structures Congress, ACEC Fall Conference, plus CASE planning meeting locations. This committee also keeps the editorial calendar of CASE articles for both STRUCTURE magazine and Structural Design magazine.

Contracts Committee – Responsible for developing and maintaining all CASE contracts to assist practicing engineers with risk management.Guidelines Committee – Responsible for developing and main-

taining national guidelines of practice for structural engineers.Toolkit Committee – Responsible for developing and main-

taining all risk management tools.

ACEC Education InformationExpanding Sustainability Markets and MethodsA faculty of leading practitioners and A/E industry experts

with diverse perspectives presents an in-depth exploration of the expanding markets for sustainable design and construc-tion in ACEC’s first course of 2011: Green Infrastructure and Sustainable Communities: Opportunities in Expanding Markets, set for February 1-4, San Antonio, TX.Course curriculum examines key environmental planning and

design processes, and showcases applications of sustainable engi-neering. A special San Antonio-area field trip visits real world sustainable projects. Topics to be covered include • Sustainability as Business Strategy • The Business Case for Delivering Sustainable Projects • Current Techniques and Innovation in Sustainable Design • Infrastructure Project Rating Systems • Application of BIM Software in Sustainability • Sustainable Urban Water Management, Transportation and Buildings Projects.Get agenda highlights, browse the course brochure, and register

at advance best-price: www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1232.

ACEC Government Affairs

ACEC Urges Senate to Approve 9/11 Liability Reform BillACEC and major contractor organizations are lobbying Senate

leaders to act on key 9/11 liability reform legislation.H.R. 847, which passed the House in September, provides

liability relief for engineering firms and contractors involved in the response and cleanup of the Ground Zero site following the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.A settlement accepted by more than 95 percent of Ground

Zero first responders requires that they drop their lawsuits. The passage of H.R. 847 by the Senate would help in resolving the remaining lawsuits.

Congress Continues ACEC-Backed Effort to Repeal 1099 Filing MandateSenate attempts to repeal a new federal IRS Form 1099

filing mandate fell short in November 2010, but supporters in Congress vow to continue the repeal effort.Under the new law, which takes effect in 2012, business pur-

chases of goods and services valued at more than $600 annually from any vendor must be reported to the IRS.Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) has

announced his intent to repeal the mandate. His repeal amend-ment, as well as similar legislation offered by Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE), faltered over differences in how to pay for the repeal.ACEC and coalition allies will continue working with Baucus and

other lawmakers to include a repeal provision in other legislation.

N-CASEnews-Jan11.indd 57 12/20/2010 10:07:45 AM


Structural Forum opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers

Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE® magazine Editorial Board.

Structural engineers consistently rank high in levels of job satisfaction and public respect. Through the experi-ences and testimonies of practicing

engineers, both past and present, this series of articles celebrates the joys and satisfactions of our profession. From this collection of personal accounts, sources of career satisfaction are identi-fied and examined. Obstacles are also identified which can impede our level of job satisfaction. These observations are used to formulate keys for improving, advancing and uplifting the struc-tural engineering profession and its personal rewards. Whether an idealistic young profes-sional, or an experienced engineer in need of a career re-charge, reclaim the pleasures that make structural engineering a great profession!

Part One – My StoryMy father was a structural engineer. My grandfather was a public works engineer. In several small towns of Iowa you can find plaques on bridges that bear Granddad’s name, Harold Lyon. Engineering is a Lyon family tradition. It is in my blood.As a child, I loved visiting my dad’s office.

What impacted me the most was not necessarily my fascination with the projects. More than that, I relished the work environment and the camaraderie of professionals.My dad served alongside my granddad in

World War II with a Seabees unit in the South Pacific. The Seabee motto shows them to be the consummate engineers: “The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer”. When he returned to civilian life, Dad enrolled at Iowa State University and received his bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering. He then worked two years designing bridges for the Iowa Highway Department. One day, he and a colleague took time off work and went up to Chicago to “pound the pavement” in hopes of landing a consulting job.Dad joined the firm DeLeuw Cather and

spent his first ten years there designing and managing various bridge and highway proj-ects. While working on a major highway project in the Washington, D.C. area, the organization was being formed that would

have responsibility for planning, designing and constructing the Metrorail system. My dad saw this as an opportunity of a lifetime and moved our family from Chicago to DC halfway through my kindergarten year.Growing up, I enjoyed learning – not just math

and the sciences, but in all areas. After complet-ing high school, I enrolled at the University of Virginia as a student of Civil Engineering. In retrospect, I am sure that my choice of major stemmed first and foremost from my admiration for my dad and his colleagues.Upon graduation, I half-heartedly inter-

viewed with one or two engineering firms but decided that school was still too much fun! So I enrolled to study law at The George Washington University. One month before classes were to start, while browsing the uni-versity bookstore, I abruptly changed my plans and decided to pursue a master’s degree in structural engineering instead. These were two wonderfully interesting, satisfying and fun years.With a master’s, I was much better prepared

for a practicing bridge engineering position. Once again my dad came into the picture, advising that I interview with a consulting firm that he held in high esteem. He arranged for an interview with the office leader and, although the Washington office was not hiring, he suggested that a young fellow want-ing to learn the bridge business should go and interview at the home office in Kansas City.I was not excited. Although I did not object

strongly to the idea, I had not envisioned moving halfway across the country for a job. However, this was a friend of my dad’s, and I felt an obligation to consider it. I agreed to interview.I lugged my heavy suitcase through Kansas

City that morning, wondering why I was there. But when I arrived in the firm’s bridge department, it was a “déjà vu” moment. I tingled with childhood memories of my dad’s office. The competence, professional-ism, collegiality and warmth in that office convinced me that this was where I wanted to spend my career. It had a wonderful mix of thirty-year design professionals, along with a large group of talented, recent graduates.

For the Love of the Profession

Robert H. Lyon, P.E. ([email protected]), is a lecturer in the Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department at the University of Kansas and a structural engineer at HNTB in Kansas City, Missouri.

By Robert H. Lyon, P.E.

The combination made for a tremendously invigorating, exciting work place! I also met and married the travel agent that handled the firm’s business… but that is a story for another time.Although the professional road has been

winding, and at times rocky, 31 years later my firm remains the same kind of place. When an opportunity came for my family to serve as missionaries in Russia, my supervisors granted me a year’s leave of absence with their bless-ing. Several years later, when an unexpected victory landed me in the state legislature, my firm once again allowed me a series of leaves of absence to serve my term. Although the politi-cal experience was interesting, I chose not to seek reelection, primarily because I missed the structural engineering environment.Having served as a part-time adjunct pro-

fessor for a number of years, I have recently transitioned to a full-time teaching position at the University of Kansas. Once again, I enjoy the company of numerous distinguished, pro-fessional colleagues, and I continue to work part-time with the firm where I started my career. I do not know what the future holds for me professionally. I only hope that it will be possible for me to continue doing exactly what I am doing, because this is a great pro-fession and I love it.The point of this autobiography is to suggest

that nothing is terribly unique about my pro-fessional experience. Every structural engineer has a story to tell, and such accounts can serve as a basis for identifying and fostering the tremendous sources of career satisfaction that are ours as structural engineers. In my case, it begins with being in a profession with men and women that I respect, admire and enjoy.In my next article, I will explore the lives of

other, more notable structural engineers, and discover what sources of joy undergirded their professional careers.▪

C-StrucForum-Lyon-Jan11.indd 58 12/20/2010 10:10:19 AM

Blank.indd 1 12/10/2009 12:47:52 PM

Blank.indd 1 10/6/2010 1:24:19 PM

Structure 201101

Documents

Transcript of Structure 201101