2013 - 07 Wind

July 2013 Wind
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
STRUCTURE
Special Section: Seismic Products
SPECIFICATION
BEST
PRACTICE
Ensure That Your

Project Documents
Match Your Design
SCAN THIS QR CODE
TO LINK TO A DIGITAL
SPECIFICATION FOR
ANCHORS WRITTEN
AND PROVIDED BY
POWERS FASTENERS WITH GOVERNING
STANDARDS REFERENCED.
Today in virtually every jurisdiction in the U.S.

the Code Basis for Building Construction is in
some edition of the International Building Code
(IBC). By default, the General Notes, Structural
and MEP Specifications require compliance
to the IBC. For the purpose of post-installed
concrete anchor design, the IBC requires that
the Strength Design method be used.
The reality is far too often these specifications
are obsolete with respect to anchors in concrete.
When that happens, the project documents are
in conflict with one another and in conflict with
the IBC.
CSI Section for Mechanical & Adhesive

Anchors 03 16 00 and 05 05 19
Dont put your project at risk. Powers understands the
importance of code approved anchoring options. Thats
why weve dedicated ourselves to engineering a range
of products that meet the new building code, and to
developing ways to support those products.
Real-Time Anchor Design Software V2.0
PDAS LIVE UPDATE FEATURE

ENSURES THAT SOFTWARE IS ALWAYS
LOADED WITH UP-TO-DATE PRODUCTS,
FEATURES AND CODE REFERENCES.
For a full listing of code approved products, and a demo

on the latest version of PDA go to www.powers.com or
call (800) 524-3244 for a free demo.
Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com

2 Powers Lane
P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509
F: (914) 576-6483
For over three decades engineers have relied on ENERCALCs industry leading
software to perform structural design and analysis for low to mid-rise buildings.
ENERCALC
ENERCALC
FEATURES
21
Special
Section
Growing Optimism Spurs

Innovation for Seismic Companies
By Larry Kahaner
In general, there appears to be some optimism in the market.

Companies are seeing a slight upsurge in the demand for
related products and an increase in requests for innovations.
Read what some seismic suppliers are hearing and offering.
CONTENTS
July 2013
COLUMNS
5 Editorial
Contribute to Your Profession
and it Pays You Back
By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair
New York State Capitol Restoration
26
By Susan L. Knack-Brown, P.E. and Nicholas T. Floyd, P.E.
By the late 1990s, the New York State Capitol, designed

and built in various stages between 1869 and 1899,
was losing its luster due to neglect, insensitive major
modifications and chronic leakage. This award winning
project has finally addressed all of the reported leakage,
as well as restored to prominence the three monumental
staircases by returning natural light and lost historic
features to the spaces.
University of Washington Invests

in Student Housing
30
By Jennifer Cover, MS, P.E.
STRUCTURE
In 2012, the University of Washington completed a fivebuilding construction project, adding nearly 1,700 student
housing beds. The use of light-frame wood construction met
both the Universitys ambitious design goals and a tight budget, in addition to providing design flexibility and creating
elegant, durable, urban structures.
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
The Intellectual Virtue

of Engineering
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
8 Structural Performance
Across-Wind Response
of High-Rise Buildings
By Rafik R. Gerges, P.Eng, Ph.D.,

S.E., SECB, and Kal Benuska,
P.E., S.E.
12 Practical Solutions
Foundations for Metal
Building Systems
By Alexander Newman, P.E.
16 Codes and Standards

Wind Farm Tower Design
By Nestor A. Agbayani, P.E.,

S.E., SECB and Rolando E.
Vega, Ph.D., P.E.
34 Professional Issues
Faade Attachments
By Filippo Masetti, P.E.,

Milan Vatovec, P.E. and
James C. Parker, P.E., S.E.
Special Section: Seismic Products
ON
THE
DEPARTMENTS
COVER
The largest collection

of Salvador Dals
art outside of his
hometown in Spain
is in St. Petersburg,
Florida. Walter P
Moore was named
an Outstanding Award Winner in the 2012
NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural
Engineering awards program for their work in
building a new iconic facility that would not
only protect Dals artwork, but would also
attract worldwide attention. This project is the
Spotlight article on page 43.
July 2013 Wind
7 InFocus
IN EVERY ISSUE
6 Advertiser Index
40 Resource Guide
(Concrete)
44 NCSEA News
46 SEI Structural Columns
48 CASE in Point
A Look at Insurance Options

By Gail S. Kelley, P.E.
41 InSights
ASCE 7 and the Standards
Development Process
By Jennifer Goupil, P.E.
43 Spotlight
A Treasure Box for Dal
By Scott D. Martin, P.E.
50 Structural Forum
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE magazine does not constitute endorsement
by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole
responsibility for the content of their submissions.
STRUCTURE magazine
38 Legal Perspectives
July 2013
Increasing the Velocity

of Knowledge
By Gene Frodsham, MS, S.E.
Editorial
Contribute
to Your Profession
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
and it Pays You Back
By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair
irst, I would like to extend my condolences to the family,

friends, and colleagues of Doug Ashcraft who recently passed
away after a battle with cancer. Doug was instrumental in
developing many of the CASE Risk Management Tools and
served for a time as CASE Chair. He was a tremendous person who
was committed to the structural engineering profession. He will be
missed by all of us.
As I begin my two year term as CASE chair, I wanted to take this
first opportunity to introduce a little of my background to you. I
am a principal in a mid-size firm, about 40 people, that practices
civil and structural engineering in the upper Midwest. Our practice
is a rather salt of the earth type of practice. We design schools,
courthouses, and jails, apartments, office buildings and warehouses.
Along with those common project types, we also have had the opportunity to design some rather interesting structures including a South
American Embassy and the first LEED platinum building in the
State of Minnesota. We also have done some unusual projects like
moving a 90 year old vaudeville theater a block and a half so that it
could be salvaged and then remodeled into a fine dance theater. But,
in general, we are a typical firm that tries very hard to provide great
service for our clients.
So why is it, then, that I am able to say that I am the third person
from our firm to hold this position? I truly believe that it is because
our firm has a culture and expectation of being involved. It is not
sufficient or acceptable to simply pay your dues and be a member
of a professional organization. Rather, you are expected to become
involved and contribute to the activities of the organization. This active
involvement not only allows you to contribute to your profession, it
pays back many times over.
The first way that it pays back is in a better understanding of our
profession. The first project that I was involved in with CASE, about
12 years ago, was to help write a commentary on the AISC Code
of Standard Practice. To prepare for that effort, I needed to read
through the entire document. Sure, I was already familiar with it
and had read parts of it that I was interested in. But this time was
different. I read through it making sure that I understood what it was
saying. I also had to read it with
an eye towards how my expectations during a project might
differ from what was written in
the Code of Standard Practice and
just what the Code of Standard
Practice expects from the design
profession. Then, as we met and
discussed the document, I more
fully understood just how differently engineering is practiced
in various parts of the country.
STRUCTURAL
The second way involvement
ENGINEERING
pays
back is information sharing.
INSTITUTE
At that first meeting, I was introduced to engineers with far more
...it is because our firm has a culture and

expectation of being involved. It is not
sufficient or acceptable to simply pay your
dues and be a member of a professional
organization. Rather, you are expected to
become involved and contribute to the activities
of the organization. This active involvement
not only allows you to contribute to your
profession, it pays back many times over.
Celebrating
years
1993-2013
a member benefit
structurE
experience than I had. It was fascinating to listen to their experiences,

and insights into the document and engineering practice. Over the
years, I have been able to ask questions and gain insight about a variety
of topics like hiring practices and bonuses and incentive programs.
This insight has come from engineers in large and small firms and
from all parts of the country. One of my fellow committee members
made it a point to come to each meeting with a list of questions to
which he wanted to get an answer. What a great way to maximize
the benefit of your involvement!
Finally, this involvement pays back in networking and friendships.
My involvement has allowed me to meet conscientious, committed
engineers from around the country. I am glad to call many of these
people my friends. I can count on this network of people for advice
if I need to know about local construction practices for a project, if I
need design advice about a system or technique with which I am not
familiar, or if I might need consulting services on a project requiring
expertise that our firm does not have.
So, how do you become involved? If you have an interest in business practice and risk management issues and your firm is an ACEC
member, think about becoming involved in CASE. You can contact
me or Heather Talbert at ACEC (htalbert@acec.org). If your firm is
not already an ACEC member, contact your state ACEC organization
and get the process started.
If you have an interest in national structural engineering issues such as
licensing and building codes, become a member of your state Structural
Engineering Association and become actively involved at the state
and national level. If you have an interest in structural engineering
standards or the other activities of ASCEs Structural Engineering
Institute, become a member, find out about their committees and
seek to join one that interests you.
There are many other ways for you to get involved. There
is the old saying, the world is run by those who show
up. Get involved, contribute to your profession and
watch that involvement pay you back many times over.
STRUCTURE magazine
Andrew Rauch is a principal with BKBM Engineers in

Minneapolis, MN. He can be reached at arauch@bkbm.com.
July 2013
ADVERTISER INDEX
PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS
AZZ Galvanizing .................................. 39

Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 52
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute ...... 13
CoreBrace, LLC .................................... 21
CTP, Inc.................................................. 9
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 17
ENERCALC, Inc. ................................... 3
Engineering International, Inc............... 10
Foundation Performance Association..... 40
Fyfe ....................................................... 22
Halfen, Inc. ........................................... 19
Hayward Baker, Inc. .............................. 25
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 35
ITW Red Head ..................................... 37
KPFF Consulting Engineers .................... 6
NCSEA ................................................. 11
Polyguard Products, Inc......................... 33
Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2
Editorial Board
Chair
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO

chair@structuremag.org
Brian W. Miller
CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.

Dilip Khatri, Ph.D., S.E.
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA
KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E.
Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
US GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, EDITH GREEN-WENDELL WYATT FEDERAL BUILDING

RENOVATION AND REHABILITATION, PORTLAND, OR PHOTO BY ELIZABETH RICE
BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
John Buddy Showalter, P.E.
John A. Mercer, P.E.
Amy Trygestad, P.E.
Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT
HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA
Chuck Minor
Dick Railton
Eastern Sales
847-854-1666
Western Sales
951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
Davis, CA
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA
CCFSS, Rolla, MO
AdvErtising Account MAnAgEr

Interactive Sales Associates
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB
PT&C Forensic Consulting Serv., P.A. .. 31

QuakeWrap ........................................... 24
RISA Technologies ................................ 51
S-Frame Software, Inc. .......................... 42
SidePlate Systems, Inc. .......................... 23
Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 29
Struware, Inc. ........................................ 14
Subsurface Constructors, Inc. ................ 20
American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
Chase Engineering, LLC, New Prague, MN
EditoriAL stAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor
Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Associate Editor
Graphic Designer
Web Developer
Targeting
LEED PLATINUM
Seattle
Long Beach
Tacoma
Lacey
Pasadena
Irvine
San Diego
Boise
Phoenix
St. Louis
Chicago
New York
Portland
Eugene
Sacramento
San Francisco
Walnut Creek
Los Angeles
Nikki Alger
Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE (Volume 20, Number 7). ISSN 1536-4283.

Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate
is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $90/yr Canada; $125/yr
foreign. For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your
member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in STRUCTURE
magazine are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE
Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission

of the publisher.
Celebrating
years
1993-2013
C3 Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.

148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
Visit STRUCTURE magazine
on-line at
Visit STRUCTURE
magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org
Visit
STRUCTURE magazine online at
STRUCTURE magazine
July 2013
inFocus

The
Intellectual Virtue of Engineering
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
ased on the work of Allison Ross and Nafsikas Athanassoulis,

I have identified safety, sustainability, and efficiency as The
Internal Goods of Engineering (March 2013). Based on
the work of Gene Moriarty, I have identified objectivity,
care, and honesty as The Moral Virtues of Engineering (May 2013).
However, I have also acknowledged the potential for dissonance among
the individual goods or virtues in each list. How is an engineer supposed to harmonize them when that happens?
One way to look at this issue is to recall that engineering involves
the exercise of skill (The Nature of Competence, March 2012).
Rules and maxims can help novices and advanced beginners learn
to incorporate safety, sustainability, and efficiency into their designs;
but it takes someone who has enough experience to be at least
competent, if not proficient, to do so consistently. Successfully
integrating all three could be seen as the mark of a true expert.
Many philosophers have drawn a strong analogy between virtues
and skills (Virtue as a Skill, May 2012), so the same terminology
applies to those who characteristically exhibit objectivity, care, and
honesty in the proper proportions.
Ross and Atahanassoulis seem to agree, observing that engineers
internalize these goods and virtues to the point that they are able to
balance them rightly in particular cases, having developed a reliable capacity to respond to risk with the appropriate attitude. They
affirm that professionals acquire, through training and thought,
settled dispositions to judge in accordance with their distinctive
professional values and thus can be said to exemplify a kind of professional practical wisdom; i.e., phronesis (Knowledge, Rationality,
and Judgment, July 2012).
This notion strikes me as closely related to a faculty that engineers
constantly take for granted but rarely try to explain: engineering
judgment. Michael Davis, a philosophy professor at Illinois Institute
of Technology, addressed the challenge of delineating exactly what it
is in a 2012 paper (A Plea for Judgment, Science and Engineering
Ethics, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 789-808). As he says, One who otherwise
knows what engineers know but lacks engineering judgment may
be . . . a handy resource much like a reference book or database, but
cannot be a competent engineer.
Similar to Ross and Athanassoulis, Davis defines judgment as the
disposition (including the ability) to act as competent members of the
discipline act. It involves more than just (theoretical) knowledge-that
or even (technical) knowledge-how; it is the embodiment of a high
likelihood of making certain decisions in the appropriate way at the
appropriate time. Such judgment is neither arbitrary nor algorithmic,
and the reference to peers as the benchmark is consistent with the
legal notion of the standard of care the level or quality of services
that is ordinarily provided by practitioners of good standing in the
same field under similar circumstances.
Davis portrays judgment as the key to integrating ethics into any
discipline that requires it. Once we see judgment as central to the
discipline, we can also see how central ethics is to its competent
practice. There is no good engineering, no good science, and so on
without good judgment and no good judgment in these disciplines
STRUCTURE magazine
without ethics. However, Davis is quick to clarify what kind of

ethics he has in mind and reveals a deontological orientation: I mean
those (morally permissible) standards of conduct (rules, principles,
or ideals) that apply to members of a group simply because they are
members of that group. Engineers need to understand (and practice)
engineering ethics to be good engineers, not moral theory, medical
ethics, or the like.
As Davis acknowledges, this approach unlike that of Ross and
Athanssoulis treats applied ethics as a matter of technical rationality
(techne), rather than practical judgment (phronesis). Despite recognizing that engineering judgment, like phronesis, is a disposition to
act in an appropriate way, he defines the latter much more broadly
as the ability reliably to respond to any situation with a course of
action that makes life better Phronesis is (more or less) a global
term; judgment is not global We should speak of the art, craft, or
skill of [an engineer] rather than his phronesis when he shows good
[engineering] judgment.
Nevertheless, Davis explicitly wonders whether engineering judgment is a virtue, since it admittedly is a disposition that contributes
to living well (both to the engineers living well and to others living
well). Ultimately, though, Davis remains worried about the limited
scope of judgment in this sense; as he notes, The traditional virtues
(courage, hospitality, truthfulness, and so on) concern the whole of
life. No traditional virtue concerns only a single discipline as, for
example, engineering judgment does.
Personally, I do not see this as a problem, given MacIntyres situation of virtues within distinct practices. Engineering judgment
is, in fact, a discipline-specific form of practical judgment, which
Aristotle classified as an intellectual virtue importantly, the one
that guides and ultimately unifies the corresponding moral virtues.
As Moriarty summarizes:
Phronesis is at work in discerning and choosing appropriate
goals of ethical virtue. Thus, ethical virtue without phronesis
remains directionless. But, discernment of the good and
perfection of deliberation are dependent on having good
character. Hence, without ethical virtue, one might have
cleverness in figuring out the means to any end, but one
would not have phronesis, the virtue of choosing the appropriate means to the right end.
This intellectual virtue of practical judgment i.e., engineering judgment
is thus what makes it possible for engineers steadfastly
to achieve their practices internal goods of safety, sustainability, and efficiency, while conscientiously exhibiting its
moral virtues of objectivity, care, and honesty.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is
an associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas
City, Missouri. He chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial
Board and the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee, and shares
occasional thoughts at twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt.
July 2013
performance issues relative

to extreme events
ONCOMING WIND
STRUCTURAL
PERFORMANCE
Along-Wind
Torsional-Wind
Across-Wind
Figure 1: Components of tall building response to wind excitation.
tructural design of tall buildings is driven

by forces of nature, including wind and
earthquakes. As buildings get taller, windinduced dynamic response dictates the
design of the lateral system to meet both serviceability and survivability limit states. Structural
engineers rely upon wind tunnel consultants
to determine equivalent
static loads (ESL) and
top floor accelerations
(TFA). This becomes
increasingly important
for tall and slender towers
where across-wind effects
dominate. After the building has been tested, the
structural design continues to develop, resulting
in changes to the mass and/or the stiffness. To
quantify the increase or decrease in ESL and TFA,
the structural engineer needs to send an updated
set of dynamic properties to the wind consultant
for a new cycle of post-processing. This article
presents an alternative to this process in the form
of design charts that enable the design engineer to
adjust ESL and TFA for changes in mass and/or
stiffness. The interaction between the design team
and the wind consultant could then be saved for
Across-Wind Response
of High-Rise Buildings
Adjusting for Changes in
Mass and Stiffness
By Rafik R. Gerges, P.Eng, Ph.D.,
S.E., SECB, LEED AP, BSCP and
Kal Benuska, P.E., S.E.
Rafik R. Gerges, P.Eng, Ph.D.,

S.E., SECB, LEED AP, BSCP, is
a Project Manager at John Martin
& Associates, Inc., Los Angeles,
California. Dr. Gerges can be reached
at rgerges@johnmartin.com.
Kal Benuska, P.E., S.E., is a Principal
of John A. Martin & Associates,
Inc., in Los Angeles, California.
Mr. Benuska can be reached at
benuska@johnmartin.com.
major design milestones to confirm wind loads

and responses.
How does Wind Excite

a Tall Building?
Under the action of wind, tall structures are
loaded simultaneously in the along-wind, acrosswind and torsional directions as shown in Figure
1. The loads can be broken down into static loads
due to mean wind pressure and dynamic loads due
to fluctuating pressure. The fluctuating pressure
induces two distinct responses; a low-frequency
background component and a resonant component at the fundamental frequency of the
structure. While all three sources contribute to
the along-wind loading, only the fluctuating wind
pressure the background and resonant components results in the across-wind and torsional
loadings. TFA is a result of the resonant response
only. The mean and background components
are primarily dependent on the building geometry and the turbulence environment, while the
resonant response, in addition to geometry and
turbulence, depends on the structures dynamic
properties; mass, stiffness and damping.
fp
Design Range
Aerodynamic
Fitted Relationship
f
( f ) / M
2
f B /U H
Figure 2: Across-Wind Spectra.
July 2013
Aspect Ratio
Aspect Ratio
Frequency Ratio
Exposure B
Exposure C
Exposure D
Frequency Ratio
Figure 3: Upper bound for ESL adjustment factor for buildings with square
floor plan.
Figure 4: Lower bound for ESL adjustment factor for buildings with square
floor plan.
Does the Building Code Address

All Three Components?
across-wind response and limited guidance

on the torsional response.
ASCE 7 provides a comprehensive treatment

of the along-wind response of flexible structures based on the Gust Factor Approach.
However, ASCE 7, similar to many codes
and standards, provides no guidance on the
Are There Any Tools to Estimate

Across-Wind Response?
Over the years, wind tunnel testing has
provided valuable aerodynamic data for the
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
Exposure B
Exposure C
Exposure D
July 2013
across-wind response. The across-wind spectra

exhibits an evident peak around the Strouhal
number, as shown in Figure 2. The Strouhal
number is measured in terms of non-dimensional reduced frequency, f * = f x B/UH, where
f is the natural frequency of the building, B
is the building width perpendicular to the
approaching wind and UH is the mean hourly
Mass Ratio
wind speed at the building height. The structural response peaks when f * matches the
peak frequency (Strouhal number), fp. Tall
building designers always tune the structural
system to have a reduced frequency, at the
strength level wind speed, that is greater than
fp as shown in Figure 2.
Relationships have been developed using
curve-fitting to predict the across-wind Power
Spectral Density (PSD) as shown in Figure 2,
as well as the Root-Mean-Square (RMS) of the
base moment coefficient. These relationships
take into account the turbulence environment,
building aspect ratio and building side ratio.
In particular, the model by Gu & Quan is
reported to produce a good fit for a wide range
of buildings and turbulence environments.
How are Across-Wind

Models Used?
Frequency Ratio
Non-dimensional across-wind models can

be used to compute wind-induced response
of any structure having architectural features
and a turbulence environment that are within
the limits of the model. The model by Gu &
Quan was calibrated for aspect ratios of 4 to 9,
side ratios of 0.5 to 2 and four different wind
exposures. Using this model, the upper-bound
ESL adjustment factor chart is developed and is
shown in Figure 3 (page 9) for buildings with a
side ratio of 1.0. The adjustment factor is plotted vs. the frequency ratio (original frequency
/ new frequency) on the horizontal axis and
the aspect ratio on the vertical axis. Similarly,
a lower-bound ESL adjustment factor chart
is shown in Figure 4 (page 9). Figures 3 and 4
indicate that the base moment decreases with an
increase in the natural frequency of the structure,
but increases more rapidly with a decrease in the
natural frequency. This is consistent with the
increased slope of the PSD as f * moves toward
fp. The charts show a slight dependency on the
wind exposure.
230
Structural Design
Spreadsheets
www.Engineering-International.com
Wind Analysis for Tornado and
Hurricane Based on 2012 IBC
Section 423 & FEMA 361/320.
Mitigate Lateral Drift for Cantilever
Column using Post-Tensioning.
Moment Connection Design for
Beam to Weak Axis Column Based
on AISC 360-10.
Coupon for Package: $120 off Code: ASCE 7-2010
Exposure B
Exposure C
Exposure D
Figure 5: TFA adjustment factor for buildings with square floor plan and aspect ratio of 7.
A TFA adjustment factor chart is shown in

Figure 5 for buildings with a side ratio of 1 and
an aspect ratio of 7. The adjustment factor is
plotted vs. the frequency ratio (original frequency / new frequency) on the horizontal axis
and the mass ratio (original mass / new mass)
on the vertical axis. Figure 5 indicates that
TFA decreases with an increase in frequency
and/or mass of the structure, as expected. The
dependency on the exposure is insignificant.
Design Example
Consider a 76-story residential concrete tower
located in Los Angeles, California. The overall
height of the building is about 260 meters
(858 feet) with a square floor plan roughly
37 meters (121 feet) on each side. The wind
exposure category is close to B as defined by
ASCE 7. The lateral system consists of a reinforced concrete shear wall core with rigid
outriggers (in one direction), and the gravity
system consists of concrete flat plates supported by concrete columns. The resonant
wind response, reported by the wind tunnel
consultant, was mainly due to across-wind
effects, with TFA of 18 milli-g. During the
design development phase, the design team
learned that the original target strength of
10,000 psi for concrete would not be achievable using local aggregate. The owner asked
the design team to reevaluate the structural
system using a maximum concrete strength
of 7,000 psi. This concrete strength reduction resulted in a stiffness decrease of about
16%, which then reduced the natural frequencies by approximately 8%. Figure 5
STRUCTURE magazine
10
July 2013
shows an increase in TFA of about 12%. From

a strength point of view, the force increased
by approximately 12-18% based on Figures 3
and 4. Increasing the flexural strength of the
shear walls was not an option due to seismic
considerations in shear.
The design team decided to add post-tensioning to the concrete flat plates in order to reduce
their thickness by about 20%. This reduced the
generalized mass by about 15%, restoring the
buildings original fundamental frequencies so
that the wind strength design could remain
unchanged. However, the mass decrease also
resulted in a TFA increase of about 20% per
Figure 5. To deal with this, the design team
proposed a damped outrigger system (90 to
the rigid outriggers) to increase the sway mode
equivalent damping ratio from 1% to 3% (in
one direction), thus achieving TFA of 13 milli-g.
Conclusion
Changes in mass and stiffness during design
affect a structures dynamic response to wind
effects, which in turn require revisions to
the associated equivalent static loads and
top floor acceleration. Charts such as those
in Figures 3, 4 and 5 provide a quick and
dirty tool to estimate the impacts of such
changes on strength and serviceability.
However, confirmation from revised wind
tunnel post-processing is still strongly recommended at design milestones. Engineered
damping provides an economical alternative
to meet serviceability (and possibly strength)
design requirements, even at the final stages
of structural design.
NCSEA Structural
Engineering Exam
Live Online Review
Pass the Structural Exam with Confidence!
This course is designed by the National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations (NCSEA), Kaplan Engineering
Education, and leading structural engineers from across
the industry.
Online Course Dates:

Vertical: July 2728, 2013
Lateral: August 2425, 2013
Course Fee*
$1199
Vertical or Lateral Only

$749
Course available with or
without learning system
This targeted review includes:
Group pricing available
Over 28 hours of instruction

Instructor Blog
(As low as $425 per person)
Classes archived for 24/7 playback
Register today!
Instructors:
Tim Mays, Ph.D., P.E.
John Lommler, Ph.D., P.E.
Ravi Kanitkar, S.E.
Donald R. Scott, S.E.
Jennifer Butler, P.E.
Russell Brown, Ph.D., P.E.
Joe Miller, Ph.D., P.E.
Larry Novak, SE, FACI,

LEED AP BD+C
MRKT-10253
Rafael Sabelli, S.E.
877.884.0828
www.kaplanaecengineering.com/LiveReview
*Students repeating the SE Review Course are eligible for

50% discount. Call for details.
(a)
Practical
SolutionS
H
HL
WIND
H
HL
HR
VL
VR
solutions for the practicing

structural engineer
HR
VL
VR
(a)
(b)
Figure 1: The direction of horizontal column reactions in a single-span rigid frame: (a) from gravity loads;
(b) from wind or seismic loads.
etal building systems (MBS), also

known as pre-engineered metal
WIND
H
buildings, are proprietary structures designed and manufactured
HL
HR
by their suppliers.
Metal buildings are extremely
VL and they account for a substantial
VR
popular
percentage of low-rise nonresidential
buildings
in
the
L
United States. The design of foundations for these
(b)structures often involves
special challenges. The
design procedures are
often not well understood, because they are
not specified in the building codes and technical
design guides. Until the recent publication of
Foundation and Anchor Design Guide for Metal
Building Systems (McGraw-Hill, 2013), there have
been no authoritative books on the subject. As
a result, the foundation designs produced by
different engineers for the same metal building
structure could range from those that cost a trivial
amount to those that are quite expensive to construct. This article discusses the reasons for such
disparity and misunderstanding and examines
the available design options.
Foundations for Metal

Building Systems
Finding a Practical
Solution for Your Project
By Alexander Newman, P.E.,
F. ASCE
Alexander Newman, P.E., F. ASCE,

is a forensic and structural
consultant in the Boston area. He
is the author, most recently, of the
Foundation and Anchor Design
Guide for Metal Building Systems
(McGraw-Hill, 2013). He can be
reached at Alexander-Newman@
Outlook.com.
The Main Challenges

Several challenges make foundations for metal
building systems different from those used in
conventional buildings:
Single-story MBS are extremely
lightweight. The total weight of the
structure could be between 2 and 5 pounds
per square foot (psf ), which means that a
strong wind results in a net uplift loading
on the foundations.
The most popular types of the primary
frames used in MBS gable rigid
frames exert significant horizontal
column reactions on the foundations.
Such reactions could be present in some
conventional building foundations as
well, but rarely at every column, and in
combination with uplift.
Because MBS are proprietary structures,
the manufacturers often report slightly
12 July 2013
different column reactions for the buildings

with identical loading and configuration.
In the construction projects that use public
funding and require competitive bidding,
the MBS manufacturers cannot be selected
prior to the foundations being designed.
Accordingly, the column reactions must
be estimated by the foundation designers,
running the risk that the final reactions
will exceed those used in the design.
Unfortunately, in many situations the owner
of the building decides to procure the metal
building superstructure first and design
the foundations later, as an afterthought.
Without a structural engineer involved in
establishing the design parameters for the
MBS, some manufacturers might choose to
provide the cheapest design possible. One
such example is a building with fixed-base
frame columns, which might result in
minor cost savings for the manufacturer but
in major cost increases for the foundation
vis--vis pin-base columns.
The lack of clear design procedures
naturally results in uneven design
solutions. Some foundation designs
for metal buildings have been overly
complicated, and some have been barely
adequate for the imposed loads (or not
adequate at all).
Uplift and Horizontal

Column Reactions
In single-story MBS, the dead load is generally
insufficient to counteract the effects of wind-generated uplift. In addition, building codes require
that no more than 60% of the dead load likely
to be in place be used in combination with wind
uplift (the International Building Code (IBC)
basic load combination for the allowable stress
design method). Thus the weight of the ballast
must be substantial. For a typical shallow foundation, such as an isolated column footing, the
ballast consists of the footing, column pedestal
(if any), and the soil on the ledges of the footing.
Some engineers also include a contribution of the
soil frictional resistance.
Quite often, the minimum size of column

foundations is dictated by the minimum
amount of ballast, not by the soil-bearing
capacity for downward loads. This often
comes as a shock to the foundation designers unfamiliar with MBS specifics. The design
example in the sidebar illustrates the process
of sizing an isolated column footing for uplift.
Gable rigid frames exert horizontal column
reactions on the foundations. This occurs
under gravity loading, when the reactions
are numerically the same but act in opposing
directions (Figure 1a), as well as under wind
or seismic loading, when the reactions usually
act in the same direction (Figure 1b).
Some Available
Foundation Systems
The vertical and horizontal column reactions
can be resisted by a variety of foundation systems, such as those listed below and illustrated
in Figure 2 (page 14). Properly designed, each
system can resist the required level of horizontal and vertical frame reactions. However,
experience shows that some systems could
be more or less applicable in various circumstances. Each system has advantages and
disadvantages, as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Comparative cost, reliability and degree of versatility of selected

foundation systems for metal building systems.
Foundation System
Cost
Reliability
Versatility
Low to high
Low to high
Low to medium
Hairpins and Slab Ties
Low
Low
Low
Moment-Resisting Foundation
High
High
High
Tie Rod
Slab with Haunch
Medium
Low to high
Low to medium
Medium to high
High
High
Mat
High
High
Low
Deep Foundations
High
High
High
Trench Footing
The table compares cost, reliability and

degree of versatility of the selected foundation systems used in pre-engineered buildings.
Here, reliability refers to the probability of the
foundation system performing as intended
for the desired period of time under various
field conditions. The most reliable systems can
tolerate inevitable irregularities in construction, loading and maintenance. The overall
reliability of a foundation system depends on
three factors that define the systems ability to
function in adverse circumstances:
Simplicity of installation. The
foundations that are difficult to install
or require a perfect installation tend to
be less reliable, because some placement

errors are common and perfection in
foundation construction is rare.
Redundancy. Redundant systems
have more than one load path for
transferring the column reactions to
the soil. If one load path is blocked,
another path takes over.
Survivability. Can the system maintain
its load-carrying capacity after some of
the adjoining building elements have
become damaged? For example, what
happens if the slab on grade is cut or
partly removed?
continued on next page
Take Your Place In

The CRSI Honors
RECOGNIZING INNOVATION
in the Design and Construction of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings by
creating value in any of several ways:
Collaborative Design
Lean Building Methods
Uniquely Inspiring Spaces
Planned Use Adaptability
Material or Systems Efficiency
Whole-Life Sustainability
Structural Resilience
ACKNOWLEDGING THE LEADERS

at Every Stage that Drive Great
Outcomes for Building Users:
Building Owners
Program Managers
Design Architects
Structural Engineers
Construction Managers
General Contractors
Construction Industries
Submittals will be accepted online from July 1, 2013 to November 1, 2013

Unlimited submittals per firm, entirely free to CRSI member organizations
HONORS
Presented by
2013
FOR FAST & EASY SUBMITTAL DETAILS VISIT
13070_CRSI_Honors_Structure_half_page_ad_2013.indd 1
STRUCTURE magazine
13
July 2013
honors.crsi.org TODAY!
6/10/13 12:17 PM
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Versatility, as noted in Table 1, is possessed

by the systems that can be used with various
floor and soil conditions (e.g., floor trenches
and pits).
Some foundation systems commonly used
in MBS are:
Tie rods (Figure 2a). In this intuitively
appealing solution, the foundations
at the opposite building columns are
tied together, extinguishing both
horizontal column reactions. Tie rod
construction ranges from the cheapest
and least reliable, such as a couple of
reinforcing bars placed in a thickened
slab, to the relatively expensive and
much more reliable, such as concrete
grade beams. The survivability of the
former is low, because there is a distinct
possibility that the slab on grade will
be cut or partly removed at some
point, while the grade beams placed
below the slab will likely survive such
a scenario. There are also the issues
of elastic elongation of the tie rod
under load and whether the tie rod is
considered a tension- tie member
under the provisions of the American
Concrete Institute standard ACI 318.
The versatility of this system is at the
lower end of the spectrum, since tie
rods cannot be used in buildings with
deep trenches, depressions, and pits.
Hairpins with slab ties (Figure 2b). The
general idea behind this design is the
same as in the tie-rod system, but the
tension force is resisted by distributed
steel reinforcement in the floor slab (slab
ties) rather than by discrete tie rods. This
is the least expensive method of resisting
horizontal column reactions and, for
this reason, hairpins have been widely
used in the past. But the system suffers
from multiple disadvantages. Among
them is a total reliance on the floor slab,
which makes the system vulnerable to
StruWare, Inc
Structural Engineering Software

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).
CMU or Tilt-up Concrete Walls with &
without openings ($75.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Bms & Joists ($75.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com
FH
Column pedestal
Hairpin
Tie rod
FH
FH
(a)
(b)
Slab ties
FH
FH
(d)
(c)
Figure 2: Common Foundations Used in Metal Building Systems: a) Tie rod; b) Hairpins with slab ties;
c) Moment-resisting foundation; d) Slab with haunch.
the slab being cut or partly removed.

Other issues include construction
joints in slabs on grade, where the slab
reinforcement generally stops, and even
the fundamental issue of treating slabs
on grade as structural elements. Slabs
on ground are excluded from the scope
of ACI 318, except when they transmit
lateral forces from other portions of
the structure to the soil. If the designer
intends to have the slab on grade comply
with ACI 318, the slab must be designed
and constructed with greater care than
the prevalent practices. At the very least,
it should be reinforced more substantially
than with a layer of light welded-wire
fabric, to provide for a minimum
percentage of shrinkage reinforcement.
Moment-resisting foundations (Figure
2c). These foundations work similarly
to cantilevered retaining walls: the
weight of the foundation, and any soil
on top of it, resists overturning and
sliding caused by external horizontal
forces. Because it does not depend on
a contribution of the slab on grade,
the moment-resisting foundation
represents one the most reliable
systems available. It also is one of the
most versatile, since deep trenches,
depressions, and pits in the floor
or no floor at all do not affect its
function. The system can even be used
in hillside installations, where one
end of the building is lower than the
STRUCTURE magazine
14
July 2013
other. However, the design procedures

for moment-resisting foundations are
relatively lengthy and the construction
costs could be high.
Slab with haunch (Figure 2d ). This
system has been widely used in
residential construction, and some
have tried to use it for supporting
large pre-engineered buildings as well.
The slab with haunch, also known as
a downturned slab, works similarly
to the moment-resisting foundation,
and a rigorous design would result
in the haunch of the size similar to
the footing of the moment-resisting
foundation. Needless to say, this is not
the size the proponents of this system
hope for. The reliability and versatility
of the slab with haunch depends
on whether the design relies on the
contribution of the slab on grade. If
it does, both reliability and versatility
would be at the low end of the
spectrum, similar to the hairpin system.
Trench footing (Figure 2e). In this design,
a deep trench is excavated and filled
with concrete. The resulting foundation
could be made heavy enough to resist
uplift and deep enough to develop
passive pressure of the soil. Since
the design does not depend on the
contribution of the slab on grade, both
reliability and versatility of this system
are high. Obviously, the trench footings
(also known as mass foundations or
(f)
Widen trench
footing at
columns
Slab
Slabon
ongrade
grade
FFH
H
FFH
H
(e)
FFH
H
FH
(f)
(f)
Widen
Widentrench
trench
footing
footing at
at
columns
columns
(e)
(e)
Figure 2 (continued): Common Foundations Used

in Metal Building Systems: e) Trench footing;
f ) Mat; g) Deep foundations.
FFH
H
(g)
formless footings) can only be used in

the soils that allow for the excavated
trench to be stable during construction.
This typically requires clayey soils.
Mats (Figure 2f ). Using mats might
be advantageous in metal building
foundations bearing on poor soils.

According to one rule of thumb, when
isolated column footings cover more
than 50% of the buildings footprint,
mats become economical. Mats are
typically reinforced in two directions,
A Simplified Design Example for

Sizing an Isolated Column
(g)
(g)
Footing for Downward Forces and Uplift.
Given: Select the size of an isolated column footing to support an interior column of a
single-story multiple-span rigid frame. The spacing of the interior columns within the
frame is 60 feet; the frames are 25 feet on centers. The following loads act on the roof:
3 psf dead load, 30 psf design roof snow load, and 14 psf wind uplift. The depth of the
footing must be at least 3 feet below the floor. The column is supported by a 20 inch by 20
inch concrete pedestal extending to the top of the floor. Use allowable soil bearing capacity
of 4000 psf. Assume the average weight of the soil, slab on grade and foundation is 130
lbs/ft3. The building is not located in the flood zone. Use IBC basic load combinations.
Solution. The tributary area of the column is 60 x 25 = 1500 (ft2). The design loads on
the column are:
Design dead load D = 4.5 kips Design snow load S = 45 kips
Design wind uplift load W = 21 kips
Total downward load D + S = 4.5 + 45 = 49.5 kips
Total uplift load on foundation (0.6D + W ) = 0.6 x 4.5 21 = 18.3 kips
Weight of the soil, slab on grade and foundation is 0.130 kips/ft3 x 3 ft. = 0.39 kips/ft2 (ksf)
Net available soil pressure is 4.0 0.39 = 3.61 (ksf )
Required area of the footing for downward load is 49.5/3.61 = 13.71 (ft2)
For downward load only, the sign of the footing is 3.7 feet by 3.7 feet at a minimum.
Check stability against wind uplift. Minimum required weight of the foundation, soil on
its ledges and tributary slab on grade (Dmin, found) can be is found from:
0.6Dmin, found + W = 0
Dmin, found = 18.3/0.6 = 30.5 (kips)
This corresponds to 30.5/0.130 = 234.62 (ft3) of the average weight of ballast
With the depth of footing 3 feet below the floor, this requires the minimum square footing size of (234.62/3)1/2 = 8.84 (ft.)
To reduce the footing size, try lowering the bottom of the footing by 1 foot. Then the
minimum required square footing is (234.62/4)1/2 = 7.66 (ft.).
To arrive at a nominal size, use 8.0 by 8.0-foot footing, with a depth of: 234.62/(8)2 =
3.67 (ft.).
The final footing size is 8.0 ft. x 8.0 ft. x 3 ft. 8 in. deep, as controlled by uplift.
The complete version of this design example, including concrete design for various loading
conditions, can be found in the new book, Foundation and Anchor Design Guide for Metal
Building Systems (McGraw-Hill, 2013).
STRUCTURE magazine
15
July 2013
both at the top and at the bottom.

Heavyweight mats work well in resisting
wind uplift, and their continuous
reinforcement solves the problem of
extinguishing the horizontal column
reactions at the opposite ends of the
frames. One challenge of using mats in
metal buildings with multiple-span rigid
frames is the placement of anchor bolts
for interior columns. This often requires
placing a separate mud slab, which can
be used to temporarily support anchor
bolts. Mats possess high reliability
they are unlikely to be cut casually but
a low versatility, because they do not
work with deep trenches, depressions,
and pits. Their cost is relatively high.
Deep foundations (Figure 2g). There are
two main types of deep foundations:
deep piers (also called caissons, or
drilled shafts) and piles. Deep piers
typically possess enough dead load
to counteract moderate wind uplift.
If additional ballast is needed, a
contribution of the perimeter grade
beams could be considered. The
grade beams also engage the passive
pressure-resistance of the soil and
thus help resist horizontal column
reactions. Piles can resist both uplift
and horizontal forces in a variety of
ways, including friction in cohesive
soils and flexure. Because deep
foundations generally do not depend
on a contribution of the floor slabs,
these foundations are both reliable and
versatile. But they are also costly and
are typically used in only poor soils,
particularly those where weak strata
are underlain by competent materials.
By understanding the advantages and disadvantages of various foundation systems used in
pre-engineered buildings, designers should be
able to select the foundation design that most
closely matches the expected use, configuration
and performance of the building as a whole.
Codes and
standards
updates and discussions
related to codes and standards
n the CASE Business Practices article titled,

Too Many Codes Spoil the Design?
Conflicts and Hidden Requirements Can
Hurt You! published in the September
2012 issue of STRUCTURE magazine, Kirk
A. Haverland wrote about a topic familiar to
US engineers in the wind energy industry. Mr.
Haverland describes the situation where a professional structural engineer if presented with
the opportunity to design a structure that is a
little different hopefully should be able to do
his homework and research the idiosyncrasies
of industry practice, design requirements, different codes and standards, etc. The piece further
describes a problematic scenario where the building code (i.e., Code based on 2009 IBC and
ASCE 7-05) may not necessarily govern the
design. That is, various reference standards are in
conflict, and design may be governed by undocumented and un-codified information known only
to those engineers in the know. Unfortunately,
this accurately describes
the situation faced by US
engineers trying to engage
in wind turbine support
structure analysis, design
and permitting.
The primary difficulty is the lack of a dedicated
wind turbine generator system (WTGS) support structure design standard. The US wind
industry has been developing utility-scale wind
farms for over three decades, and yet in that time
there has been no clear guidance in the US for
the design and permitting of WTGS support
structures. The domestic wind industry utilizes
foreign design standards used by the European
wind turbine original equipment manufacturers
(OEM) who had initially dominated the global
wind energy market.
Wind Farm Tower Design

Introducing ASCE/AWEA
RP2011
By Nestor A. Agbayani, P.E., S.E.,
SECB, M. ASCE and
Rolando E. Vega, Ph.D., P.E.,
M. ASCE
Nestor A. Agbayani, P.E., S.E.,

SECB, M. ASCE, is a Principal
Engineer at Agbayani Structural
Engineering. Nestor may be reached
at nagbayani@sbcglobal.net.
Rolando E. Vega, Ph.D., P.E.,
M. ASCE, is the Director of
Renewable Energy Research at the
University of Texas at San Antonio,
Texas Sustainable Energy Research
Institute. Rolando may be reached
at Rolando.Vega@utsa.edu.
Introducing RP2011
In the absence of specific domestic design
guidelines or standards, demonstrating Code
compliance has been a challenge. In 2009, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
and the American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA) formed a joint committee to provide
US design guidance. This article introduces
one of the results of that effort: a new reference document for the analysis, design and
permitting of utility-scale wind farm towers
titled ASCE/AWEA RP2011: Recommended
Practice for Compliance of Large Land-based
Wind Turbine Support Structures (Figure 1 ).
RP2011 is a resource for structural engineers
engaged in utility-scale wind farm tower design
or permitting. The recommended practices
are intended to help engineers establish an
appropriate design basis for producing tower
and foundation designs that meet established
16 July 2013
Figure 1: ASCE/AWEA Recommended Practice for

Compliance of Large Land-based Wind Turbine
Support Structures (ASCE/AWEA RP2011)
The American Wind Energy Association.
wind industry standards and that comply

with Code. RP2011 is also intended to assist
Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) who
are responsible for permit process plan review
of WTGS towers and foundations. RP2011
is available as a free download at the AWEA
website: www.awea.org.
As an example, this article will describe some
of the major idiosyncrasies of wind industry
structural design practice for WTGS steel fabricated tube towers. Applying conventional Code
provisions alone as a design basis would likely
result in an under-designed structure. Similarly,
applying Code provisions alone for plan review
compliance would be too permissive and give a
pass to that same under-designed structure. It
has been argued that the Code is a minimum
standard for compliance and that the wind
industry is free to meet a higher standard.
Unfortunately, that argument is misapplied,
since the Code minimum standard does not
capture the correct governing structural design
basis in terms of loading, WTGS behavior, and
industry norms.
The Tower
The steel fabricated tube tower is currently
the most typical structure type in use in the
domestic and international utility-scale wind
industries. While WTGS machine components
may fail and be repaired or replaced through
maintenance, the tower support structure must
perform more reliably and without failure
(Figure 2 ). At this time, RP2011 addresses only
this tower structure type. To most engineers
and others who are wind industry outsiders,
the tube tower appears to be a simple structure. In reality, structural engineers in the
know understand that the simple appearance belies the inherent design complexities.
CONSTRUCTION CEMENT
Primary Design Issues
FA S T ER
Wind Design
Earthquake Design
Applying Code seismic provisions is immediately problematic because a steel fabricated
tube WTGS support structure does not
appear in ASCE 7-05 Table 15.4-2, Seismic
Coefficients for Nonbuilding Structures not
Similar to Buildings. Faced with this, the
engineer may use engineering judgment to
apply the R factor for a similar structure:
perhaps a steel stack with R=3, an inverted
pendulum with R=2; or a steel pole telecommunications tower with R=1.5. Note that
all other self-supporting structures
with R=1.25 has a 50 feet height limitation in SDC D and greater, which would be
STRONGER
MORE DURABLE
3000 PSI IN 1 HOUR
Figure 2: WTGS with steel fabricated tube tower.

Courtesy of Rolando Vega.
too short for utility-scale towers. This is a

reasonable approach, but there are other considerations. Virtually all utility-scale WTGS
towers are thin-shell steel tubes whose design
strength is governed by the limit state of local
buckling and, therefore, they have very low
ductility and little overstrength. Moreover,
there are other unfavorable characteristics:
the tower is a single member with no redundancy; the system is top heavy with the wind
turbine concentrating up to one-half of the
total system mass at the tower top; and, the
tower itself has very little inherent structural
damping. Finally, the Code earthquake load
combinations do not capture the wind industrys governing earthquake load combination.
RP2011 Section 5.4.4.5 recommends the consideration of two earthquake loading conditions:
IBC-compatible loading: gravity
plus earthquake.
IEC-compatible loading: gravity plus
earthquake plus operational load.
For the IBC loading, RP2011 recommends
R=1.5 along with the Code design response
spectrum adjusted to a 1%-damped spectrum. The earthquake load is used in Code
seismic load combinations. The wind turbine
is assumed to be at standstill, so there is no
effective structural damping contribution from
the turbines interaction with the wind in the
form of aerodynamic damping. For this reason,
RP2011 recommends adjustment of the Codes
5%-damped design response spectrum to a
level of 1% damping, resulting in an increase
in spectral ordinates by a factor of about 1.4.
continued on next page
STRUCTURE magazine
17
July 2013
Specified
Worldwide
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
High bond strength
Low shrinkage
High sulfate resistance
Great freeze thaw durability
Long life expectancy
65% lower carbon footprint
Available in
Bags and Bulk
800-929-3030
ctscement.com
Typical application of the Codes wind provisions would entail ASCE 7s Section 6.5
Method 2 Analytical Procedure. However,
this loading may not be the governing wind
loading for the WTGS tower. In fact, the
Codes extreme wind (1-in-50 year, 3-second
gust) represents only one of many design
load combinations (DLC) considered by the
wind industry standard IEC 61400-1 published by the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC). While the Codes extreme
wind may result in high design forces, the turbine OEMs loads may contain other DLCs
that produce even higher design loads that
have no parallel in the Code, such as turbine
emergency stop or extreme annual operating gust plus electrical fault. Code loading
alone may be insufficient for WTGS tower
design. Complete IEC WTGS design loading is obtained from a complex time series
simulation, modeling the turbines proprietary
aerodynamic, mechanical and physical properties. This analysis is usually performed by the
turbine OEMs specialists who compile the
design loading into a comprehensive loads
document. RP2011 Sections 5.4.8 and 5.4.9
provide strategies for reconciling building
Code wind design loading with IEC site class
extreme loading and recommends appropriate
ASCE 7 design parameter values. Section 13
provides guidance on understanding the turbine OEMs loads document. Section 14 also
discusses the differences in wind speed and
turbulence intensity profiles between ASCE
7-05 and that of the IEC standard wind site
class definitions.
For the IEC loading, RP2011 recommends

R=1.5 in conjunction with the IEC seismic
plus operational load combination that considers the somewhat likely situation where
the WTGS is operating in a power production mode when the design earthquake event
strikes. In this case, the effective damping
contribution from the operational turbine is
considered sufficient to allow use of the Codes
standard 5%-damped design response spectrum. However, the operational load of the
turbine must be included. One such operational load is the emergency stop load. In
this scenario, sensors (accelerometers) within
the operating turbine detect the excessive
tower top motions induced by the earthquake
event. The emergency stop protocol is triggered, engaging the rotor and yaw brakes to
rapidly halt the turbine so that it can ride out
the excessive tower top motions. It so happens
that this creates large tower design loads.
The industry idiosyncrasies do not end
here, as there are different ways to combine the earthquake and operational loads.
Without an actual full-blown time series
simulation, in practice the engineer separately calculates the Codes design seismic
force and then combines these with the
maximum operational loads provided by the
turbine OEM. Recognizing that these peak
loads do not necessarily occur at the same
point in time nor in the same direction,
RP2011 recommends a square-root-sumof-squares (SRSS) combination. In contrast,
the IEC standard suggests an absolute sum
of the peak loads, but it recognizes that this
is conservative.
Fatigue Design
At this stage of the design, the engineer
may have applied Code wind and earthquake provisions along with the additional
related IEC criteria. Nevertheless, the
tower or portions of the tower may still
be under-designed because fatigue may be
the governing design condition. Even if the
engineer were to have applied American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
fatigue provisions, the design would still
be unconservative with respect to wind
industry practices. RP2011 Section 7.3.1
describes and reconciles Eurocode (EN
1993-1-9) fatigue S-N curves with the AISC
(ANSI/AISC 360-05) S-N curves. Section
7.3.2 discusses the additional fatigue safety
factors required by IEC that do not appear
in AISC. Sections 7.3.4 and 7.3.5 introduce
the Miners Rule linear damage summation
method and the fatigue damage equivalent
load (DEL) concept, respectively. The point
is worth repeating that fatigue often governs
all or part of the WTGS tower.
Frequency Separation
Assuming all the aforementioned design calculations were performed, the engineer may assume
that the tower design is complete. Unfortunately,
it is still possible that the tower design may be
completely unusable if it does not meet frequency separation criteria. RP2011 Section
5.4.7 states that to avoid resonance, WTGS
should be designed with sufficient separation
between system natural frequencies and turbine
operational frequencies. The section provides
separation criteria that are in current widespread
use in the wind industry practice. Adequate
frequency separation is an imperative serviceability condition for WTGS. Upon start of
operation, a WTGS with inadequate frequency
separation will undergo large and violent backand-forth resonant oscillations. Sensing this,
modern turbines will then shut down, preventing any further power production. However,
older turbines without such a detection system
could reach resonant oscillations large enough to
damage or fail the tower. Inadequate frequency
separation is remedied during the tower design
phase by thickening the tower shell or widening
the overall diameter of the lower sections to
stiffen the tower, thereby increasing the system
mass and natural frequency.
Design for Stress Concentrations
Localized portions of the wind tower may still be
under-designed. In particular, tower shell areas
subject to stress concentrations, i.e., hotspot
stresses, usually require thickening. For example,
stress concentrations occur around wall penetrations such as doorways and cable openings. The
wind industry utilizes specific methods of finite
element analysis (FEA). RP2011 Section 7.4.2
references an International Institute of Welding
(IIW) standard, which gives guidelines on FEA
mesh sizes and recommended hotspot stress
extrapolation functions.
Other Design Issues

Specialized Design Procedures
RP2011 Section 7.4 briefly mentions specialized
design procedures used in the wind industry
for the strength and fatigue design of bolted
ring flanges. These bolted flange design methods (such as the Petersen Model or Seidel
Method, so named for their inventor) are more
amenable to hand calculation in lieu of FEA.
Foundation Design
Like the tower, the WTGS foundation design
has its idiosyncrasies. RP2011 Section 8.6.1.5
describes ground gap limitations that amount
to additional overturning stability requirements.
One ground gap criterion requires that under
IEC DLCs such as normal power production,
STRUCTURE magazine
18
July 2013
no ground gap (i.e., zero bearing pressure)

shall occur at the foundation-soil contact.
Stated differently, this means that the contact
stresses under the entire foundation footprint
must remain in compression. Another ground
gap criterion states that under service extreme
loads, the ground gap shall not extend beyond
the center of gravity of the foundation bottom
area. Fatigue design of a reinforced concrete
foundation is atypical in conventional building design, but WTGS foundations must be
designed for high-cycle fatigue loading. This
includes anchor rods and non-prestressed steel
reinforcement bars. RP2011 Section 8.5 mentions a few alternative international standards
used in the wind industry.
The Future of RP2011

Although RP2011 is a first-of-its-kind design
guidance document for WTGS support structures in the US, as a recommended practices
document it is certainly far from being a
design standard. At this time, there are two
goals for RP2011s future:
(1) The first goal would be the evolution
of RP2011 or its future successor document
into a standard, specifically into an ANSI
standard to give the document credibility in
the structural engineering community. Next
would be an effort to achieve the status of a
code referenced standard in future editions
of the IBC. This would give the standard some
teeth, i.e., the regulatory authority of Code.
(2) The second goal would be the incorporation of future research to address and improve
current gray areas in design knowledge. These
include the following topics: a more comprehensive scope to include alternative tower structural
systems and materials; improved understanding
of tower response to earthquake plus operational
loads; better understanding of seismic response
and performance at near-fault locations; effective supplementary damping systems; improved
understanding of concrete anchor bolt resistance
to fatigue; a reliability-based soil-structure interaction framework for Load and Resistance Factor
Design of WTGS foundations and improved
coordination with future Code editions.
Conclusion
WTGS support structure design is subject to
many idiosyncratic wind industry practices. It
is of critical importance that structural engineers and plan reviewers recognize that many
of those practices are beyond Code (from
international standards) and may often be
above Code (more conservative). RP2011 is
an excellent resource to learn about current
wind industry design practices and un-codified requirements.
Appalachian State University (ASU) Boone, NC
Masonry has a New Edge.

And its called HALFEN FK4.
Introducing a new adjustable shelf angle with a thermal break.
ALFEN FK4 brickwork supports transfer
the dead load of the outer brick veneer
to the buildings load-bearing structure: an
effcient construction principle developed with
the experience of over 80 years of lasting
technology.
Adjustability
HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports
provide continuous height adjustment of
+/- 13/8 which compensates for existing
tolerances of the structure as well as
installation inaccuracies of wall anchors.
Reduced Thermal Bridging

The HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports are
offset from the edge of slab allowing insulation
to pass behind. Minimal contact with the
building structure means reduced thermal
bridging and lower energy loss.
Efficient Design
As the demand for higher energy efficiency in
commercial buildings continues to increase,
the cavity between the brick veneer and the
substrate is getting larger to allow for more
insulation and air space. Along with this
increased cavity size, the traditional masonry
shelf angle, used to support the brick veneer
at the slab edge, is also getting larger and
subsequently heavier and more expensive
to install. Architects & engineers are looking for a more efficient support solution.
The HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports use
a thinner, light weight shelf angle, eliminating brick notching while also allowing for a
wider cavity.
Structural Efficiency
The HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports allow
efficient anchoring of brickwork facades in
connection with HALFEN cast-in channels.
Quality
By using HALFEN FK4 brickwork supports, you
profit from an approved anchoring system,
excellent adjustment options and a complete
product program covering all aspects of
brickwork facade.
Many advantages with one result:
HALFEN provides safety, reliability and
efficiency for you and your customers.
HALFEN USA Inc. PO Box 547 Converse TX 78109

Phone: 800.423.9140 www.halfenusa.com info@halfenusa.com
Growing Optimism Spurs

Innovation for Seismic Companies
By Larry Kahaner
STRUCTURE magazine
21
July 2013
rowing optimism in the construction industry is bringing provide the most state-of-the-art performance levels and keep our
with it new products and services, as companies offer more fabrication processes as economical as possible.
value and advanced features to keep up with customer
Other companies see better times, too. The construction environdemand and their own competitors.
ment is becoming more optimistic. It appears that, as the economy
At West Jordan, Utah-based CoreBrace, LLC (www.corebrace.com), continues to recover, construction jobs are returning, notes Aura
Chief Engineer Brandt Saxey says that growth in the steel industry is Joyce, Marketing Communications Manager for Aegion Corporation
increasing his sales. We have continued to see strong growth in the (www.aegion.com), headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri and the
steel industry and in particular the use of buckling restrained braces parent company of Fibrwrap Construction Services and Fyfe Co.
(BRBs) within that industry. The use of BRB systems can bring the
One new and innovative application for the Tyfo Fibrwrap Systems
overall construction cost for a building down, often helping to make on light-frame construction is the Tyfo G Wrap System, says Joyce.
the project more feasible and funding more available. Projects incor- The Tyfo G Wrap System utilizes advanced composite materials to
porating BRBs often use less steel; offering not only significant cost strengthen existing gypsum walls, and makes them behave like properly
savings, but also contributing to true sustainability.
detailed plywood shearwalls. This is critical in strengthening existing
The company supplies a large number of braces for typical buildings apartment buildings that suffer from what is called soft story or weak
such as schools, office buildings, and hospitals, but also provides braces story deficiencies. She adds: The Tyfo G Wrap systems allows for
for large industrial facilities, existing building retrofits, warehouses, the strengthening of these buildings by applying advanced composite
bridges, and essentially any structure that an engineer might be materials over existing painted gypsum wall boards without having to
designing, Saxey notes. As the engineering community continues to tear into the wall. This allows for faster construction schedules and
become more familiar with the behavior
and advantages that BRBs provide, we
see designers continually finding novel
uses and new applications for them. This
sometimes means that new kinds of performance requirements must be met from
engineering and fabrication perspectives,
which we work constantly to achieve.
Corebrace recently tested braces specifically designed for bridge applications
as well as near-fault earthquake effects
B U C K L I N G
R E S T R A I N E D
B R A C E S
such as occurred in Christchurch, New
Zealand. This testing included braces fabricated out of standard steel, galvanized
steel, and stainless steel, and included
both pseudo-static and dynamic rates of
loading. Adds Saxey: Each of these different material types produced a unique
set of brace performance data, but each
can be fit for any project type. Weve also
WWW.COREBRACE.COM
801.280.0701
recently tested braces designed specifically
for retrofit use. These braces are installed
Bolted, Pinned, and Welded Connections
in two separate pieces and spliced in the
Fully Qualified and Exceeding AISC 341 Requirements
middle, allowing them to be brought in
Real-Time
Engineering Assistance
and fit-up in tight spaces where the use of
a traditional brace would not be possible.
Non-linear Modelling Design Guides
These recently tested braces underwent
Maximum QA/QC and Scheduling Control
some of the most rigorous testing we have
Integration with RAM Structural System and REVIT
ever performed far exceeding the AISC341 code requirements. Our ongoing
New! Near Fault Effect Testing
R&D program allows us to continually
limits the potential exposure of asbestos or other airborne particles

that could be hidden within the walls of these buildings.
Also seeing an improvement is Lyle Simonton, Director of Business
Development at Subsurface Constructors in St. Louis, Missouri
(www.subsurfaceconstructors.com). We are seeing a big increase
in the use of ground improvement methods in the transportation
and commercial sectors. We have performed the design-build of
ground improvement solutions for MSE (mechanically stabilized
STRUCTURE magazine
earth) walls for several large DOT projects in several states, says
Simonton. Additionally, we are seeing several of the big-name retail
companies who are building new stores across the country require the
use of ground improvement in lieu of remove and replace to speed
up construction of these new stores.
At Subsurface, innovation is key, Simonton says. As a specialty
contractor, we must continue to innovate with our equipment and
services so marginal sites can be improved economically, while trying to
maintain a technological advantage over
our competitors. He adds: Engineering
consultants and the owners theyre working for seem to be spending more time
than ever on trying to bring value to
their projects. Theyre asking designbuild speciality contractors like us to
work closely with them to develop valueadded foundation solutions, which often
times means using vibro stone columns/
aggregate piers in lieu of deep foundations or substantial over-excavation. (See
ad on page 20.)
Mo Ehsani, President of QuakeWrap
Inc. (www.quakewrap.com) in Tucson,
Arizona, says that a major concern in
seismic retrofit of structures is the
strengthening and confinement of concrete columns. The company in the
early 1990s introduced Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) products which had been
successfully used worldwide, he says.
However, these repairs use the FRP in
what is known as a wet layup procedure,
where the fabrics of carbon or glass are
saturated in the field with epoxy resins
and wrapped around the column. The
method requires the column surface to
be smooth, and in some post-earthquake
repairs this may take additional time so
masons can repair the damaged concrete
before wrapping. The technique also
requires trained contractors who have
prior experience with these products.
Now, Ehsani says that QuakeWrap has
come up with a new generation of products called PileMedic that make these
repairs much faster and easier. We can
now apply heat and pressure to saturated
fabrics in our plant to produce a very
thin FRP laminate sheet. These sheets
are four feet wide by hundreds of feet
long and are sold in rolls. The challenge
in this technique has been to make these
sheets with thicknesses as little as 0.01
inch; the typical sheet is 0.025 inch and
has a tensile strength in excess of 150,000
psi. The relatively flexible sheets can be
22
July 2013
continued on page 24
SidePlate
for
Wind
Register for
Upcoming Webinars to
SEE HOW SIDEPLATE

WORKS FOR YOU
www.sideplate.com/webinar
THE NEW, ALL FILLET-WELDED SIDEPLATE DESIGN

SAVES TIME AND MONEY ON WIND-CONTROLLED (R=3) PROJECTS
Saves tonnage Competitive shop labor Shortens construction schedule No UT inspection
For over 15 years the industry has looked
to SidePlate moment connections to save
time & money on earthquake and progressive
collapse type projects. But the new, more efficient
SidePlate design saves on virtually any wind
controlled project as well, when compared to
ordinary conventional moment connections and
has been shown to be competitive when compared
to braced frames.
For this 6-story, 195,000sf wind-controlled (R=3)
hospital in North Carolina, the owner was able
to realize construction savings in excess of
$200,000. Call us today to see how we can
help you bring these benefits to your steel projects.
S ide P late S yStemS , i nc .
SidePlate FRAME
Column Assembly
SteelFab has been working

with the new SidePlate details
for over two years, and weve
found that SidePlate consistently
reduces the structure weight and
number of moment frame
connections required. Weve
seen substantial savings to overall budgets on both seismic and
wind-governed projects.
MARSH SPENCER,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
SteelFabCharlotte, NC
a subsidiary of MiTek, a B erkShire h athaway Company

To learn more, call 800/475-2077 or visit www.SidePlate.com/frame
formed to virtually any shape in the field. In a typical installation, the

sheet is wrapped twice around the column and glued to itself to create a
very strong sonotube-like shell that leaves a small annular space. This
annular space between the shell and the column is filled with grout. The
entire operation takes about 1-2 hours. Videos of these applications
are available at www.pilemedic.com.
Like most engineers, we like to solve problems. So were continually researching and developing new ideas and asking what
can we do better?. says Henry Gallart, President of SidePlate
(www.sideplate.com), Laguna Hills, California. CJP welding is
expensive and time-consuming, so SidePlate FRAME was developed
as an easier way to realize the SidePlate design benefits without having
to do any CJP welds. Its been a huge success by any measure, but
many areas of the US still prefer field-bolting. The SidePlate bolted
connection was the logical follow-up to that.
Adds Gallart: In April, we unveiled a new low-seismic, R=3 system
that is field-bolted. The industry response has been tremendous. For
higher-seismic areas, just a few years ago we developed a new, more
economical system called SidePlate FRAME, that uses only fillet
welds in the shop and field. The field-bolted connection is tailored to
low-seismic applications and delivers the same SidePlate cost-saving
benefits to the overall design, but also solves many of the fit-up issues
inherent with other bolted moment connections. For higher-seismic
applications, the fillet-welded SidePlate FRAME configuration meets
all of the AISC criteria for Special Moment Frames, saves cost on the
overall design, and saves a significant amount of construction cost by
eliminating CJP welding. (See ad on page 23.)
Jim Hussin, Director, Hayward Baker, Inc., (www.haywardbaker.com)

headquartered in Odenton, Maryland, says that his company is
involved in all industries and sectors since nearly all are confronted
with geotechnical challenges. Since its inception over 60 years ago,
HBI has established itself in the forefront of geotechnical specialty
contracting, evolving and expanding to meet the increasingly complex needs of the construction community. HBI is recognized by the
industry to be reliable and innovative experts, and offers full DesignBuild services for virtually any geotechnical construction application.
Hussin adds: Soil mixing is a relatively new technology that is growing
in use to solve issues related to soft soils and seismic applications. HBI has
used this technology to improve ground for a wide variety of structures,
especially those subjected to seismic and wind loading. As for business
conditions in general, he notes: Although not close to the peak levels
seen several years ago, Hayward Baker has seen a steady, healthy growth
in the construction market over the past couple of years. Hayward Baker
has a strong engineering staff and is available to assist SEs with evaluating
geotechnical challenges and provide Design-Build services.
STRUCTURE magazine is planning several additional
Special Advertorials in 2013 and 2014. To discuss
advertising opportunities, please contact our ad sales
representatives Chuck Minor and Dick Railton at
Sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
24
July 2013
Wet
Wet Soil
Soil Mixing
Mixing
Ventura
Ventura Cancer
Cancer Center,Ventura,
Center,Ventura, CA
CA
Vibro Replacement
East Cooper Regional Medical Center, Mt. Pleasant, SC
Vibro Replacement
Westfield Mall, National City, CA
LIQUEFACTION
MITIGATION
NEW CONSTRUCTION AND REMEDIATION
Compaction Grouting
Harlem Hospital Center, New York, NY
800-456-6548
www.HaywardBaker.com
GROUTING
GROUND IMPROVEMENT
EARTH RETENTION
STRUCTURAL SUPPORT
For a complete listing of our services and offices, visit: www.HaywardBaker.com
DESIGN-CONSTRUCT SERVICES
Jet Grouting
Wickiup Dam, La Pine, OR
New York State Capitol Restoration

By Susan L. Knack-Brown, P.E. and Nicholas T. Floyd, P.E.
Figure 1: East elevation of the Capitol. Courtesy of Laurie Donald,

Bernstein Associates Photographers, for OGS.
he New York State Capitol, designed in various stages by

a succession of architects including Leopold Eidlitz and
H.H. Richardson, was built between 1869 and 1899.
This landmark building illustrates both Second Empire
and Richardsonian Romanesque elements and is an architectural
masterpiece with ornate carved stone, vibrant paint finishes and
decorative glass, and decorative tiled floors. A number of monumental
public spaces such as the Senate and Assembly Chambers, and three
monumental staircases (the Assembly, Senate, and Great Western
Staircases) help to architecturally define the building. By the late
1990s, the building was losing its luster due to neglect, insensitive
major modifications and chronic leakage, dating as far back as 1874,
that damaged the exterior stone and interior finishes.
In 1996, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS)
embarked upon a study to address the chronic leakage, which grew into
a four-phase, 12-year restoration of the roofs and the three staircases,
at a cost of approximately $85 million. This award winning project
has finally addressed all of the reported leakage through the roofs, as
well as restored to prominence the three monumental staircases by
Figure 2a and b: Original

mortar-set terra cotta
hip installation and new
system with stainless steel
strut attachments.
STRUCTURE magazine
returning natural light and lost historic features to the spaces. This
projects success has also fostered other, separate restoration efforts
within the Capitol that continue OGSs efforts to restore the landmark
to its original prominence.
Accomplishing this project took a team of consultants and contractors from the initial investigation in 1996 through construction
in 2012. Success involved a partnership of OGS, contractors, and
the design team to ensure quality and craftsmanship befitting this
monumental building.
Architectural Terra Cotta Roong

The Capitol has a complex roof arrangement, including several slate
and clay tile roofs accented by architectural terra-cotta hips and railings
(Figure 1). The original hung slate and clay tile roofing was replaced in
the 1960s, incorporating decking and underlayment for added weather
protection, but the terra-cotta was the original material dating to the
late 1800s. These terra-cotta units were mortar set directly onto the
shingled roofing and steel bar stock framing (Figure 2a), and were a
source of ongoing leakage that deteriorated the terra-cotta and mortar
setting beds and corroded supplemental steel anchors. Prior to this roof
project, tiles had been face-fastened with through-anchors and covered
with sealant in attempts to address the attachment and leakage concerns;
these repairs exacerbated the leakage and resulted in further cracking and
degradation of the terra-cotta. Full replacement was deemed necessary.
The replacement design required a water-tight system, with structurally sound attachments that maintained the original appearance and
had durability comparable to the terra-cotta material (approximately
100 years). The design team elected to hang the new terra-cotta hip
and apron tiles with stainless steel struts and attachment clips, which
allowed for a drainable, water-tight copper flashing and continuous
membrane underlayment below (Figure 2b). In order to attach these
struts and provide a continuous substrate for the copper and membrane, the design included new steel framing and clips at each hip,
ridge, and finial configuration to carry the terra-cotta loads back to
the existing metal roof structure. The existing roof planes and framing
on the Capitol varied significantly, so the design provided dimensional
tolerances in the attachment system by use of the struts (allowing
26
July 2013
Figure 3: Granite tower during installation of new substructure and after

reinstallation of granite.
adjustability along the roof slope) and shims between the various
attachment clips (allowing up/down adjustability). The individual
terra-cotta tiles were also shimmed off the strut to accommodate
variations in the tiles themselves. Finials and ridge tiles were set as
more traditional stacked masonry with new stainless steel attachments.
Pyramidal Granite Towers

The Capitol has four pyramidal masonry tower roofs, originally constructed with a granite exterior and a brick masonry vault backup.
Chronic leakage plagued the rooms below these towers, which contained a combination of office space and rooms housing sensitive
voting equipment and elevator machinery. A successful design solution
needed to eliminate all leakage, while retaining the existing granite
cladding, an integral part of the exterior appearance, and without
relocating the equipment or machinery below.
During the initial field investigation, it was observed that each course
of granite included a back cut in the stone to interlock successive
courses. While helping to interlock the tower structurally, this back
slope channeled water runoff into the granite bed joints, exacerbating
mortar deterioration and leakage. This systemic issue accounted for
the previous pointing and sealant repairs failure to provide long-term
relief from the ongoing leakage.
The design teams solution was to rebuild the pyramidal roofs as a
typical masonry veneer, albeit on a monumental scale. Each pyramidal
tower was deconstructed down to the cornice level and all granite units
were salvaged, numbered, and stored for reinstallation. The towers
were then rebuilt with a steel and precast pyramidal sub-structure on
a reinforced-concrete ring beam designed to take the thrust of the
new framing (Figure 3). New membrane and copper roofing, and
through-wall flashing, were then installed for water management
and the original granite was reinstalled with an open drainage cavity.
The final appearance of the rebuilt tower exactly matched the original
tower from the exterior.
Assembly and Senate Staircase Restoration

Due to safety concerns during World War II, the skylights over the
three monumental staircases were painted black. Ongoing leakage
through the then dysfunctional skylights prompted their later removal
and overclad with copper or slate roofing. In the late 1940s, space
pressures within the Capitol prompted the State to infill the upper
reaches of the Assembly and Senate Staircases with offices. These major
modifications showed little regard for the staircases, as the designs
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 4: Assembly
Staircase attic before
and after installation of
new skylight, laylight,
and staircase lighting.
Before photo courtesy of
Laurie Donald, Bernstein
Associates Photographers,
for OGS.
were now out of fashion, and many of the staircases iconic features
were removed or damaged including hand-blown, hand-painted glass
laylights, carved stone features, and decorative paint finishes.
The roofing restoration work at the Capitol created an opportunity
to replace the skylights over all three staircases and restore natural light
to these remarkable public spaces. The Great Western Staircase was
part of the first phase of construction. Work here included providing
new modern aluminum framed skylights (including providing a new
steel structure to support the side skylights where subsequent roof
reconfigurations had removed the previous support framing), and
restoring the glazing and paint on the original laylight frames that were
still intact. The skylight and laylight were unveiled in August 2003.
The success of the Great Western Staircases restoration paved the
way for the state Office of General Services to pursue restoration of
the remaining two monumental staircases. These two staircases posed
an even greater challenge, as their restoration required removal of the
infill construction, which included connecting corridors, floors, and
the design and installation of new laylights to replicate the long-since
removed original laylight framing and glass.
Structural Concerns
The staircases are constructed with load bearing masonry stairs and
perimeter walls, and each is rectangular in plan with a long dimension of approximately 50 feet. The staircase roofs are constructed
with long span iron trusses, perpendicular iron purlin members,
and rafters which supported the original skylight glass but had since
been modified to support wood decking and roofing. While there
was little documentation of the original laylight framing grid pattern
or attachment, the thick perimeter masonry walls are capped with
a stone cornice that clearly supported the original laylight frames
perimeter. Remnants of the original laylight framing hangers on the
roof trusses were also identified. Using this information, the design
team developed a gridded framing structure specific to each laylight
that used the same methods of structural support as the original
laylight frame (Figure 4).
To meet building code requirements and contemporary performance
expectations, the new laylight installation included an additional layer
27
July 2013
Figure 5: Assembly Staircase before and after restoration work. After photo
courtesy of Laurie Donald, Bernstein Associates Photographers, for OGS.
of laminated glass as safety glazing, and the replacement skylight was

a contemporary aluminum-framed system with insulating glass units,
attached to the existing structure. These necessary upgrades increased
the dead load of both the laylight and roof/skylight systems, both of
which are supported by the original iron roof trusses. Using historical
material property data, initial analysis indicated that portions of the
original Senate Staircase would be overstressed by the new laylight
and skylight loads. Material testing, including tensile testing, chemical
analysis, and Rockwell hardness testing provided quantified material properties that allowed the design team to refine the design and
confirm that the trusses could be reused with minimal additional
framing to redistribute the loads.
In addition to analysis of the new loads, the design considered the
consequences of the load reductions resulting from the removal of
the infill floor space. Portions of the Capitol already had reported
settlement and foundation concerns due to the varved clay layer, and
there were concerns that this load reduction could result in swelling of
the clay that could cause damage to the existing masonry structure or
interior finishes. Fortunately, in both staircases, the design team found
that the infill construction represented a reasonably small percentage
of the total staircase dead load, minimizing potential concerns.
Staircase Finish Work
The Assembly and Senate Staircases appearances are in stark contrast to
each other. The Assembly Staircase is notable for its lavish, bright polychromatic painted plaster finishes, brightly colored laylight, and carved
Figure 7: Senate Staircase

before and after restoration
work. After photo courtesy
of Laurie Donald, Bernstein
Associates Photographers,
for OGS.
sandstone accents (Figure 5 ). Within the restored space, this staircase

also included an ornately carved stone balcony and wood windows
and doors looking into the space from the surrounding circulation
areas. Unfortunately, all of these features, along with the laylight and
skylight, were removed during the infill work. Restoring them required
a careful preservation effort of documenting the painted-over colors
and patterns; designing the new wood windows and doors based on
remnants of the originals; replicating the detailed sandstone carvings
that had been removed or damaged by the infill work; and designing
a complimentary laylight based on limited original documentation.
Restoring the balcony required not only careful architectural detailing of
the carved stonework, but a creative structural design, as it was no longer
feasible to deeply embed the supporting stone brackets and floor into
the load bearing walls (as was done in the original design). The project
design instead utilized a horizontal steel truss fastened to the surrounding masonry walls to support a sandstone stone cladding that mimicked
the bracket and floor slab appearance (Figure 6 ). The stone railing was
similarly reinforced with steel posts that were clad with sandstone.
In contrast to the lavishly colored Assembly Staircase, the Senate
Staircase is monochromatic and constructed with extensively carved
red sandstone and capped with an opalescent glass laylight above
(Figure 7 ). Similar to the Assembly Staircase, careful preservation
efforts were required to replicate the damaged, intricately carved stone
finishes and to clean the exposed stone of both general soiling and of
mastics, markings, and staining left behind by the infill construction.
The Assembly Staircase restoration was unveiled in
January 2012. The Senate Staircase restoration, the final
portion of the project, was unveiled by Governor Andrew
Cuomo in January 2013.
Susan L. Knack-Brown, P.E., is a Principal at Simpson Gumpertz
& Heger Inc. (SGH). Susans work includes a range of building
enclosure investigations and designs, with a specialty in large-scale
preservation. She can be reached at slknack@sgh.com.
Nicholas T. Floyd, P.E., is a Senior Staff II at SGH. He supervised
the roof restoration design and construction administration work on
multiple phases of the Capitol restoration project. He can be reached
at ntfloyd@sgh.com.
Figure 6: Balcony steel frame and sandstone cladding installation during

construction. Courtesy of Laurie Donald, Bernstein Associates Photographers,
for OGS.
STRUCTURE magazine
28
July 2013
Were stacked
in your corner.
If youre planning to stack prefabricated shearwalls, make sure theyre SteelStrong-Wall shearwalls.
The SimpsonStrong-Tie two-story solution is not only code listed, but can be installed right at the corner
to save wall space. And since our engineered shearwalls are available in widths as narrow as 15 inches
for stacked applications, you can design multistory homes with larger windows, doors and open spaces
without sacrificing the high load values required for the project.
To ensure your walls stack up, look to SimpsonStrong-Tie for the widest selection of shearwalls code listed
to the 2009 IBC (see ICC-ES ESR-1679). Visit www.strongtie.com/strongwall or call (800) 999-5099.
2013 Simpson
Strong-Tie Company Inc. SSW10-S
University of Washington Invests in Student Housing

UW Uses Wood Framing to Meet Ambitious Design Goals on a Limited Budget
By Jennifer Cover, MS, P.E.
For the new University of Washington campus buildings, the design team used wood-frame construction to create a community
with an iconic identity, exceptional energy eciency and integrated sustainability all within a tight budget.
n 2012, the University of Washington (UW) completed a

five-building, $109 million construction project, adding nearly
1,700 student housing beds. Known as West Campus Student
Housing Phase I, the 668,800-square-foot project is the
first of four phases planned by UW to add much-needed student
housing to its Seattle campus, which has an enrollment of more
than 42,000 students.
UWs housing need is great, but budgets were limited since the
buildings are owned by the University. Since Seattles building code
allows five stories of wood over two stories of concrete podium,
Mahlum Architects worked with engineers from Coughlin Porter
Lundeen to make the most of the urban campus location by using
light-frame wood construction to meet both ambitious design goals
and the Universitys tight budget. As a result, the entire project was
constructed for just $177 per square foot.
Traditional Wood Construction

Designed to connect students with their university, West Campus
Student Housing Phase I includes three residential halls (Alder Hall,
Elm Hall, and Poplar Hall) and two apartment buildings (known
collectively as the Cedar Apartments).
The decision to use wood was made early in the design process.
Mahlum Architects performed some initial cost analysis, even considering concrete at one point because they thought concrete was needed to
provide thermal mass. But they quickly found that concretes higher
cost did not justify the additional thermal mass, which drove their
decision to use more cost-effective wood framing.
All five buildings in West Campus used a combination of five upper
floors of Type V-A construction over two lower floors of Type I-A
concrete podium, which is a common construction type in Seattle.
STRUCTURE magazine
The two types were separated by a 3-hour rated floor assembly and all
floors were fully sprinklered per NFPA 13. The five upper floors used
2x4 and 2x6 wood studs in both exterior and interior load-bearing
walls and partition walls. Interior shear wall assemblies included
plywood sheathing. Floors consisted of engineered wood I-joists and
plywood sheathing.
Stair treads and stair landings on the primary staircases are constructed from glued laminated beams, and laminated strand lumber
(LSL) is used for the rim boards. Roof structures are comprised of
engineered wood trusses and plywood sheathing, and heavy timber
blocking was used throughout for fire protection. The buildings
exteriors were then clad in manganese flashed brick extending to
grade. Mahlum Architects added wood as a finish material on portions
of the exterior to add richness and warmth to the material palette,
especially around the main building entries. Inside, they used wood
paneling, casework and trim for durability and to bring warmth to
the public spaces.
Structural Design Strategies Started with

Non-load-bearing Exterior Walls
Cost-effective design and engineering strategies started with a decision to make the exterior walls essentially non-load-bearing for all five
buildings; interior walls provided both primary structure and shear.
With a few exceptions (e.g., at the corners) the strategy allowed the
design team to space exterior wall studs at 24 inches on-center instead
of 16 inches on-center. This saved money in material and allowed
for more insulation, a decision that will help UW save energy over
the life of the structures.
In addition, the relatively random window pattern chosen, provided
variable load paths in the exterior walls. Interior load bearing walls
30
July 2013
alleviated the floor load from the exterior walls, which simplified load
path calculations. The non-load bearing exterior walls also allowed
for larger windows, which improves daylighting and reduces energy
use over the long term.
strategy. Doing so allowed the designers to save money on materials;

it allowed them to combine their shear walls with the load bearing
walls, which reduced the size of hold downs.
Brick Fascia Required Careful

Structural Detailing
All five structures were fully clad on the exterior with brick, which
increased load demands on the structure. Framing members in the
exterior walls supporting the brick were sized with a deflection limit
of L/600.
The design team took great care to make sure that the masonry to
wood structure connection was engineered appropriately. Recognizing
that shrinkage and compression occurs naturally with both wood
framing and brick veneer (albeit at different rates), they anticipated
the movement through proper detailing.
The International Building Code (IBC) allows brick to be stacked
up to 30 feet above the non-combustible foundation when there is a
wood stud wall backing the veneer. Above that level, the brick has to
be supported every 12 feet. However, to avoid problems caused by
incompatible shrinkage between wood and brick systems, the West
Campus Housing design team closely evaluated the wood building
movement and then chose an interval to hang brick veneer that was
specifically compatible with that analysis. They isolated the brick
panels at each level by using veneer ledger angles hung from the rim
board at each floor above the podium. So, the first story of bricks sits
on top of the concrete foundation and is re-supported at the concrete
podium slab and then at every level of wood floor framing. Brick wall
gaps were detailed at every floor with enough tolerance to allow wood
to shrink without causing the brick to crack.
The design utilized a 3 x 12-inch LSL beam set on edge, which
spans the same dimension as the floor joist and extends between the
interior bearing walls. The LSL carries the ledger angle, while also
helping to alleviate the random load path around the windows in
the exterior walls.
Seismic Protection
Lateral loading was also a consideration, since Seattle is in a high
seismic area. Because wood systems are ductile, Coughlin Porter
Lundeen engineers took advantage of woods flexible properties to
meet the requirements. And, by combining the shear walls and the
load-bearing walls, they were able to reduce the size of the required
hold-downs.
The staggered studs used for acoustical benefits (2x4 studs staggered
on a 2x6 plate) also provided an additional advantage. Because the
interior shear walls were stacked, floor-to-floor all-thread hold downs
and multiple 2x6 compression studs were able to be used, which
provided better strength. A standard 2x4 stud wall would not have
been able to accommodate the larger 2x6 compression studs.
The West Campus Housing design teams decision to locate the main
structural components in the interior of the building was a good
The first of four planned phases, the new UW campus project includes five
buidlings, each with five stories of wood-frame construction over a concrete podium.
Acoustics
Acoustics are important for any multi-family housing unit, but particularly so for student housing. Mitigation measures must be weighed
against the budget, which is why the design team brought in experts
from Seattle-based SSA Acoustics.
While the science of sound is fairly complicated, many mitigation
measures are relatively simple. For example, SSA recommended a strategic combination of staggered stud and double stud walls to minimize
sound transmission between residential units themselves, between the
units and common spaces, and between the units and service areas.
Because single stud walls would not provide adequate sound performance, SSA recommended staggered stud walls between residential
units. Since there is no rigid connection between the gypsum board
on each side (except at the plate), a staggered stud wall performs
better than a single stud wall. Double stud walls perform better than
a staggered stud design because plates are separated by an air space;
so, double stud walls between residential units and common spaces
(lounges, staircases, elevators, etc.) and service areas were used.
Little details also count when it comes to acoustics, so all penetrations were sealed using resilient caulk. Whenever possible, junction
boxes were located using minimum 24-inch spacing and back to back
placement was avoided. When this was not possible, contractors placed
putty pads on the backside of the junction boxes.
In the floor/ceiling assembly, careful attention was paid to the installation of resilient channels, which are often one of the main causes
of failed floor to ceiling assemblies from an acoustical standpoint.
In fact, there is a difference of 8 to 10 IIC and STC points between
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER (FORENSIC PROJECT ENGINEER)
Leading forensic engineering company is seeking experienced structural engineers for job openings across the U.S.
Requirements:
Offer:
Responsibilities:
Competitive salaries
Comprehensive benefits
Apply online at careers.ptcinc.com
Provide residential & commercial site investigations to

determine origin & cause of structural failures and damages
Investigate/assess damages due to natural catastrophes
Prepare detailed reports
Professional Engineer license is required

B.S. in Civil Engineering; M.S. Structural preferred
Min. of 5+ years design/structural engineering experience
with commercial, residential, and industrial projects
PT&C provides equal employment opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, marital status, amnesty, or status as a covered veteran in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws.
STRUCTURE magazine
31
July 2013
thermal, and moisture barriers. Their efforts made a significant impact

on the buildings energy performance while also increasing the structures lifespan.
The design team worked with an envelope consultant and the contractor to test full-scale mockups; they also did thermal imaging and
conducted blower tests to measure infiltration. In addition, a number
of simulation studies were performed to locate and size windows,
maximizing daylighting and summer ventilation while maintaining
winter comfort and minimizing energy loss through assemblies.
Like many mid-rise housing structures, codes require a substantial
number of air changes, which also helps avoid mold and moisture
problems. Field testing was conducted to identify and correct any
air barrier deficiencies.
Their hard work paid off. Four of the five buildings in the West Campus
Student Housing Phase I meet the AIA 2030 Challenge (requiring 60
percent reduction over baseline fossil fuel energy consumption) with
the purchase of green power. Cedar Apartments has already received
certification at the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) Silver level, while Poplar Hall and Elm Halls earned a LEED
Gold certification. Alder Hall is also on track to earn a LEED Gold rating.
Flexibility for the Future
Wood was used as both a structural and finish material throughout the UW project.
assemblies with resilient channels versus those without. Channel

installation has fairly straightforward requirements; for example,
screws for the gypsum board should never touch the framing behind
the resilient channel.
Since carpet is the best material for reducing impact noise and footfall
impact, carpet was installed throughout the West Campus complex
(except in bathrooms and kitchens). Bathrooms and kitchens used a
drop ceiling to accommodate ducting and plumbing, which provides
additional noise reduction between units. Where the finish floor was
stained concrete, a resiliently suspended gypsum wallboard ceiling was
installed, using neoprene clips to reduce footfall impact noise below.
Fire protection measures often benefit acoustical efforts. Where
putty pads were required at electrical boxes for fire code (in 1- or
2-hour fire rated wall assemblies), there was no additional acoustical mitigation required. Penetrations through 1- or 2-hour-rated
demising walls, corridor walls, shaft walls, floor to ceiling assemblies
and others were sealed with fire resilient caulk, which also met
acoustical recommendations.
Structural changes were also implemented for acoustic performance.
SSA increased live load deflection to L/480 (the code only requires
L/360) on interior walls. They also recommended that plywood sheathing be placed only on the outer side (not the inner side) of double
stud walls as the air space between layers of mass on each side of the
studs is critical for achieving acoustical performance.
The UW challenged their design team to create a community that

could be built within a very tight budget, yet provide iconic identity,
exceptional energy efficiency, and integrated sustainability to set the
stage for future development. The decision to use wood as the primary structural material achieved all that and more. Wood framing
also provided design flexibility, increased speed of construction, cut
overall carbon emissions, and utilized local materials and a skilled
labor force. Careful attention to detailing created an air- and watertight, thermally-efficient building envelope, providing long-term
durability for the University.
The five buildings are testament to the fact that wood construction can
not only save time and money, but also create elegant, durable, urban
structures that contribute positively to city and campus vitality.The West Campus Housing project represents a paradigm
shift at the University of Washington, symbolizing its first
embrace of large-scale light wood-frame construction.
Moisture and Energy Management

Mahlum Architects used careful detailing and oversight to reduce
envelope air infiltration and thermal bridging with continuous air,
STRUCTURE magazine
32
Jennifer Cover MS, P.E., is National Director of the Architectural

& Engineering Solutions Division of WoodWorks. Since 2006,
she has also been an adjunct professor teaching timber design at
the University of California, San Diego. She can be reached at
jennifer@woodworks.org.
Project Overview
Project Name: University of Washington West Campus
Student Housing Phase I
Owner: University of Washington
Structural Engineer: Coughlin Porter Lundeen | Seattle, WA
Architect: Mahlum Architects | Seattle, WA
Acoustical Consultants: SSA Acoustics | Seattle, WA
General Contractors: Walsh Construction | Seattle, WA
WG Clark Construction | Seattle, WA
Total size:
668,800 square feet (five buildings)
Completed: July 2011 (Cedar Apartments and Poplar Hall)
July 2012 (Alder Hall and Elm Hall)
July 2013
Innovation based. Employee owned. Expect more.
Moisture and Air Stop With Us!

Moisture
and Air Stop With Us!
Innovation Based:
Architectural Waterproofing
Single Source Supply of
Envelope Products
Full line of Drainage Boards
Complete Line of Air Barriers
Call or Write us at:
Architectural Products Division
Phone: 615-217-6061 Fax: 615-691-5500

www.polyguardproducts.com archdivision@polyguardproducts.com
Professional
issues
issues affecting the structural
engineering profession
hile some of the more complex

design, detailing and critical
coordination on a building
construction project occur at
the interface of the structure and the building
enclosure, building design teams often consider
faade-system attachments as ancillary components of the project. In fact, design, fabrication,
and erection of faade systems are often subcontracted out to a specialty contractor, who is part
of the construction team. The specialty contractors team also typically includes faade system
manufacturers, erectors, designers, detailers, and
sometimes other various consultants.
As a result of this arrangement, the project
design team often delegates the faade-system
and associated connection design work to the
specialty contractors team. This allows the specialty contractor to consider efficiency and cost
effectiveness of fabrication and erection in their
design methodology. However, the specialty contractor is typically required to
adhere to the overall design
intent outlined in project
specifications and contract
documents developed by the
design team; this direction
may include specific requirements relative to overall system performance, loading, etc. The design
teams documents typically also provide guidance on submittal and review procedures, as well
as general design-responsibility delineation; the
design documents often also define specific portions of the design work that is delegated. Many
project documents, however, come a bit short and
end up with general faade-related requirements
that are a mix of prescriptive direction (e.g. where
the faade is in plan and where it gets attached to
the structure) and performance-specified direction (e.g. loads and deflection limits for faade
elements and their attachments).
Due to the delegated design arrangement, coordination is vital between the design professionals
for the overall building project and the design
professional that performs the delegated design of
the faade systems. Without sufficient clarity and
information in the design documents, as well as
coordination and follow-through during submittals, the design-responsibility demarcation line is
often blurred, and project deliverables, schedule,
and overall quality can suffer; in worst cases, failures can ensue. This article provides a summary
review of the current industry documents and
their guidance on the topic, discusses the importance of clear delineation of design responsibility
for faade-system connections and associated
components, and provides some insight on how
to potentially improve coordination between the
design and construction professionals. In the
upcoming sequel to this article, the authors plan
to expand upon the topic, focus in some depth
Faade Attachments
Who is Designing Them?
By Filippo Masetti, P.E.,
Milan Vatovec, P.E. and
James C. Parker, P.E., S.E.
Filippo Masetti, P.E., Senior Staff

II at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Inc. Mr. Masetti has been involved
in numerous design, investigation,
and rehabilitation projects
involving concrete, steel, masonry,
and wood structures. He may be
reached at fmasetti@sgh.com.
Milan Vatovec, P.E., Senior
Principal at Simpson Gumpertz &
Heger Inc. Mr. Vatovec is the head
of structural engineering in the
firms NY office. He may be reached
at mvatovec@sgh.com.
James C. Parker, P.E., S.E., Senior
Principal at Simpson Gumpertz &
Heger Inc. Mr. Parker is the head
of structural engineering in the
firms LA office. He may be reached
at jcparker@sgh.com.
34 July 2013
on specific issues, and discuss upcoming industry

changes with respect to design (delegation) of
facade attachments.
Review of Current
Industry Standards
The following industry references provide broad
information on the subject:
1) PCI Architectural Precast Concrete
MNL-122, Third Edition, 2007
2) PCI Design Handbook MNL-120,
Seventh Edition, 2010
3) PCI Connections Manual for Precast
and Prestressed Concrete Construction
MNL-138-08, First Edition, 2008
4) AISC Design Guide 22, 2008 Facade
Attachments to Steel-Framed Buildings
5) AAMA CWG-1-89 Installation of
Aluminum Curtain Walls, 1989
The majority of the industry reference documents emphasize the importance of coordination
between the design professional (Engineer of
Record EOR, or Structural Engineer of Record
SER) and the design professional performing the delegated design (Specialty Structural
Engineer SSE).
As referenced in The PCI Deign
Handbook: Coordination and
communication between the [] SER
and the [] SSE are of paramount
importance. This aspect and its importance
are recognized on the national level by the
Council of American Structural Engineers
(CASE): The primary failure in projects
involving SSE is the lack of coordination
problems that designers should be

aware of and avoid when designing
the support and anchorage systems for
precast concrete wall panels Lack of
clarity in the division of responsibilities
for designing and providing
attachment and support components.
Responsibility for the design of
miscellaneous angles, embedment
plates, and similar items must be clearly
indicated in the contract documents.
(Para. 8.10)
The references above also point to the EOR to
review the submittals relative to the delegated
work for completeness and coordination with
the contract documents. The following list of
selected excerpts summarizes the guidance
relative to the submittal review process:
The PCI Architectural Precast Concrete
MNL-122 states: The Engineer of
Record (EOR) has the responsibility
of reviewing the precast concrete
design work for compatibility with
the overall structural design and
structural stability. This does not,
however, relieve the EOR from the
overall design responsibility for the
safety and proper performance of the
completed structure. The Engineer of
Record (EOR) should determine and
show on the contract documents the

locations for supporting the gravity
and lateral loads of the precast concrete
units, including intermediate lateral
(tieback) connections, if necessary. The
EORs review of the erection drawings
confirms that the structure is adequate,
within defined deflection limitations,
to resist the anticipated loads and
forces from the precast concrete,
and verifies that the magnitude and
location of the loading points on the
structure agree with the original design
intent. (Para. 4.1.3)
The PCI Design Handbook MNL120 states: [] This does not relieve
the EOR from reviewing the designs,
ensuring that the designated loading
requirements have been properly
interpreted and interactive forces
with other construction are fully
coordinated. (Para. 14.5.3)
The AISC Design Guide 22 states:
The EOR reviews submittals by the
Specialty Engineer and the facade
contractor specifically for the effect of
the facade and its attachments on the
primary building structure. (Para. 3.3)
AISC Design Guide 22 also states:
The SER normally has the design
Structural Software Designed for Your Success

* Easy to Learn
* Analyze Anything
* Design for:
+ Steel
+ Wood
+ Concrete
+ Aluminum
+ Cold-Formed
* Friendly Support
www.iesweb.com
Free 30-Day Trial
IES, Inc. | 519 E Babcock St. Bozeman MT 59715

800-707-0816 | info@iesweb.com
STRUCTURE magazine
35
July 2013
and delineation of responsibility.

When interfacing with the SSE,
the SER should always be the one
who delineates responsibility for the
various structural requirements. (Para
14.5.4.3).
The industry references describe the architect and/or the EOR (the design team) as
those responsible for delineating the delegated
work, for providing all design requirements
relative to the delegated work, and for overall
coordination between the delegated work and
the rest of the project. The contract documents (drawings and specifications) are the
means to convey this information. The following list of selected excerpts summarizes
specific industry guidance on the topic:
MNL-122 states: The design team
should provide complete, clear, and
concise drawings and specifications.
Contract documents should
clearly define: (1) precast concrete
components that are to be designed
by the precaster (state who takes
responsibility for design of elements
at interfaces with other parts of the
structure, such as secondary steel
bracing of the structure, to prevent
rotation of beams or columns); (2)
details or concepts of supports,
connections, and clearances that are
part of the structure designed by the
design team and that interface with
the precast concrete components;
and (3) permissible design load
transfer points and indicate generic
connection types to avoid having
the precaster make assumptions
on connection types and piece
counts during bidding and design.
It is preferable to leave specific
panel and connection design
to precasters so they can design
details and connections suitable
for their production and erection
techniques. (Para 4.1.2)
The PCI Design Handbook MNL120 states: A critical function
of the contract documents is to
clearly define responsibility among
involved design professionals.
(Para. 14.5.3)
The structural drawings should
delineate the structural steel
elements from the attachment
elements to be designed by the
Specialty Engineer. (Para. 3.3)
AISC Design Guide 22 also states:
The following is a list of potential
responsibility for the following:

The review and approval of shop
drawings and field erection drawings
for the effect of precast panels and
attachments on the primary building
structure. (Para. 8.4)
Finally, the references generally agree that the
SSE is responsible for the design of the delegated system, but that this design is subject
to review by the EOR. However, the design
responsibility for the physical connections
between the delegated system and the primary building structure varies among the
reference publications. Examples of the industrys attempts to draw the demarcation line
between the delegated and the non-delegated
components are summarized below:
MNL-122 indicates that the design
of these interface connections is the
responsibility of the delegatee: The
precaster designs the precast concrete
panels and connection hardware for the
design loads defined by the EOR and
is responsible for selecting, designing,
and locating hardware and panel
reinforcement or items associated with
the precasters methods of handling,
storing, shipping, and erecting the
precast concrete units. (Para. 4.1.5)
The PCI MNL-138-08 design
guideline provides design examples
for numerous types of precast-panel
connections to the main structure.
All the examples show a list of the
components of the connection for
which design checks are performed.
In particular, the list of Example 6.5,
Bolted Tieback to Concrete or Steel Beam,
includes the precast-panel embed
insert, a connection rod connected to
a steel angle, in turn welded to a plate
embedded in the cast-in-place concrete.
This example considers the plate
embedded in the cast-in-place concrete
(part of base building) to be part of the
precast-panel connection.
The Specialty Engineer is the design
professional responsible for the design
of the facade and/or its attachments to
the structural frame. [] The Specialty
Engineer prepares calculations and
drawings for submittal in accordance to
the project specifications. The Specialty
Engineer is responsible for the design
of the attachments. (Para. 3.4)
The AISC Design Guide 22 also
states: The SER normally has the
design responsibility for the following:
The design of the primary building
structure, including the slab, slab edge

detail, column, spandrel beam, roll
beams, kickers, embedded bearing
plates, etc., to support the forces
imposed by the precast concrete panel
system with due consideration to
stiffness requirements The precast
manufacturer and SSE normally have
responsibility for the following:
The precast panel bearing and lateral
connection design, including all
supplemental hangers, kickers and
other structural steel elements required
to support the panels. (Para. 8.4)
Finally, the AISC Design Guide 22
states: The curtain wall manufacturer
and the Specialty Structural Engineer
normally have responsibility for
[t]he design of the curtain wall
frame and its attachments to the
primary building structure and [t]
he preparation of shop drawings
including details of all attachments
to the primary building structure,
types and locations of anchors clearly
noted, and installation procedures
and potential difficulties with field
attachment considered and addressed
in the shop drawings. (Para. 9.4)
The AAMA CWG-1-89 states:
Adequate anchor design is more
likely to be attained if the curtain wall
designer follows the load along its path
from start (e.g. glass or infill panel)
to finish (i.e. floor slab or spandrel
beam). Often this tracking process will
disclose potentially weak parts in the
trial design. (p. 26).
Conclusions
In summary, the industry points to the design
team as the responsible party to safeguard
adherence to the intent and requirements in
the design documents, which includes compliance to the submittal-review protocols.
In addition, the design team is expected to
define, through their contract documents,
which professional is responsible for what
portion of the faade design, including its
connections. In the absence of a clearly
defined line of demarcation in the contract
documents, the industry attempts to provide
guidance to fill the gaps but, based on the
authors experience, these attempts are often
not sufficient to avoid potential miscommunication or issues on deliverables, schedule,
and overall quality of the project.
Situations where controversy can arise are
usually related to different interpretations
between the EOR and the SSE on where
STRUCTURE magazine
36
July 2013
the faade components stop, and where the

original building structure starts; for example,
when faade-system anchors are embedded
or post-installed into a column or slab of the
main building structure, or when customized attachments connect a curtain wall to
the main building structure. Based on the
authors experience, as well as the authors
interpretation of the intent of industry standards, the SSE (construction team) would be
responsible for all facade-related connection
design. Furthermore, the SSEs design responsibility should include examining the ability
of not only the connections themselves to
resist loads at the actual point of attachment,
but also to examine that the loads get into
the building structural component (through
the connection) without detriment to the
structure. In other words, the SSE should
examine the entire load path from the faade
component through (and into) the building
structural component. The SSEs responsibility, however, should not include confirming
that the base-structure component is able to
resist the design loads in the global sense
(e.g.the overall bending moment, shear, and
torsion demands on say a perimeter beam or
column due to the faade-attachment loads);
this responsibility remains with the design
team. Unfortunately, unless the contract
documents are very specific on defining the
delineation between the responsibilities to
this level of detail, room for interpretation
remains, and potential for problems exist.
Design gaps and/or blurred responsibility
situations would generally be avoided if the
design team would list (or indicate) in the
contract documents all the items and components that are part of the delegated work,
the performance and design criteria that the
delegated work must satisfy, and all the submittals and associated procedures required
for the delegated work. Design-delegation
clarity would be further improved if, during
the course of the project, the design team
would also verify that all components of the
delegated work are addressed by the construction team, and that reviewed submittals satisfy
the performance and design criteria indicated
in the contract documents. It is the authors
opinion that an owner should always be able
to rely on the experience and thoroughness
of the design team to lead this process, even if
the above arrangement is not required by the
code or written into the design contract with
the owner. In general, the design professionals
should always strive to identify and prevent
potential areas of controversy in the design
documents, regardless if they are related to
faade attachments or any other component
of building design.
LegaL PersPectives
discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers
A Look at Insurance Options

Excess Versus Umbrella Insurance
By Gail S. Kelley, P.E.
lthough the terms excess insurance and umbrella insurance

are often used interchangeably,
an excess insurance policy is not
the same as an umbrella insurance policy.
Both policies provide liability coverage,
i.e. coverage that protects against claims
of damage or injury to others or their
property. Both increase the policyholders
liability limits above those of specifically
listed underlying policies and both protect
against catastrophic risks, with coverage
typically only provided in multiples of
$1,000,000. However, excess liability policies only provide coverage above the limits
of the underlying primary insurance; true
umbrella insurance will provide coverage
for additional risks.
Excess Insurance Coverage

Excess insurance policies can be either selfcontained (stand alone) or follow form.
A self-contained policy has its own insuring agreement, conditions, definitions and
exclusions; coverage applies to the extent
described in the policy. In contrast, a follow
form policy will simply state that it only
applies if the loss is coverd by the underlying insurance. Coverage is subject to the
same basic terms and conditions as the
primary insurance. Neither self-contained
nor follow form excess liability policies
offer broader protection than what is provided by the underlying policies. In fact,
excess liability policies, even those written
as follow form, often have exclusions that
make them more restrictive than the underlying coverage.
Excess Insurance Limits
Most excess insurance policies will increase
both the each-occurrence limit and the
aggregate (total) limit of the underlying
policy. For example, if the underlying
policy is a Commercial General Liability
(CGL) policy with an each-occurrence limit
of $1,000,000 and an aggregate limit of
$2,000,000, an excess insurance policy
for $1,000,000 would increase the eachoccurrence limit to $2,000,000 and the
aggregate limit to $3,000,000.
Umbrella Liability Coverage

While excess insurance policies typically
provide coverage for one underlying policy,
umbrella policies typically provide coverage
for several underlying policies. In addition,
umbrella policies typically provide coverage
not available in the underlying policies; such
policies are often written in an A/B format.
Coverage A represents excess coverage and is
written to follow form the underlying policies. The policy increases the each-occurrence
limits of the underlying policies and drops
down when an underlying policys aggregate
limit is exhausted or reduced by payment.
Coverage B is the umbrella coverage; it
applies when there is no coverage under an
underlying policy. However, Coverage B will
not apply to any claim for which applicable
insurance is listed in the schedule of primary
policies, even if the underlying insurance is
uncollectible. In addition, Coverage B will
specifically exclude coverage for various risks.
Common exclusions are liability for asbestos, expected or intended injury or damage,
workers compensation, aircraft, watercraft,
unemployment compensation, pollution,
liquor liability, contractual liability, damage
to the insureds product; and damage to property in the insureds care, custody or control.
Some umbrella policies also exclude coverage
for professional liability.
Coverage B is typically subject to the
insureds assumption of a self-insured retention (SIR). An SIR is similar to a deductible,
in that it is the amount the insured is obligated to pay. However, when a liability policy
has a deductible, the insurance company pays
the entire amount and then bills the insured
for the deductible. When the policy has an
SIR, coverage does not begin until the insured
has paid the SIR. In addition, deductibles usually only apply to judgements and settlements;
an SIR usually applies to defense costs as well
as judgements and settlements.
Umbrella Versus
Excess Policies
Excess policies are sometimes designed to
cover a risk that cannot be covered under an
umbrella policy, such as liability arising out of
STRUCTURE magazine
38
July 2013
the operation of a plane or high performance

speed boat. Such policies are generally much
more expensive than umbrella coverage in
terms of premium costs versus amount of
coverage. Excess insurance can also be used
to bring coverage up to the limits required
for an umbrella policy, or can be designed to
sit on top of an umbrella policy to provide
additional coverage for certain risks.
Duty to Defend
Excess policies are typically written such that
the insurer has the right to defend against a
claim, but is not required to do so. This is
referred to as claim participation; a typical
claim participation clause will state: The
Insurer may, at its sole discretion, elect to
participate in the investigation, settlement or
defense of any claim covered by this Policy
even if the Underlying Insurance has not
been exhausted. If the excess insurer elects
not to participate, the primary insurer must
pay for the attorney fees and other legal costs
to defend against a claim, even if the amount
of the claim is such that the excess policy
would be reached.
Umbrella policies usually do include the
duty to defend. Although defense coverage
may be limited to occurrences not covered by
underlying insurance, some umbrella insurance policies provide defense coverage once
the limits of the underlying insurance have
been exhausted. An example of when this
might apply is when there are several claims
resulting from the same occurrence. If the first
claim is settled for the each-occurrence limit
of the underlying insurance, the umbrella
insurer would have the duty to defend against
the additional claims.
Sub-limits
Liability insurance will often have specific
sub-limits, such that coverage for certain risks
is much lower than the policy limits. As an
example, under a standard CGL policy, the
coverage limit for fire damage to property
leased by the insured is $50,000, regardless
of the CGL each-occurrence coverage. Most
umbrella or excess insurance policies do not
drop down to provide coverage in excess of
any sub-limits; specialty insurance is needed
to provide such coverage.
Loss of Underlying Coverage

Neither excess nor umbrella policies will
drop down to provide coverage when the
underlying insurer denies coverage because
the insured did not comply with provisions
of the underlying policy. Likewise, they will
not drop down when underlying coverage is
uncollectible due to insolvency of the insurer.
The insured becomes liable for costs up to the
limits of the underlying policy.
In some cases, the underlying insurer may
state that a claim does not fall within its policy
and thus denies coverage. Rather than suing
for coverage, the insured may prefer to settle
with the insurer for some amount less than
its policy limits. If the claim is such that an
excess or umbrella policy would be reached,
the law in most states holds that the insured
is entitled to coverage under that policy once
it has paid the limits of the underlying policy.
Claims Against an Umbrella Policy
Umbrella insurance with a policy limit of
$1,000,000 will increase the limits of each
of the underlying policies by $1,000,000.
However, the umbrella coverage available for
all of the underlying policies is reduced by the
amount of any payment from the umbrella

policy. A catastrophic claim on one underlying policy could completely exhaust the
umbrella coverage for all of the policies.
Nevertheless, the premium for an umbrella
policy will be considerably less than the cost
to increase the limits of each of the underlying policies by the amount of the umbrella
policy. Umbrella policies are thus an attractive
way to increase coverage, provided the risk of
catastrophic claims is low.
Conclusion
There are no standardized forms for umbrella
and excess insurance policies, and coverage
definitions are developed by the individual
insurance companies. As a result, excess insurance policies from different insurers can vary
greatly in what they cover. For example, an
excess policy might increase the limits of the
each-occurrence coverage, but not the aggregate coverage.
Likewise, when considering an umbrella
policy, it is worth comparing several policies to see what additional coverage is
provided and what defense costs are covered.
Although insurers typically state that umbrella
insurance will help close or eliminate gaps

in the underlying insurance, policies tend
to have a long list of exclusions. Some of
the exclusions are reasonable because coverage is available under other policies, such as
workers compensation and pollution liability
policies. Other exclusions, such as damage
to the named insureds product or work, are
viewed as a business risk that the insured
should be responsible for. However, when all
of the exclusions are considered, it may not
be clear what additional risks are covered.
Gail S. Kelley, P.E., is a LEED
Accredited Professional as well as a
licensed attorney in Maryland and the
District of Columbia. Ms. Kelley is
the author of Construction Law: An
Introduction for Engineers, Architects,
and Contractors, published in 2012 by
John Wiley & Sons. Gail would like to
thank Keith Bouchard of CBI Consulting
for his review of, and comments on, this
article. Ms. Kelley can be reached at
Gail.Kelley.Esq@gmail.com.
STRUCTURE magazine
COLORS
JOB#
39
FILE NAME
July 2013
OK as is
CONCRETE PRODUCTS GUIDE

ADAPT Corporation
Decon USA Inc.
Phone: 650-306-2400
Web: www.adaptsoft.com
Product: ADAPT-PT
Description: Fast, easy-to-use software for the design
and investigation of post-tensioned floor systems:
one-way slabs, two-way slabs, beams, waffle slabs, pan
joist systems or any other configuration. Based on
the equivalent frame method, ADAPT-PT produces
complete design results in minutes.
Phone: 866-332-6687
Web: www.deconusa.com
Product: Studrails
Description: Decon Studrails have become the North
American standard for punching shear enhancement
at slab-column connections. Studrails are produced
to the specifications of ASTM A1044, ACI 318-08,
and ICC ES 2494. Decon Studrails are also being
increasingly used to reinforce against bursting stresses
in banded post-tension anchor zones.
CSC
Phone: 877-710-2053
Web: www.cscworld.com
Product: Tedds
Description: A comprehensive library of automated
structural engineering calculations will speed up
your daily concrete calculations. Confidently design
concrete with numerous options including: RC
retaining wall design, simple and continuous beam
design and anchor bolt design, all to ACI 318.
CTS Cement Manufacturing

Phone: 800-929-3030
Web: www.ctscement.com
Product: Rapid Set Cement Products
Description: Out performs other concrete
repair materials in durability, repetitive loading,
chemical attack, permeability, freeze/thaw, abrasion
resistance, and shrinkage. Rapid Set gets 3000
psi in one hour, achieving structural or drive-on
strength in one hour. Use for concrete repairs and
new construction projects.
Product: Rapid Set UltraFlow Precision Grout
Description: Offers advantages that no other grout
matches when fluidity, extended working time,
precision alignment, and early strength gain are
needed. Non-shrink, fluid for 30 minutes, workable
for 1 hour, can be coated in 24 hours, and meets
ASTM C1107. Exceeds 4000 psi in 8 hours.
All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2013
Editorial Calendar are now available on the
website, www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Listings
are provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE
magazine is not responsible for errors.
Additives, Lightweight Concrete, Post-Tensioning,

Precast Concrete, Reinforcement Products, Add-ons
Foundation Performance
Association
FPA hosts regular events, sponsors

the publication of technical papers and
research material. The presentations
are great for networking and low cost
CEUs. Membership is $96/yr; this can
equate to CEUs as little as $8/CEU.
www.foundationperformance.org
Digital Canal
Phone: 800-449-5033
Web: www.digitalcanal.com
Product: Concrete Bundle
Description: Digital Canals time tested Concrete
Suite includes: Beam, Column, VersaFrame, Spread
Footing, Multiple Load Footing, Retaining Wall,
Masonry Wall and Flat Slab Analysis. We provide
easy to use design and analysis software tools that the
average engineers require for everyday projects. Try
them free at our website.
Halfen USA
Phone: 800-426-9140
Web: www.halfenusa.com
Product: Anchor Channels
Description: HTA and toothed HZA cast-in hot
rolled channels provide high performance adjustable
connections to concrete. HALFEN channel range
offers a variety of performance characteristics for
curtain wall anchoring; brick faade support; elevator
and mechanical service anchoring; and structural steel
to concrete connections.
Insulfoam
Phone: 800-248-5995
Web: www.insulfoam.com
Product: InsulFoam Rigid Foam Insulation
Description: Insulfoam manufactures a diverse line of
InsulFoam and R-Tech brand expanded polystyrene
(EPS) insulation products for foundation wall and
under-slab applications. The versatile products are
lightweight, yet durable, and offer excellent moisture
resistance and stable thermal performance.
Nemetschek Scia
Phone: 877-808-7242
Web: www.nemetschek-scia.com
Product: Scia Engineer
Description: Looking to migrate to, or improve your
Concrete Engineering workflows? Scia Engineer links
structural modeling, analysis, design, drawings, and
reports in ONE program. Design to multiple codes.
Tackle larger projects with advanced non-linear and
dynamic analysis. Plug into BIM with IFC support,
and bi-directional links to Revit, Tekla, and others.
POSTEN Engineering Systems

Phone: 510-275-4750
Web: www.postensoft.com
Product: POSTEN Multistory
Description: The most efficient & comprehensive
post-tensioned concrete software in the world that
STRUCTURE magazine
40
July 2013
not only automatically designs tendons, drapes,

and columns, but also produces highly efficient,
cost saving, sustainable designs with automatic
documentation of material savings for LEED. No
guessing, no fiddling, no time wasting.
Powers Fasteners
Phone: 985-807-6666
Web: www.powers.com
Product: Concrete Anchoring
Description: FREE Anchor Design Software
Powers Design Assist. Helps tall Building designers
deal with the complexity of ACI 318 Appendix
D. Powers Fasteners now has 23 Product Code
Compliance ICC ES Reports! Visit our website to
download the software.
Quikrete
Phone: 800-282-5828
Web: www.quikrete.com
Product: Concrete Products
Description: No matter what the project,
QUIKRETE gets you the commercial-grade products
you need, whenever and wherever you need them.
And with over 95 manufacturing plants, we can
speed hundreds of high performance products right
to your jobsite.
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815
Web: www.risa.com
Product: RISA-3D
Description: RISA-3D is the premiere choice for the
design of concrete beams and columns. With finite
element analysis, the design of both conventional and
unconventional framing layouts is possible. T-Beam
design, biaxial column design, custom rebar layouts,
and 11 different design codes all combine to make
RISA-3D your most flexible solution.
S-FRAME Software Inc.

Phone: 203-421-4800
Web: www.s-frame.com
Product: S-CONCRETE
Description: The fastest, easiest and most cost
effective way to design and analyze reinforced concrete
columns, beams and walls, S-CONCRETE combines
advanced design capabilities with state of the art analysis
techniques. View interactive section design results or
optionally check thousands of columns, beams and walls
in one batch run.
Tilt-Up Concrete Association

Phone: 319-895-6311
Web: www.tilt-up.org
Product: Tilt-Up Concrete
Description: Tilt-up construction is a traditional
method of building precast concrete elements on
or near the job site. Nearly a billion square feet is
constructed globallyeach year using this method. Access
the construction and design professionals experienced
in this most diverse method of construction through
the global non-profit Association.
InSIghtS
ASCE 7 and the Standards Development Process

By Jennifer Goupil, P.E.
he consensus standard Minimum

Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures (ASCE 7) is
developed and maintained by the
Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
One of 28 standards currently in development
by SEI, ASCE 7 is the most widely used;
although the process is similar for all SEI
standards, ASCE 7 is unique in many ways.
History
The American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) published the first consensus standard
for structural loads, ANSI A58.1, in 1972.
In 1985, ASCE assumed responsibility for
developing and disseminating the standard
and received accreditation for its Codes and
Standards Program from ANSI.This essentially means that ASCE created rules for its
consensus process, ANSI agreed that the rules
are satisfactory, and ASCE is periodically
audited by ANSI to ensure that the rules are
being followed. ASCE first developed its Rules
for Standards Committees in the late 1970s and
updates them from time to time; the current
version is posted online.
When ASCE assumed responsibility for
the minimum loads standard, it created an
open committee membership policy and
increased participation from the profession.
Membership on some of the subcommittees
doubled, and a new process was born.
Committee
Although changes have been made since the
first edition of ASCE 7 in 1988, the process
is essentially the same now as it was then. A
subset of the committee, typically a defined
subcommittee, develops proposals for changes
to the existing provisions, and the main committee vets them.
Currently, a new ASCE 7 committee is
formed for each development cycle. Interested
participants apply for membership on the
main committee, a subcommittee, or both.
Members are selected for the main committee in two categories: voting and associate.
There are strict balance requirements for the
committee composition per the ASCE rules.
The voting membership consists of a group of
technical experts from a range of stakeholders.
The total number of voting members is limited to approximately 50 individuals and

includes the following balance requirements:
Consumers (consultants): 20-40%
Producers (vendors or industry):
20-40%
General interest (academics or others,
including regulatory): 20-40%
Regulatory (building officials): 5-15%
Regulatory members are identified as a special
category, but for balance requirements are
included under general interest. The current
voting membership includes 22 consumers,
13 producers, and 20 general interest, including 4 regulatory members.
Associate members must meet the same
requirements to join as voting members, and
have all the same rights with the exception
of a counted vote. Associate members can
participate in all of the ballots, and their comments must be resolved in the same manner
as voting member comments. Voting and
associate members combine for a total of 115
participants on the current main committee.
The two membership categories enable the
main committee to achieve the necessary
participation to validate every ballot while
allowing interested parties to participate
in the process, even with limited knowledge of the technical issues. Also worth
noting is that ASCE membership is not a
requirement for joining an ASCE standards
committee. The volunteer effort to develop
ASCE 7 is unparalleled, with more than
350 main committee and subcommittee
members participating.
or new ideas or information impacting the

provisions. Additionally, ASCE 7 employs
a Call for Proposals period, during which
the public can submit proposals to the main
committee for consideration.
Once a proposal is generated, it is sent to the
full subcommittee to be balloted, which is
the term used for the evaluation process or
voting. Every ballot is open for a finite period
of time, and when it closes, any and all comments must be resolved. The original proposal
is often modified and then re-balloted until
it passes and all comments are resolved. This
cycle can take multiple attempts for many
proposals, as the consensus process ensures
wide participation. Once the proposal passes
the subcommittee ballot, it is ready for the
main committee to ballot.
This cyclic process continues at a larger scale
with the main committee. Comments are
given back to the subcommittees to resolve
in the same way discussed above. This cycle
occurs at the main committee several times
until all ballots are passed and all comments
are resolved. Proposals not passed by the main
committee do not make it into the standard
even if passed by the subcommittee.
The last step in the consensus process is
public comment. This is a minimum period
of 45 days, during which anyone can submit
comments to the main committee. As with
every previous ballot, every comment must
be resolved. Once the public comments are
resolved, the standard is ready for publication
and adoption into the building code which
is another process entirely!
Process
Conclusion
What does it mean to be a consensus standard? Consensus is a process for group

decision making that seeks consent from all
participants. This means that all voices are
heard and vetted; it does not, however, mean
that everyone agrees! Relative to standards
development, the consensus process includes
balloting by the balanced committee and a
public review period.
Within the ASCE 7 committee, development
efforts generally begin with the subcommittees. Individual members or small groups
begin by developing proposals, which typically are generated from two sources: items
unresolved from the previous standard cycle,
ASCE 7 is developed within a six-year

cycle by a diverse and dedicated committee of volunteers under highly structured,
well-established rules that encourage wide
participation by all stakeholders. The next
edition of ASCE 7 will be published in 2016.
To learn more about ASCE 7 and ASCE/
SEI standards development, or to apply for
membership on a particular committee, visit
www.ASCE.org/SEI.
STRUCTURE magazine
41
July 2013
Jennifer Goupil, P.E. (jgoupil@asce.org),

is the director of the Structural Engineering
Institute (SEI).
award winners and outstanding projects
Spotlight
A Treasure Box for Dal

By Scott D. Martin, P.E., LEED AP BD+C
Walter P Moore was an Outstanding Award Winner for the Salvador Dal Museum
project in the 2012 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering awards program
(Category New Buildings $10M to $30M).
he largest collection of Salvador

Dals art outside of his hometown
in Spain is not in the Louvre, or
a New York museum, but in St.
Petersburg, Florida. Since the original Salvador
Dal Museum was opened in 1982, it was evident that the converted waterfront warehouse
facility that housed the collection was too small
and did not provide adequate protection from
flooding and hurricanes. To build a new iconic
facility that would not only protect Dals
artwork, but would also attract worldwide
attention, the Museums Board of Directors
hired internationally-renowned architect Yann
Weymouth and his team at HOK, along with
the structural engineering firm of Walter P
Moore, to design the new museum.
All parties recognized that the new iconic
museum needed to be designed for at least a
100-year life; however, the new site was only
200 feet away from Tampa Bay and five feet
above sea level. Seasonal hurricanes can bring
high winds and a storm surge of up to 25 feet.
To protect the priceless collection, the building pad was raised four feet, the structure was
designed to resist wind speeds of 165 mph (42
mph above code minimums), and all gallery
spaces, the vault, and rare book library were
located on the upper floors.
An economical reinforced one-way, castin-place concrete slab and beam system was
selected for the structural system. To create
attractive exposed walls throughout the building, unfinished and architecturally exposed
cast-in-place walls were used in lieu of architectural precast. Using exposed, unpainted
concrete as the load-bearing structure and the
architectural finish created several challenges:
Water Migration. 18-inch thick walls
were specified, using a dense concrete
mix with a low water-cement ratio,
high cementitious material content,
and 20% fly-ash replacement to
minimize permeability of the concrete.
Penetron crystalline waterproofing
admixture virtually eliminated any
water infiltration. This water-activated
admixture, which forms a crystalline
structure in the pores in the concrete,
was particularly important in the areas
where the glazing abuts the outer wall

surface to prevent any water that seeps
into the wall concrete from migrating
around the glazing joints.
Uniform, Blemish-Free Surface. The
traditional method of pouring a
concrete building, with pour joints
below and above each floor level, was
not desirable in the exposed walls.
The walls were poured full height
floor-to-floor in 14-foot lifts, and
the floor and roof structures were
keyed in and mechanically doweled
to the inside face of the walls. The
Self-Consolidating Concrete flowed
around door and window openings,
minimizing surface blemishes.
Openings. There are numerous potential
holes in the concrete shell. Seven of
Dals master works are on display
in the main gallery and are naturally
illuminated by light-directing skylights.
Over the impact-resistant glass
skylights, retractable aluminum covers
are moved into place before a storm to
take the initial impact force from flying
storm debris. The largest potential hole,
however, is the primary glazing system
that encompasses the grand central
atrium. The Enigma was designed to
withstand the code minimum storm,
but could not be designed to resist
the 165-mph storm threshold and
maintain its aesthetic quality. Assuming
the Enigma system could be breached
in the worst of storms, the interior
walls and doors enclosing the gallery
and vault spaces were designed for
exterior exposure and 165-mph winds.
The Enigma and the smaller Igloo freeform glazing systems that encompass the
lobby atrium and multi-purpose room are
made up of more than 1,000 individual glass
panels held in place by interior steel space
frames connected to the concrete superstructure. HOK worked closely with glazing
designer Novum Structures to define the
shapes of the Enigma and Igloo, while
Walter P Moore and Novum developed
attachment strategies and details.
STRUCTURE magazine
43
July 2013
Courtesy of Moris Moreno Photography.
This was the first application where Novums

free-form glazing system would be fixed on all
sides and serve as the primary weather barrier.
The welded connections along all sides of the
frame, especially a frame with three dimensions
and re-entrant corners, produced unmanageably
large thermal stresses, which were controlling the
design of the steel frame and the foundations.
By allowing vertical movement of the frames
at the base, the maximum design forces greatly
decreased and foundation uplift was eliminated.
Paying tribute to Dals fascination with DNA
structure and the Golden Section, a helical
spiral shape was used for the grand stair connecting the ground floor to the galleries 30
feet above. The 41-inch deep wall stringer is
the primary load-carrying element for the stair,
while the treads and landings cantilever off of
the stringer and add lateral stiffness to help
prevent unwinding.
During construction, the stair was un-shored
and re-shored between concrete lifts before
locking it into the 3rd floor structure. This
construction sequence minimized stresses
in the stair and allowed most of the natural
deflection of the coiled shape to be built into
the treads and risers as the stair was erected.
The new $30 million, 66,400 square-foot
museum is truly the crown jewel in the revitalization of St. Petersburg and the Tampa
Bay area, and is a fitting architectural tribute
to the talents of Salvador Dal.
Scott D. Martin, P.E., LEED AP BD+C,
is a senior associate with Walter P Moore
in its Tampa office and was the Structural
Project Manager for the Salvador
Dal Museum. He can be reached at
SMartin@walterpmoore.com.
EN
GINEERS
O NS
STRUCTU
OCIATI
RAL
ASS
NATIONAL
COUNCI L
years
1993-2013
NCSEA News
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Celebrating
NCSEA Code Advisory Committee Report

The Code Advisory Committee (CAC) is composed of 6 subcommittees: General, Existing Buildings, Seismic, Quality Assurance,
Wind, and Evaluation Services, and an executive committee,
composed of the chairs of each of the subcommittees, including
Ed Huston (General), David Bonowitz (Existing Buildings),
Kevin Moore (Seismic), Kirk Harman (Quality Assurance), Don
Scott (Wind), Bill Warren (Evaluation Services) and this author.
The CACs charge is to improve the building codes to assure
safe, economical and reliable construction. Building codes today
consist of no single document, but rather, a complex suite of
documents including the model codes themselves (there are
several), the individual state and municipal adoptions of these
codes, the ANSI consensus standards the codes adopt by reference, and a series of evaluation services reports that identify the
code conformance of proprietary products of different types.
The committees specific activities include:
1) Monitoring the status of the model building codes,
their referenced standards, and evaluation service
approvals, to assure that our codes are providing safe
and economical structures, and do not place undue
burden on structural engineers either through unfair
apportionment of professional responsibility/liability,
or through imposition of unclear, conflicting, or hardto-implement requirements.
2) Through advocacy, suggesting, to the standards
committees, proposals intended to address our
memberships concerns.
3) Providing public comment to the standards associated
with revisions that are not in our members interests.
4) Developing and submitting code change proposals to
the ICC, to address issues of concern.
5) Monitoring code change proposals submitted by
others, to assure that these do not violate the principles
indicated in 1 above.
6) Attending the ICC code hearings, and advocating for
(or testifying against) proposals consistent with the
goals indicated in item 1 above.
7) Partnering with the ICC-ES and other evaluation
services, to improve the technical adequacy of their
evaluation of acceptance criteria and product reports.
8) Providing public comment on acceptance criteria
proposals, through the public hearing process, as
appropriate to accomplish the goals in item 1 above.
In recent years, the CAC has also initiated activities aimed at providing continuing education to NCSEA members on the various code
requirements and their proper implementation. This takes the form
of development and publication of design manuals and webinars.
technical changes to the IRC and IEBC. Presently, we are in the

middle of the cycle for Group B changes. Proposal submittals
were due in January 2013; and ICC just public hearings in May
to review and vote upon proposals submitted.
The IRC is a highly prescriptive code with a focus on the use
of conventional construction requirements. Tables within the
code prescribe minimum size and spacing of structural elements
based on span, story height, wind speed and seismic zonation;
however, these tables are often based on past common practice,
rather than actual calculations of demand and capacity, and
frequently result in lower-strength structures than the IBC.
Structural engineers would like to see the IRC brought into
closer alignment with the requirements of the IBC, thereby
guarding against permitting prescriptive construction for complex structural situations, where the expertise of a structural
engineer is required to assure an appropriate structure.
The IEBC is still new to many jurisdictions. The intent of this code
is to govern the use of existing buildings, including additions, repairs
and alterations, and to deal with unsafe conditions, traditionally the
subjects of Chapter 34 of the IBC. The IEBC includes a series of
requirements for structural evaluation and upgrade for an existing
building, triggered by different project types (additions, alterations,
repairs, change of occupancy, or relocation). In addition to evaluation and upgrade triggers, the IEBC also includes a number of
alternative design procedures for specific types of buildings, such
as unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings and wood frame
residential construction with unanchored cripple walls. Many of
these design procedures have been developed over the years by
NCSEA and our member organizations.
Code Change Proposals

Participation in the ICC code change process is a major effort
and is one of NCSEAs most publicly visible activities. Effective
action in this environment requires not only detailed technical knowledge, but also political sensitivity and superior
Building Codes
ICC is in the process of developing its 2015 series of model
building codes, including the International Building Code
(IBC), the International Existing Building Code (IEBC), and
the International Residential Code (IRC), among others. It does
this in two groups, over a period of three years. Group A changes,
which were administered in 2012, included technical changes to
structural design criteria included in the IBC. Group B changes
(administered this year) include administrative adoption of
updated structural standards adopted by the IBC, as well as
STRUCTURE magazine
44
July 2013
Silver:
Bronze:
NCSEA Webinar
August 13, 2013
Checklist for Reviewing a Concrete Mix Design
Theres More to It than You Think!
Kim Basham, Ph.D., P.E., president, KB Engineering
Register at www.ncsea.com.
NATIONAL
Celebrating
45
July 2013
GINEERS
RAL
EN
STRUCTU
Dont Forget!
Nominations are due Monday, July 15 for the NCSEA
Service Award and the Robert Cornforth Award, to
be presented at the NCSEA Annual Conference in
Atlanta in September. Nomination forms can be found
at www.ncsea.com.
Entries for the 2013 NCSEA Excellence in Structural
Engineering Awards are due Friday, July 12. Up to
three awards will be presented in eight categories. The
Call for Entries is available at www.ncsea.com.
O NS
STRUCTURE magazine
Platinum:
OCIATI
Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB, is Chair of the NCSEA

Code Advisory Committee.
NCSEA Annual Conference Sponsors to date:
ASS
In the coming year, with fewer code development deadlines,

the Existing Buildings Subcommittee hopes to develop a set
of case studies illustrating the intent of the IEBCs and IRCs
existing building triggers and exceptions.
The Seismic Subcommittee is working to recruit a few more
authors interested in developing a Seismic Design Manual
for SDC C. The subcommittee developed a general scope/
outline for the Seismic Design Manual at the Annual Meeting
in St. Louis and is continuing its work with Tim Mays and the
Publications Committee.
The Wind Subcommittee recently focused on educational
activities, including a series of five webinars that were presented
for NCSEA during the months of January, February and March,
and is presently initiating the process of formulating submissions
for Group A proposals for the 2018 I-Codes.
The Evaluation Services Subcommittee principally works
with ICC-ES to monitor and assist in the improvement of
that Evaluation Services products (Evaluation Service Reports
qualifying the use of proprietary products in construction). The
subcommittee chair participated with the ICC ES Task Force in
developing testing and acceptance criteria for lateral force resisting
components equivalent to timber shearwalls. In addition, our
chair has reviewed the evaluation reports produced by ICC ES and
begun to make recommendations, for either format or content
revisions, to better serve the needs of the structural engineering
profession and reduce any confusion in their use. Coordination is
also ongoing with other Evaluation Service agencies, e.g. IAPMO.
News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Other Activities
Atlanta will be the center of structural engineering from

September 18-21. Join NCSEA and leading structural engineers from across the country for targeted, timely educational
programs and opportunities to network and learn from peers
and leaders in the field.
Educational highlights will include a keynote by Bill Baker of
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, and sessions on Serviceability,
ACI 550, ASCE 412, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards
for Buildings, and Complex Stability Bracing. A complete
list of educational sessions can be found at www.ncsea.com.
The Annual Conference will include social events that facilitate networking with fellow structural engineers and a trade
show featuring structural engineering products and services.
Special features for young engineers will also be offered,
including a special reception and networking opportunities.
Registration is now open! Special discounted registration
rates are available for first-time attendees, young engineers and
NCSEA members. Register online at www.ncsea.com today!
NCSEA News
communication skills. The code hearings last almost two weeks

and are a major effort by our delegates.
The Existing Buildings Subcommittee was active in code
development, making 50 proposals (of which 48 were successful
and one is still pending) for the 2015 I-codes. Major changes,
which Existing Buildings supported, will include the update to
ASCE 41-13 for seismic evaluation and retrofit with any of the
IEBCs three methods, and the introduction of certain proactive
wind and seismic mitigation triggers into the IEBCs Prescriptive
method, to match the Work Area method. Perhaps the most obvious change in the 2015 I-codes will be the removal of Chapter
34 from the IBC, so that the IEBC will be the default code for
existing building regulations (though users will still be allowed
to choose one of three methods). The committee was neutral on
this proposal, since the substance of the codes should not change,
but is working now to ensure a smooth transition.
The General Requirements Subcommittee reviewed a total
of 247 proposals submitted by others who wished to revise the
IRC and provided public comment on thirty-seven of these.
The General Requirements Subcommittee was successful on
75% of the items they took positions on.
The Seismic Subcommittee has been actively engaged in the
2015 IRC code cycle. SEAOC submitted 9 code change proposals to CAC which we reviewed, endorsed and submitted to IBC
as NCSEA proposals. These proposals sought to strengthen the
technical requirements of the IRC to be more compatible with
the requirements of the IBC. The ICC will produce a report on
the Dallas hearings and public comments will be submitted in
August. Final Action Hearings for Cycle B, for the 2015 IRC,
will be held in Atlantic City, NJ in early October.
COUNCI L
years
1993-2013
2013 SEI and ASCE Structural Awards
Structural Columns
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
The Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) proudly recognized

the following recipients at the Structures 2013 Congress in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on May 4, 2013:
Structural Engineering Institute Awards

2013 Chapter of the Year Award
The SEI Chapter of the Year Award recognizes an SEI Chapter
for its exemplary activities and efforts to advance the structural
engineering profession. The 2013 SEI Chapter of the Year Award
was given to the SEI Sacramento Chapter. The Sacramento SEI
Chapter has been very active in a variety of activities including
technical presentations, conferences, tours, community outreach
events, and networking opportunities.
Gene Wilhoite Innovations In Transmission Line
Engineering Award
The Gene Wilhoite Award honors an individual who has made
significant contributions to the advancement of the art and science of transmission line engineering. The 2013 Gene Wilhoite
Award was given to Richard F. Aichinger, P.E., M. ASCE.
Mr. Aichinger has spent much of his career in the tubular steel
transmission pole fabrication industry, especially in the area of
unique structural solutions to meet specific customer needs. In
addition, Mr. Aichinger has served on several committees that
developed ASCE standards and manuals of practice in the area
of transmission line engineering.
Dennis L. Tewksbury Award
The Tewksbury award recognizes an individual member of the
Structural Engineering Institute who has advanced the interests
of SEI. The 2013 award was presented to Roberto Leon, Ph.D.,
P.E., F.SEI, F. ASCE. Dr. Leon is currently the Past President
of SEI and was an active member of five SEI technical committees. He is also an active member of the American Institute
of Steel Construction, received the AISC T.R. Higgins award,
and is a Fellow of the American Concrete Institute. He is currently serving on the editorial boards of four journals in the
field of structural engineering, and has chaired or co-chaired
the organization and delivery of six international conferences.
Walter P. Moore, Jr. Award
This award is presented for significant contributions to the
development of codes and standards. The 2013 Walter P. Moore,
Jr. Award was given to Satyendra K. Ghosh, Ph.D., M. ASCE.
Award winners, left to right: Dennis Mertz, William Melbourne, Ahsan

Kareem, Samuel Lewis, Satyendra K. Ghosh, Gintaris Kaklauskas,
Masayoshi Nakashima, Joyce Copelan, Craig Copelan, Roberto Leon,
Bob Nickerson, Sam Rihani, Ron Ziemian and Jennifer Goupil.
Dr. Ghosh is known internationally for his work in earthquake

engineering. He has influenced seismic design provisions in
the United States for many years. Dr. Ghosh is active on many
national technical committees and is a fellow of the American
Concrete Institute and Pre-stressed Concrete Institute. He is
a member of ACI Committee 318 and the ASCE 7 Standard
Main Committee and Seismic Subcommittee. He is a former
member of the Boards of Direction of ACI and the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute.
SEI Presidents Award
The SEI Presidents Award recognizes exemplary contributions to the success of SEI. The 2013 Presidents Award was
given to Robert Elliott Nickerson, P.E., F.SEI, M. ASCE.
Mr. Nickerson has been very active in the Technical Activities
Division of SEI and is the current secretary of the Executive
Committee of the Technical Activities Division. He is the past
chair of the Special Design Issues Committee and the Electrical
Transmission Structures Committee, and is current Chair of
the Gene Wilhoite Awards committee. Mr. Nickerson is the
Chair of the ASCE Standards Committee on Design of Lattice
Steel Transmission Structures (ASCE 10) and has been a key
member of the ASCE Standards Committees on Design of
Steel Transmission Pole Structures (ASCE 48). In addition, he
has served on the committees that developed the Guidelines
for Electrical Transmission Line Structural Loading (Manual No.
74) and the Guide to Design of Guyed Transmission Structures
(Manual No. 91).
American Society of Civil Engineering Structural Awards

Jack E. Cermak Award
This award was created by the Engineering Mechanics
Institute/Structural Engineering Institute to recognize Dr.
Jack E. Cermaks lifetime achievements in the field of wind
engineering and industrial aerodynamics. The 2013 award
was given to William Melbourne, Ph.D., in recognition
of his significant contributions through his life-long studies
to increase the understanding of the effects of turbulence
in problems of bluff body aerodynamics pertinent to wind
engineering applications. In addition, he has made key contributions to international and local codes and standards in
the field of wind engineering.
STRUCTURE magazine
46
Shortridge Hardesty Award

The Shortridge Hardesty Award may be given annually to
individuals who have contributed substantially in applying
fundamental results of research to the solution of practical engineering problems in the field of structural stability. The 2013
award was given to Ronald D. Ziemian, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE.
Dr. Ziemians research into direct analysis modeling of inelastic
and elastic stability issues enables professional engineers to
quickly and accurately model structural behavior. He has also
served as editor of the Structural Stability Research Councils
Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, the guiding
reference for developers of structural stability design provisions.
July 2013
Moisseiff Award
The Moisseiff Award recognizes a paper contributing to
structural design, including applied mechanics, as well as the
theoretical analysis or construction improvement of engineering
structures, such as bridges and frames, of any structural material. The 2013 award was presented to Gintaris Kaklauskas,
Ph.D., Dr.Habil, M.NASc, and Viktor Gribniak, Ph.D.,
for the paper titled Eliminating Shrinkage Effect from Moment
Curvature and Tension Stiffening Relationships of Reinforced
Concrete Members, published in the December 2011 issue of
the Journal of Structural Engineering.
ASCE Library Features Free

Collection of Tornado Articles
In response to the powerful tornado that devastated a 20-milelong and 2-mile-wide path through Moore, Oklahoma, the
ASCE Library has provided free access to a selected group of
papers that discuss strategies for reducing loss of life and property damage when this natural hazard occurs. These articles
are free to registered users and subscribers through July 31,
2013; see Rebuilding after a Tornado on the ASCE Library at
http://ascelibrary.org/ to download the articles.
Mondays tornado occurred almost two years to the day after
the deadly events in Joplin, Missouri. ASCE/SEI sent a postdisaster assessment team to Joplin; the teams findings and
lessons learned are included in the Joplin, Missouri Tornado of
May 22, 2011 report, also available from the ASCE Bookstore
at www.asce.org/bookstore/.
Two New Books from SEI

Structural Identification of Constructed Systems
Tensile Fabric Structures
Approaches, Methods, and Technologies for
Design, Analysis, and Construction
Effective Practice of St-Id

Structural Identification of Constructed
Systems: Approaches, Methods, and
Technologies for Effective Practice of St-Id
offers an overview of nearly 20 years of
research directed at bridging the gap in
structural engineering between models and
real structural systems. Structural identification, known as St-Id, can be defined
as the process of creating and updating a
model of a structure (for instance, a finite
element model) using experimental observations and data. By
developing reliable estimates of the performance and vulnerability of structural systems, St-Id produces improved simulations
that, in turn, assist in decision making and the transition to
performance-based civil engineering.
This report was prepared by SEIs Structural Identification of
Constructed Systems Committee. Structural engineers, educators, and researchers working in the areas of structural modeling,
health monitoring, assessment, forensics, performance evaluation,
predictive analysis, and decision making will find this book useful
in covering critical and practical aspects of these concepts.
STRUCTURE magazine
Tensile Fabric Structures: Design, Analysis,

and Construction summarizes the range
of tensile membrane structure forms
and their applications, and documents
the current state of knowledge regarding
loading, form finding, and nonlinear analysis of membrane structures.
Structural forms and details are generally
left exposed in tensile membrane designs
and are strongly tied to architecture and
aesthetics. These environmentally friendly and economically
competitive structures are found in a wide range of recreational and transportation facilities.
This report was prepared by SEIs Task Committee on
Tensioned Fabric Structures, and the will provide practical
guidance to structural engineers, architects, and builders of
tensile membrane structures.
To purchase these and other structural

engineering books visit the ASCE Bookstore
at http://www.asce.org/bookstore/.
47
July 2013
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Raymond C. Reese Research Prize

The Raymond C. Reese Research Prize may be awarded to the
author(s) of a paper published by ASCE that describes a notable
achievement in research related to structural engineering, and
recommends how the results of that research (experimental and/
or analytical) can be applied to design. The 2013 award was presented to Zhongguo John Ma, PH.D., P.E., F. ASCE; Samuel
Lewis; Zhiqi He; Qi Cao, PH.D., A.M.ASCE; Edwin G.
Burdette, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE; and Catherine E.W. French,
PH.D., P.E., M. ASCE, for their paper titled Transverse Joint
Details with Tight Bend Diameter U-Bars for Accelerated Bridge
Construction, published in the October 2011 issue of the Journal
of Structural Engineering.
Structural Columns
Ernest E. Howard Award

The Ernest E. Howard Award recognizes a member of the Society
who has made a definite contribution to the advancement of
structural engineering through research, planning, design or construction. The 2013 award was given to Masayoshi Nakashima,
Ph.D., M. ASCE. Dr. Nakashima has been engaged in research
and education in the field of structural and earthquake engineering for 30 years. He was the first director of the E-Defense shake
table, one of the largest in the world, and had led more than 40
large-scale tests. He also pioneered the use of pseudo-dynamic
tests in which quasi-static loading tests and numerical analyses
are conducted side-by-side.
CASE in Point
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
Guidelines on Peer Review and Coordination/Completeness

CASE Guideline 962-D: A Guideline Addressing Coordination
and Completeness of Structural Construction Documents
CASE Guideline 962-G: Guidelines for Performing Project

Specific Peer Reviews on Structural Projects
This guideline discusses the background behind the issue, the

important aspects of design relationships, communication,
coordination and completeness, guidance for dimensioning of
structural drawings, effects of various project delivery systems,
document revisions, and closes with recommendations for development and application of quality management procedures. A
Drawing Review Checklist is attached.
The key to achieving the desired level of quality throughout
the profession is for each structural engineering firm to focus on
and develop its own specific quality management plan and to
implement that plan on each project. This guideline will assist
the structural engineering profession in achieving that goal.
Please see the companion publication to this document:
CASE Tool 9-1: A Guideline Addressing Coordination and
Completeness of Structural Construction.
Increasing complexity of structural design and code requirements, compressed schedules and financial pressures are among
many factors that have prompted the greater frequency of peer
review of structural engineering projects. The peer review of
a project by a qualified third party is intended to result in an
improved project with less risk to all parties involved, including
the engineer, owner, and contractor.
The intention of these guidelines is to increase awareness of
such issues, assist in establishing a framework for the review
and improve the process for all interested parties.
Please see the companion publication to this document: CASE
Contract #5: An Agreement for Structural Peer Review Services.
You can purchase all CASE products at
www.booksforengineers.com.
CASE Summer Planning Meeting

August 6 -7, 2013; Chicago, IL
The CASE Summer Planning Meeting is scheduled for August 6-7th in Chicago, IL. A new feature added to this meeting will be
a roundtable discussion on topics relating to the business of Structural Engineering, facilitated by some of the CASE Executive
Committee members. Topics in the past have included the Business of BIM, using social media within your firm, Peer Review
and Special Inspections. Attendees to this session will also earn 1.5 PDHs.
Please contact CASE Executive Director Heather Talbert (htalbert@acec.org) if you are interested in attending this roundtable
or have any suggested topics for the roundtable.
Upcoming ACEC Online Seminars

Get On the Pathway to Success
August 6, 1:30-3:00 pm
Stop waiting for the economy to improve. In The Pathway to

Success, Scott Hunter, president of The Hunter Partnership
Alliance, will demonstrate how firms dont need to be
dependent on the economy for their success and will
lay out four steps that firms can take to start building
business today. For more information and to register,
www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1443.
Use Design Thinking to Build Business and

Break the Commodity Trap
August 13, 1:30-3:00 pm
Engineering firms use design thinking every day to solve their

clients most pressing and complex design problems. In Using
Design Thinking to Build Business and Break the Commodity
Trap, find out how to use this core competency in your business planning.
Joseph Rei of MORF Consulting will demonstrate how firms
can use design thinking to gain market share, strengthen their
STRUCTURE magazine
48
position with clients, and solve the ongoing problem of engineering commoditization. For more information and to register,
www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1446.
Top ACEC On-Demand Webinars from spring 2013:
Transportation Project Financing Through TIFIA: Major
Expansion of Federal Assistance
Are You Fighting Fires Instead of Managing Your
Employees?
Accounting 101 for Project Managers
Creating a High-Performing Marketing & Business
Development Organization
How to Write Division 00: Tips for Preparing Effective
Bidding and Contracting
Seven Critical Mistakes Engineers Make During
Contract Negotiation & Project Executing that Sabotage
Their Projects & Invite Litigation
Successful Integration of an Acquisition
To see the full ACEC Bookstore selection,

www.acec.org/bookstore.
July 2013
Gov. Mitch Daniels, FHWA Administrator

Victor Mendez to Headline ACEC Fall
Conference in Scottsdale, AZ
Mitch Daniels, former Indiana governor and budget director for President George W. Bush, and FHWA Administrator
Victor Mendez will keynote the 2013 ACEC Fall Conference
in Scottsdale, AZ, October 27-30.
During his two terms as governor, Daniels turned the states
$800 million budget deficit into a $370 million surplus, and
funded a backlog of public transportation projects through
a $4 billion public-private partnership. He also created a
$500 million highway trust fund to maintain the states
roads. Mendez, who was director of the Arizona DOT prior

to becoming FHWA administrator, has long grappled with
the nations transportation challenges. His signature initiative is the Every Day Counts program to accelerate project
delivery and innovation.
The Conference also features top industry CEO panels
and more than three dozen educational sessions and business roundtables. For more information and to register,
www.acec.org/conferences/fall-13/index.cfm.
CASE is on LinkedIn
LinkedIn is a great virtual resource for networking, education, and now, connecting with CASE.
Join the CASE LinkedIn Group today! www.linkedin.com.
CASE Business Practice Corner

If you would like more information on the items below, please contact Ed Bajer, ebajer@acec.org.
Addressing Engineer-Caused
Change Orders
The engineer should educate the owner that a certain amount
of imprecision and incompleteness is to be expected in the
design documentation. An option in Appendix I of the EJCDC
Engineer/Owner Agreement is intended to address engineercaused change orders, whether caused by professional negligence
or imperfections within professional standards. 6.10.A.3 of
Appendix I provides a safe harbor for covered change orders
up to a certain percentage of construction costs. The blank
percentage will need to be filled in. Any claims over that will
be only for the amount in excess of the agreed-to percentage.
Limitation of liability is not intended to be a complete solution.
The engineer remains liable to the owner within the agreed limits
and to third parties regardless of such limitation.
Being an Expert Witness: The

Ph.D. Doesnt Always Win
Its all about credibility. But how do you get it? Education
counts of course, but it is more than that. Knowledge of the
subject matter is important, as is knowledge of the case (do
your homework). Manner of presentation is significant; simplify
complex issues and use analogies that lay people understand.
You maintain your credibility by keeping a steady demeanor
and not being defensive but, if necessary, stand up for yourself.
Identify any conflicts you have with other experts and explain
why you are correct.
STRUCTURE magazine
Elements of a Bad Contract

What would a bad contract look like? It would probably include
a heightened standard of care, meaning you promised more than
what is expected of a person in your position. This is important
because, in court, if it is shown you raised the standard of care
higher you are expected to meet it. Not meeting the expectations
of the owner is a frequent trigger of this. The contract might
also include a duty to defend the party with whom you have
signed a contract, which could take effect even though you have
done nothing wrong. An incomplete scope of services is also
bad, as is the lack of an appropriate dispute resolution. Some
form of limitation of liability is advisable. These are enforceable
but there are nuances in the law from state to state.
Patent Trollers Take a Hit

Major copy companies have filed a lawsuit that there is no
basis for asking a licensing fee for use of scanning technology. The companies contend that the 426 patent is invalid,
the infringement claims are without merit and the licensing
demands are unsupportable. These involve the use of scanner/
copiers that scan a hard copy document into an electronic file
and then transmit that file to someone else. Some firms have
received letters saying that if they are using this technology
they are infringing on a patent and must pay a license fee. The
patent has become the subject of an aggressive patent licensing
campaign by various entities that are targeting users of the
products of virtually every manufacturer of multi-function
imaging equipment.
49
July 2013
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
You can follow ACEC

Coalitions on Twitter
@ACECCoalitions.
CASE in Point
ACEC Business Insights
Structural Forum
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
Increasing the Velocity of Knowledge

By Gene Frodsham, MS, S.E.
he complexity of calculations and

the development of new materials
and methods have increased the
amount of knowledge necessary for
engineers to learn. In response, the National
Council of Examiners for Engineering and
Surveying (NCEES) and the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) propose
increasing the education requirements for
licensure to a bachelors degree plus 30 hours
(B+30). The movement to require essentially
a masters degree was done without sufficient
consultation with practicing engineers; there
is a far more efficient solution available.
The leaders of these organizations are correct
that the problem is one of time. However,
it is not one of more time. Instead, we need
to implement means of presentation that
increase the rate of learning, also known as
the velocity of knowledge.
The underlying principle has always been
known, as shown by sayings like a picture is
worth a thousand words, seeing is believing, and experience is the best teacher.
This describes a transfer of knowledge greater
than the 300-500 words per minute that is
typical when reading text with 2D pictures.
Seeing operates in four dimensions from
any viewpoint. With the concept of seeing,
we have an efficient way to display all human
knowledge operating in reality.
The necessary technology is now off-theshelf. Computer gaming gives ready-made
tools for developing 3D environments to
show any process or procedure. Goggles are
available for the display of this virtual reality.
MathCad and other programs give us the
ability to show problems in the traditional
calculation format.
We can thus create a world in which we
build and watch every interaction in real time
in any amount of detail, from any position,
in four dimensions, and even be a part of
them. From the present operating system of
being in a room looking out a window on
the far wall, we can now be immersed with
knowledge all around us on every surface,
or suspended in space with the entire volume
used for presentation.
There is no end to the density of information and the interconnection of knowledge

that can be achieved. In every area, unlimited and flexible visualization will allow the
tailoring of learning. Every child can have
an education equal to the best prep schools
with tutors for every class. Feedback from the
virtual reality learning programs will provide
the educational research to ascertain the
methods of learning that are actually used
by people in practice.
This concept applies to all areas of
knowledge from engineering, math and
chemistry to biology and languages, and
even to the skills of mechanics and other
trades. Every process can be experienced
as though the student were doing it. In
virtual space, layers of information can be
displayed at a glance geometry, material specifications, installation instructions,
nomenclature and traditional calculations.
In engineering, buildings and machines can
be simulated in three dimensions; all loads can
be shown and all code references can be indicated. There is then no more need for black
box spreadsheets and other software that give
more decimal places, but not more significant
figures. In construction management, the
student can see a project being planned and
built and learn to do every position, inspection, calculation and report from the start.
Medical and biology classes can be conducted in the virtual world where every
structure, chemical reaction and physical
process is observed. The student can stand
in the middle of space and see the atoms and
chemical reactions, along with all the data,
procedures and calculations.
Math and computer programming can
be taught with all information available,
including applied problems or proofs and
derivations. Electronic designs can be seen
operating at the level of the structure of the
electrons, transistors or chips, a 3D operation in real time. Languages can be taught
by intensive immersion.
We need a human interface language for
creation and operation of the display of virtual knowledge. The interface language can
be acquired by children, becoming an inherent part of growing up as they progressively

learn the complexity of the interface. By
contrast, engineers currently must become
familiar with multiple interfaces using large
numbers of explanatory books. A common
standard human interface will save great
time and effort.
Increasing education requirements will not
do what is necessary; increasing the velocity
of knowledge will. The layering and interconnection allowed by seeing knowledge
creates multiple paths for learning and the
tailoring of lessons for each student, fostering both rigor and flexibility and allowing
the student to choose the best way in which
to learn. This would give everyone a powerful tool to extend their knowledge and the
boundaries of their understanding, at the
greatest possible velocity.
Coordination of these interfaces and the
methods of displaying knowledge must be
the responsibility of the engineering societies. It is time for engineers to take their fate
into their own hands and start this process
that will benefit every field, profession, and
type of work.
The parts already exist. The programming
has been created. The hardware is now in
place. The coordination to create the protocols
for the data and standards for presentation remains to be done. The benefits are
far beyond just engineering the whole of
human knowledge can be displayed and
experienced. It can be learned by immersion
with the tutors and processes optimized for
each individual, resulting in a revolutionary increase in the velocity of knowledge.
This method will cut years from traditional
education programs and expand the scope
and abilities of everyone. It is a project that
is worth the effort of a generation, and an
extraordinary inheritance to bestow upon
future generations.
Gene Frodsham, MS, S.E.
(gfrodsham1@gmail.com), is a
structural engineer practicing in Nevada.
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.
STRUCTURE magazine
50
July 2013

2013 - 07 Wind

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2013 - 07 Wind

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

July 2013 Wind

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

Ensure That Your

Today in virtually every jurisdiction in the U.S.

CSI Section for Mechanical & Adhesive

Real-Time Anchor Design Software V2.0

PDAS LIVE UPDATE FEATURE

For a full listing of code approved products, and a demo

Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com

Growing Optimism Spurs

In general, there appears to be some optimism in the market.

By Andrew Rauch, CASE Chair

New York State Capitol Restoration

By Susan L. Knack-Brown, P.E. and Nicholas T. Floyd, P.E.

By the late 1990s, the New York State Capitol, designed

University of Washington Invests

By Jennifer Cover, MS, P.E.

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

The Intellectual Virtue

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

By Rafik R. Gerges, P.Eng, Ph.D.,

By Alexander Newman, P.E.

16 Codes and Standards

By Nestor A. Agbayani, P.E.,

By Filippo Masetti, P.E.,

Special Section: Seismic Products

The largest collection

July 2013 Wind

A Look at Insurance Options

By Scott D. Martin, P.E.

Increasing the Velocity

By Gene Frodsham, MS, S.E.

irst, I would like to extend my condolences to the family,

...it is because our firm has a culture and

experience than I had. It was fascinating to listen to their experiences,

Andrew Rauch is a principal with BKBM Engineers in

PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS

AZZ Galvanizing .................................. 39

Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO

CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA

Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.

Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.

Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA

KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA

Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E.

Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.

US GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, EDITH GREEN-WENDELL WYATT FEDERAL BUILDING

Brian J. Leshko, P.E.

John Buddy Showalter, P.E.

John A. Mercer, P.E.

Amy Trygestad, P.E.

Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND

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

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT

HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA

AdvErtising Account MAnAgEr

Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB

Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB

PT&C Forensic Consulting Serv., P.A. .. 31

American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA

Chase Engineering, LLC, New Prague, MN