STRUCTURE A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

February 2017 Steel/Cold-Formed Steel

Inside:
Pterodactyl,
Culver City,
California
 USG
Structural
Solutions

THERES A LOT OF EXTRA

WEIGHT HIDING IN YOUR FLOORS.
Choose a lighter, noncombustible alternative
to poured concrete. Learn more about
USG Structural Panels at usg.com/structuralpanels.

2017 USG Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

The trademarks USG, ITS YOUR WORLD. BUILD IT., the USG logo, the design elements and colors,
and related marks are trademarks of USG Corporation or its affiliates.
Tedds
Trimbles Calculation Production Suite
Forget time consuming hand calculations and cumbersome spreadsheets.
Automate your repetitive structural calculations with Tekla Tedds and transform the way you work.
Library of Design Modules

Electronic Calculations in Word

WL W
8

Automatic Load Generators

Section Property Calculator

Profis

A = 16.56 In2
2
y

M M

x
2
4

Section Data/Code Tables

2D Frame Analysis
SECTION DATA

Nominal Standard Dressed

Size size (S4S)
1x3 0,750 2,500
-426,2 426,2

1x4 0,750 3,500 3 6

426,2 426,2
6

1x6 0,750 5,500

556,9

1x8 0,750 7,250

4
-522,6 522,6

2
354,7 5
-167,9 167,9
5
354,7

460,4

3
1
1 4

83,6 -83,6

Intelligent Link to Excel

Output-3rd Party Software

.xls
Profis

Tedds is our ideal solution because it provides an extensive library of calculations, creates
transparent output with detailed equations, and offers us the capability to write our own
calculations which has been invaluable. We have standardized our output using Tedds which
has improved our consistency and quality control.
Patrick McManus, Martin/Martin
Free Tedds Trial at: tek.la/tryteddsnow

TRANSFORMING THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS

 When We Build Our Facilities,
Our Engineers Specify The Finest
Structural Materials.

HSS HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTIONS

Aesthetically Pleasing, Structurally Sound. As an Architect or Engineer, you are always HSS Sizes
looking for that perfect building material. At Independence Tube we feel we have SQUARES
achieved that balance of looks and strength in our Hollow Structural Sections (HSS) 2"12"
Cost Effective. Cost Competitive. But it gets better. Over 90% of the HSS products RECTANGLES
manufactured by Independence Tube meets or exceeds Grade C mechanical properties. 2.5" x 1.5"16" x 8"
Get the additional strength at no additional cost. ROUNDS
2"16"
Plentiful Inventory. Renowned Rolling Schedule. We stock the inventory for your next
WALLS
project, and with our frequent Rolling Schedule, on-time delivery is a given.
.109" to .688"
You now have a choice: HSS looks great, meets all your quality requirements, LENGTH
and the price is right. Up to 80' in length

Celebrating Forty Years of Quality Tube Products | 1-800-376-6000 | www.independencetube.com | www.itcpiling.com

CH ICAGO, I L | MARSEILLES, IL | D E C AT U R , A L | T RI NI T Y, AL
 CONTENTS
Columns/Departments
EDITORIAL
7The Esthetics of Structures
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
STRUCTURAL FORENSICS
10Lessons Learned from the Bay
Bridge Bolt Failure
By Thomas Langill, Ph.D.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
14Fracture Case Studies Part 3
By Paul W. McMullin, S.E., Ph.D.
CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
16What is a 10d Common Nail?
AGAIN Part 2
By Williston L. Warren, IV, S.E., SECB
INSIGHTS
20Infrastructure Check-In
By Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
CODES AND STANDARDS
22Current Code and Repair of
Damaged Buildings
By Zeno Martin, P.E., S.E., Brian Tognetti,
and Howard Hill, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
ENGINEERS NOTEBOOK
32Mechanical Bridging of Axially
Loaded Cold-Formed Steel Studs
By Nabil A. Rahman, Ph.D., P.E.
HISTORIC STRUCTURES
35Williamsburg Bridge
By Frank Griggs, Jr., D.Eng., P.E.
LEGAL PERSPECTIVES
38Understanding the Difference
between Indemnification and
Insurance
By Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq.
STRUCTURE magazine
26 Lone Tree Bridge
30 Restoring New
43
SPOTLIGHT
43Pterodactyl, Culver City, California
By Hooman Nastarin, P.E.
STRUCTURAL FORUM
50ASCE 7-16 Controversy
By Jim DeStefano, P.E., AIA
STRUCTURAL FORUM
51ASCE 7 Controversy
By Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB
5 February 2017
Features
By Scott Lomax, M.Eng, C.Eng and Kelly Dunn, AIA
In its simplest form, the Lone Tree Bridge provides
a crossing over Lincoln Avenue in Lone Tree,
Colorado. As a project, it is much morefrom
connecting communities to linking cycling trails to
creating a landmark respectful of the beauty of
the nearby Rocky Mountains.
Havens East Rock
Road Bridge
By Thomas Strnad, P.E. Rehabilitating a bridge
to meet LFRD design and an increased load
capacity while incorporating historical elements
and emphasizing aesthetics led engineers down
a path full of challenges. The result an award-
winning bridge that stayed true to its heritage.
On the cover The award-winning Pterodactyl is
a uniquely engineered office building formed by
the intersection of nine rectangular boxes stacked
on top or adjacent to each other. Structural clarity
is not synonymous with structural redundancy.
Exploration finds its own logic. Eric Owen
Moss. See more about the project on page 43.
Photos courtesy of Tom Bonner.
IN EVERY ISSUE
8 Advertiser Index
41 Resource Guide (Bridge)
44 NCSEA News
46 SEI Structural Columns
48 CASE in Point
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.
 Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.

StructurePoints Productivity Suite of powerful software tools

for reinforced concrete analysis & design

Finite element analysis & de- Analysis, design

sign of reinforced, precast & investigation of
ICF & tilt-up concrete walls reinforced concrete
beams & one-way
slab systems

Design & investigation Analysis, design

of rectangular, round & investigation of
& irregularly shaped reinforced concrete
concrete column sections beams & slab systems

Get New Solver for

speed & capacity with
Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete
Version 8.0 Upgrade!
foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade

StructurePoints suite of productivity tools are so easy to Visit StructurePoint.org to download your trial copy
learn and simple to use that youll be able to start saving of our software products.
time and money almost immediately. And when you use
For more information on licensing and pricing
StructurePoint software, youre also taking advantage of
the Portland Cement Associations more than 90 years of
options please call 847.966.4357 or e-mail
experience, expertise, and technical support in concrete info@StructurePoint.org.
design and construction.

STR_9-14
Editorial The Esthetics of Structures
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB, NCSEA Secretary

M
odern culture tends to associate esthetics primarily
with visual appearance, but philosophy has tradition-
ally sought to unify the virtues of beauty, goodness,
and truth. How might someone evaluate whether a
particular structure achieves these ideal ends?
As mentioned in Part 2 of my recent series of Outside
the Box articles on The Logic of Ingenuity (October 2016,
www.structuremag.org/?p=10490), Charles Sanders Peirce provided
some assistance to George S. Morison with the latters mid-1890s
proposal for a span across the Hudson River. Morisons paper about it,
Suspension Bridges A Study, appeared in Transactions of the American
Society of Civil Engineers in December 1896 (Vol. 36, pp. 359-416,
https://books.google.com/books?id=EFJDAAAAYAAJ&pg=359),
accompanied by 66 pages of discussion. As stated on page 400, A
careful investigation of the theory of the stiffening truss has been made
on entirely independent lines by Mr. Charles S. Peirce.
Peirces own surviving materials related to this project are collected under not for millennium after millennium, I found the integral sum
manuscripts 1357-1360, as maintained by the Houghton Library at Harvard of good, in proportion as the plan of the bridge was simple and
University and cataloged in 1967 by Richard S. Robin. An initiative called scientifically adequate, to be sufficient to rouse the utmost depths
the Scalable Peirce Interpretation Network (SPIN) is now posting and, in of any mans earnestness. Distant ages shall rise up and extol the
some cases, transcribing digital images of such unpublished texts online contrivers and the executors of such a monument, as they would
(http://fromthepage.com/collection/show?collection_id=16). 1357 have reason to curse ever more and more deeply those who should
begins with a typescript that almost exactly duplicates pages 398-401 of deface the landscape with a hideous, broken-backed structure that
Morisons paper, including the portion quoted above; it is not clear whether should half intend one thing and half another, perpetually acting
Morison prepared it and sent it to Peirce, who then kept it in his files, or to debase the souls of the generations whose eyes it should weary
Peirce prepared it for Morison to include in the ASCE paper. and torture. Would not the total guilt of every man who should
Based on the other contents of the manuscripts, all handwritten by lend a hand to such a nuisance be worth his serious consideration?
Peirce, his primary task was to prepare a report about the effect of live The nineteenth century is destined to be looked back upon as
loads on the structure. There are various partial drafts, lots of detailed the classical age of engineering for every art has its classical age,
calculations, and other miscellaneous fragments; but unfortunately, before it shrinks to small ambitions, and every engineer ought to
nothing resembling a complete document. Even so, one surviving hope that the century may be crowned by some great enduring
draft, which may have been intended to serve as a cover letter, is type of classical simplicity. Every American must desire that such a
worthy of being excerpted at length for its answer to the question secular memorial may be placed in New York, though he shudders
that I posed above: at the danger of its being converted into an ineffaceable record of
When, after having agreed to calculate the effects of the loads upon stupidity and bad taste.
your projected Hudson River bridge, I came to study the plan of it, I Peirces eloquent words pose a worthy challenge to those of us who
became more and more impressed with the honor of being concerned, practice engineering some 120 years later. Do our own structures
even in that entirely obscure way, with such an instrument for the typically serve as instruments for the elevation of man (and woman)
elevation of man. For whoever, in allowing his eye of a morning by conforming in every detail to the principles of good sense and of
to rest a moment for refreshment on that splendid scene, should sound reason? How will the twenty-first century be looked back
catch sight of that bridge and should reflect upon how calmly and upon by distant ages with respect to the contrivers and execu-
simply it performed a great duty, conforming in every detail to the tors of its monuments? Has our profession irrevocably
principles of good sense and of sound reason, would certainly receive shrunk to small ambitions at this point in its history,
a moral lesson which would have its effect upon his conduct for all or is it not yet too late for each of us to produce some
that day. In the absence of reflection, modern psychology informs us great enduring type of classical simplicity?
that the influence of the sight might perhaps be even more efficient
on the whole; for the subconscious mind that marvellous [sic]
Jon A. Schmidt (jschmid@burnsmcd.com) is a Senior Associate
power we call instinct, so much greater than the little self would
Structural Engineer in the Aviation & Federal Group at Burns
virtually make such calculations, without the individual being
& McDonnell in Kansas City, Missouri. He serves as Secretary
otherwise aware of it than by the sense of beauty and the elevating
on the NCSEA Board of Directors, chairs the SEI Engineering
thoughts that would well up into his consciousness. Now when I
Philosophy Committee, and shares occasional thoughts at
came to reckon, as a good mathematician should, what multitudes
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt.
of men were to be so influenced daily for century after century, if

STRUCTURE magazine 7 February 2017

 STRUCTURE

ADVERTISER INDEX PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS

Anthony Forest Products Co. ................ 25
ASDIP Structural Software .................... 24
Atlas Tube ............................................. 40
Clark Dietrich Building Systems ............. 9
Design Data .......................................... 34
Dlubal Software, Inc. ............................ 39
Hardy Frame ......................................... 21
Independence Tube Corporation ............. 4
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 37
Integrity Software, Inc. ............................ 8
KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 28
Legacy Building Solutions ..................... 17 ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER
LNA Solutions ...................................... 33 INTERACTIVE SALES ASSOCIATES
New Millennium Building Systems ....... 23 sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
RISA Technologies ................................ 52 Eastern Sales Chuck Minor 847-854-1666
Western Sales Jerry Preston 480-396-9585
Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 13
Strongwell ............................................. 29 EDITORIAL STAFF
Structural Engineering Inst. of ASCE .... 42
Executive Editor Alfred Spada
StructurePoint ......................................... 6 aspada@ncsea.com
Trimble ................................................... 3
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
USG Corporation ................................... 2 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Wood Products Council ........................ 19
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer

ADVERTISE IN PRINT graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

Web Developer William Radig

and ONLINE
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org

Visit our website to see what
advertising opportunities are
right for you!
EDITORIAL BOARD
Chair Barry K. Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB
ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT
chair@structuremag.org
Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP
ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT

www.STRUCTUREmag.org Erin Conaway, P.E.

SidePlate Systems, Phoenix, AZ

John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA

Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.

TRC, Pittsburgh, PA

Dilip Khatri, Ph.D., S.E.

Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA

Important Jessica Mandrick, P.E., S.E., LEED AP

Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, New York, NY

news for
Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA

Mike Mota, Ph.D., P.E.

CRSI, Williamstown, NJ

Bentley Users Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

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

The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Ridgefield, CT

SofTrack controls
Bentley usage by
Prevent Quarterly and Monthly Overages
Product ID code and
Control all Bentley usage, even licenses counts (pipe, inlet,
you do not own pond, and all others)
Give users visibility of who is using licenses now and can actively
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
John Buddy Showalter, P.E.
American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA

Warn and Terminate Idle usage block unwanted C3 Ink, Publishers

product usage A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
CONTACT US NOW: 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959

(866) 372 8991 (USA & Canada) SofTrack also
(512) 372 8991 (Worldwide) supports Autodesk
Cascading Licensing
www.softwaremetering.com
and
SofTrack directly
Phone 608-524-1397 Fax 608-524-4432
publisher@structuremag.org
February 2017, Volume 24, Number 2
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 $75/yr domestic; $40/yr student; $90/yr Canada; $60/yr
Canadian student; $135/yr foreign; $90/yr foreign student.

Additionally, SofTrack provides software license control for all your applications including
full workstation auditing of files accessed and websites visited. Many customers also
benefit from SofTracks workstation specific logon activity reporting.
2016 Integrity Software, Inc. Bentley is a registered trademark of Bentley Systems, Incorporated
reports and controls
ESRI ArcGIS license
usage
For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member
organization(s) or email subscriptions@STRUCTUREmag.org. Note
that if you do not notify your member organization, your address
will revert back with their next database submittal. 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
STRUCTURE magazine 8 Feburary 2017 the publisher.
 CONNECT WITH US TODAY.
[CONNECT THIS TOMORROW.]

FastBridge Clip FastClip Slide Clip Holdown Clip Moment Clip

CLARKDIETRICH CLIP EXPRESS. It stands alone as a

SM

product line, support service and single-source philosophy. And now, with
new clips to cover more installation needs, the industrys widest selection
of steel framing connections is even wider. As always, overnight shipping
2016 ClarkDietrich Building Systems

options keep your projects on the fast track. Plus, getting the whole
systemstuds, tracks, accessories and morefrom one trusted name
keeps you working smart. STRONGER THAN STEEL. SM

Interior Framing Exterior Framing Interior Finishing Clips/Connectors Metal Lath/Accessories Engineering clarkdietrich.com
Structural
ForenSicS
investigating structures
and their components
Lessons Learned from the
Bay Bridge Bolt Failure
By Thomas Langill, Ph.D.
Dr. Thomas Langill has been
with the American Galvanizers
Association for 22 years as its
Technical Director. He is Chairman
of three ASTM Subcommittees,
including the subcommittee that
maintains the standards for the hot-
dip galvanizing process, A05.13,
G01.04 on atmospheric corrosion,
and G01.14 on corrosion of
construction materials. Dr. Langill
is also Secretary of the ASTM
Main Committee A05 on Metallic-
Coated Iron and Steel Products.
S
ome lessons are not learned until after
events occur. This was the case with the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB)
or Bay Bridge. This bridge, which car-
ries more than 240,000 vehicles per day along
Interstate 80, connects the peninsula of San
Francisco with the city of Oakland and eastern side
of the San Francisco Bay. Initial reports suggested
hot-dip galvanizing embrittled the bolts causing
a failure. After more research, it was determined
the embrittlement was not from the galvanizing
but was a much more complex issue.
History of the Bay Bridge
In 1989, the series of bridges that make up the Bay
Bridge were severely damaged during the infamous
Loma Prieta Earthquake that rocked the city and
surrounding areas. The most substantial damage
occurred when the upper east section of the bridge
collapsed onto the lower deck during the height of
the heaviest traffic commute,
causing heavy damage to trav-
eling vehicles and killing and
injuring many.
After this earthquake, the
western section of the bridge
underwent a complete seismic
retrofit in 2004, where the bridge was modified
to become more resistant to seismic activity and
other ground motion. In 2013, the eastern section
of the bridge was completely replaced with a new
self-anchored suspension bridge (SAS) and opened
in September of that year (Figure 1). This allowed
the bridges cables to be completely attached to
the ends of its deck, rather than into the ground,
allowing for more flexibility during seismic activity.
However, one of the issues with an SAS bridge is
the potential for an amplification of stresses during
a seismic event where the SAS cables are hit with
an increase of pressure to hold up the bridge.
Figure 1. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
10 February 2017
A New Design Takes Shape
Bridge designers and constructors are always con-
cerned with preserving their bridges for as long as
possible. To combat the amplification of stresses
and to offset the potential of harmonic amplifi-
cation of the bridge deck, the designers installed
shear keys in the new design of the eastern bridge
span. Shear keys are blocks of concrete supported
by large diameter bolts that are made from ASTM
A354 Grade BD material in diameters from two
to four inches and have been hot-dip galvanized.
The shear keys dampen the seismic energy
transmitted to the bridge deck and help pre-
vent damage during an earthquake. They are not
intended to support the bridge deck itself but
merely play a role in the suppression of forces
during a seismic event. Each bolt within the shear
key is heat-treated to meet the minimum speci-
fication of mechanical properties, and hot-dip
galvanized to provide corrosion protection. These
bolts were used throughout the Bay Bridge design,
not just in the new shear key installation. These
anchor rods, A354BD, are specified to have an
ultimate tensile strength (Fu) of a minimum of
140,000 psi for bolts with diameters above 2.5
inches and a hardness range of a minimum of 31
HRC and a maximum of 39 HRC.
Figures 2a and 2b show the placement of the
anchor rods used for the shear keys when the bolts
were first put into place in the Pier E2 location. The
anchor rods were installed into the shear keys in
November 2008, and grouting of the rods began in
January 2013. However, these anchor rods were not
tensioned until March 2013 because they could not
be installed until the superstructure of the bridge
was put in place. Because of this, the very bottoms
of the anchor rods were purposely damaged to hold
the nuts until they could be properly tensioned.
The top of the steel pipe sleeve assemblies holding
the shear key rods were exposed to the environment
 (a)
Figure 2 (a and b). Placement of the anchor rods used for the shear
keys when the bolts were first put into place in the Pier E2 location.
during the period before the superstructure of
the bridge was installed. This left little clearance
between the top of the rods and the bottom
of the bridge.
Beginning Signs of Trouble
Once the superstructure of the bridge was
erected in 2013, and the load transfer was
completed, the anchor rods were pre-ten-
sioned to 70% of their minimum specified
ultimate tensile strength (Fu). After the first
two weeks of tension, 32 of the 96 anchor
rods had fractured, all occurring at or near
the threaded engagements towards the bottom
of the rods. Once the pre-tension level was
reduced to 40% Fu, failure of the rods ceased.
This resulted in the decision to abandon all 96
of the rods. An alternative anchoring system
was successfully designed and installed.
Although these anchor rods were no longer in
service, their failure raised major concerns about
the long-term performance of the remaining
A354BD rods throughout the bridge. The frac-
turing (Figure 3) resulted in three investigations
focused on metallurgical testing and failure
analysis on two of the fractured rods from the
shear keys. It was determined the failure of
the rods was a result of hydrogen embrittle-
ment. As a result, the California Department
of Transportation undertook a second testing
program to further examine the cause of failure
and to evaluate the remaining A354BD rods
throughout the bridge.
Shear Key Rod
Failure Investigation
This investigation, which began shortly after
the tensioning of the shear key rods, included
performing metallurgical testing and failure
analysis on the rods. It was conducted by
three investigators: Salim Brahimi, President
STRUCTURE magazine
(b)
of IBECA Technologies and Chairman of
the ASTM F16 Committee on Fasteners;
Rosme Aguilar, Branch Chief of Cal Trans
Structural Metals Testing Branch; and
Conrad Christensen, Principal and Founder
of Christensen Materials Engineering. The
design of the bridge created a very low clear-
ance between the rods and the superstructure
of the bridge. For testing to continue, the
rods had to be removed in small sections by
pulling them up as far as possible and sawing
them off. This process was very extensive, so
only a few rods ultimately were removed for
the study.
The first batch of A354BD rods, those
installed in the shear keys, were not tested
through the Magnetic Particle Inspection
(MPI) because they were installed before the
requirement for MPI testing was added to the
contract. The MPI looks for small cracks in
the rods. All of the A354BD rods were cleaned
by dry blasting to SSPC No. 10 Near-White
Blast Cleaning before being dipped into the
molten zinc bath, to avoid acid cleaning. By
skipping the acid solution, the rods avoided
the generation of hydrogen. The rods were
galvanized within four hours of blast cleaning
to ASTM A123 standards. The bolt threads
on the rods can be rolled or cut, and heat
treatments must include quenching in oil.
Figure 3. Fracture surface of 2008 shear key rod.
11 February 2017
The investigation continued with a visual
inspection of two failed rods and showed
the presence of Denso paste, which is part of
the Denso Tape System on the rods that pro-
vide extra corrosion protection. The threads
and fractured surfaces had remnants of this
paste as well as the grout used during instal-
lation. This visual inspection revealed that
the surface was brittle, and that cracks had
developed, grown, and spread throughout the
rods progressively. This process exceeded the
rods structural capacity, ultimately resulting
in the final failure.
After the visual inspection was complete, the
investigation moved forward by using a scan-
ning electron microscopy (SEM) examination
of the surfaces across the rod diameter. The
results showed intergranular fracture mor-
phology near the threaded roots. As the crack
progressed, the morphology became more
mixed, causing a sudden fast fracture when
the crack reached a critical size, meaning the
rod could no longer carry the applied load.
The mechanical property testing results
were within proper specification values for
hardness, ultimate tensile strength, chemical
analysis, and microstructural analysis of the
hot-dip galvanized coating. However, after
conducting analysis with the Charpy V-notch
tests, it was found that the test result values
(13-18) were below expectations (25-35),
meaning the material had failed to reach
expected toughness and could be susceptible
to embrittlement. The Charpy V-notch test is
an impact test that determines the amount of
energy that can be absorbed by the material
during a fracture.
The conclusion of this study stated that the
cause of this failure was hydrogen embrit-
tlement combined with the applied load
exceeding the susceptibility of the rod mate-
rial. The steel rods complied with the proper
specification, A354BD, but the microstructure

Figure 4. Townsend test schematic.
was not uniform. The microstructure inhomo-
geneity resulted in low toughness and marginal
ductility, causing the rods to be susceptible to
hydrogen embrittlement.
Evaluation of the Selected
Fractured Rods
After the results of the initial analysis on the
A354BD rods had shown signs of hydrogen
embrittlement, the various parties responsible
for the bridge design were concerned about
the potential of hydrogen embrittlement in
other A354BD rods throughout the rest of the
bridge. Therefore, another study was initiated
to test rods throughout the bridge. A variety
of rods of different sizes, tension levels, and
locations were selected for detailed laboratory
testing to determine chemical composition,
hardness, and susceptibility to hydrogen
embrittlement. All mechanical property tests
showed that material properties were generally
uniform and within specification require-
ments. Another Charpy impact toughness
test was conducted which showed toughness
levels of the majority of the rods within the
normal ranges for the material. Only the tests
on the samples of the 2008 rods showed lower
toughness values.
After these tests resulted in normal read-
ings, the Townsend Test for Stress Corrosion
Cracking (SCC) was performed on the full-
diameter rods obtained from the various
groups of previously selected rods. In this
test, the tensile load was increased very slowly
(in steps) until a threshold load level was
established for the onset of cracking due to
hydrogen embrittlement (Figure 4). This slow
increase was essential because of the required
time it takes for diffusion in detecting the
STRUCTURE magazine
effects of hydrogen. To properly detect the
threshold load for hydrogen entering the steel
from the environment due to corrosion (envi-
ronmental hydrogen), the rods were loaded
up to 1.8 million pounds while immersed in
saltwater containing 3.5% sodium chloride.
The results of this test concluded:
The 2008 rods failed because of
hydrogen embrittlement at the same
load (0.70 Fu) that led to failure
on the bridge with similar fracture
characteristic. (This confirms the
Townsend Test duplicates the actual
performance of the rods.)
The fracture surface on the rods
showed where the initiation of
the crack occurred. As the cracks
progressed, the fractures changed from
intergranular to cleavage and finally
to ductile fractures that took place on
the opposite end of the initial cracks.
(These fractures were evident in all the
2008 bolts examined.)
After testing the remaining rods, it
was determined that all had threshold
loads greater than their design loads,
indicating they were not susceptible to
hydrogen embrittlement.
The next step was to determine if hydro-
gen was already present in the steel and if it
could have contributed to the low threshold
of the fractured rods. The Townsend test was
repeated in air, without exposure to salt water,
to make the determination. This test showed a
complete absence of hydrogen embrittlement
and resulted in the following:
Failure of the 2008 rods in the wet
Townsend Test occurred as a result of
environmentally induced hydrogen
embrittlement.
12 February 2017
The 2008 rods would not have failed if
they were protected from saltwater
Following the Townsend Test, the Raymond
test was conducted on two types of small
specimens cut from full-size rods. This test is
a slow, rising step-load laboratory bend that
allows for an examination to determine the
susceptibility to hydrogen embrittlement. The
results were consistent with the Townsend
Test and again proved the failure was a result
of hydrogen embrittlement based on their
exposed environment, not internal hydrogen.
The main results of the study were as follows:
the 2008 rods failed by hydrogen embrittle-
ment at the same load (0.70 Fu) that resulted
in failure on the bridge. The outcome pro-
vided independent confirmation of the result
obtained with full diameter rods.
Summary
In conclusion, there was no indication that
the galvanizing process contributed in any
way to the failure of the rods from 2008.
The low hydrogen embrittlement threshold
of the failed rods was likely due to fabrica-
tion methods and thermal treatment of the
rods. The results of this study indicate the Bay
Bridge rods installed in 2008 failed because of
environmentally induced hydrogen embrit-
tlement caused by tensioning above their
threshold while simultaneously immersed in
water. This created the perfect environment
to introduce hydrogen into the steel. There
was no evidence that hydrogen was present
in the steel before installation or tensioning,
nor that internal hydrogen contributed to the
A354BD rod failures. The Townsend Tests
performed on the A354BD rods confirmed
that, without the presence of water, the rods
would not have failed. All of the remaining
rods on the bridge were tested and proved
to have hydrogen embrittlement thresholds
higher than their pre-tensioned stress levels
and were concluded as safe. The remaining
rods were designed to have supplemental
corrosion protection measures that include
dehumidification, paint systems, or grout. All
of these measures will prevent corrosion and
the possibility of hydrogen embrittlement as
long as the galvanized coating remains intact.
Additionally, the development of specific
maintenance procedures for the corrosion
protection system can provide assurance
to the bridge owners and will be specified
in the Self-Anchoring Suspension (SAS)
Maintenance Manual.
The online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
 Brace
Better
Prepunched holes
for screw installation
when splicing is needed

Spacing slots
12", 16" and 24" o.c.

Specify the only bridging connectors on the market with load ratings
based on assembly testing. The new Simpson Strong-Tie SBR and

DBR spacer bracers have been tested as a system to help you mitigate
risk and maximize design confidence. The tabulated design values and
precision-engineered slots make it easier to provide a value-engineered
solution to your customers.

For load data and more information, visit strongtie.com/cfsbracer

DBR SBR or call (800) 999-5099.

2017 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SBRDBR16E

Structural
DeSign
design issues for
structural engineers
Fracture Case Studies
Part 3
By Paul W. McMullin, S.E., Ph.D.
Paul McMullin is a Founding
Partner at Ingenium Design
in Salt Lake City. He is an
Adjunct Professor and the
lead editor of the Architects
Guidebooks to Structures
series. Paul can be reached at
Paulm@ingeniumdesign.us.
T
he previous two STRUCTURE
magazine articles (General Principles
of Fatigue and Fracture, Part 1, August
2016 and AISC and Damage Tolerance
Approaches, Part 2, November 2016), reviewed
the fundamental principles of cracking and how
to design for fatigue and fracture. This article
presents three case studies that illustrate how an
engineer can use this guidance to address project
challenges. The intent of this article is to move from
the theoretical to the practical, and demonstrate
that there is a realistic place for the more developed
methodologies of fatigue and fracture mitigation.
Northridge Earthquake
The 1994 Northridge earthquake had a tremen-
dous impact on the American Institute of Steel
Constructions (AISC) steel code over the past 20
years. After the magnitude 6.7 (Mw) earthquake,
inspectors discovered 1,300 fractured moment
frame connections in 72 build-
ings. Naturally, this made
many people uncomfortable.
To address the fracture
issues, the SAC Steel Project
(www.sacsteel.org) studied
material behavior, connection geometry, and con-
struction practices to figure out what happened
and why it happened. Results of the project are
widely published and infused throughout current
AISC Seismic provisions.
One of the questions that came up during the
studies was the effect of the welding backup bar.
Field erectors preferred leaving them in place
because they take time and money to remove.
However, they create an inherent notch in the
joint. This section uses fracture mechanics to
study the impact that leaving the backing bar in
place has on joint behavior, and what happens
when it is fully fillet welded to the beam flange.
In the first condition, the backing bar is tack
welded to the column flange and fused to the beam
as the weld is deposited, illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 2. Tack welded stress intensity solution as a
function of crack depth.
14 February 2017
Figure 1. Beam to column flange weld in Pre-
Northridge moment connection.
Note how the backing bar and any lack of fusion
at the weld root creates a crack. Using fracture
mechanics, one can plot the stress intensity KI
as a function of crack depth and far-field stress,
shown in Figure 2. Using a fracture toughness of
50 MPa (m)1/2 a middle ground value most
of the stress intensities are greater for stresses in
the yield range (250 MPa to 350 MPa). Even
with twice the toughness, it still seems like a poor
choice to leave the backing bar in place.
What happens when a continuous fillet weld is
placed along the bar? Wont that take care of the
problem? There now exists an eccentric crack con-
dition. Looking at Figure 3, notice that about half
of the stress intensity values are higher than the
assumed toughness. There may be an argument to
allow this condition. However, considering the pos-
sibility of lower toughness, the certainty of constraint
near the web intersection, and the potential for the
crack to grow due to low-cycle fatigue, it also seems
imprudent to leave the backing bar in place.
In the end, a joint where the backing bar is removed,
with the weld root gouged out and rewelded, can
perform orders of magnitude better than one that
has a crack-like lack of fusion in it from the backing
bar. This conclusion is born out not only by the
analysis but also by a rational view of the problem.
Figure 3. Fully welded stress intensity solution as a
function of crack depth.
Figure 4. Assumed crack geometry in the tank wall.
Ammonia Tank
The question to answer, on a sizeable ammo-
nia tank, is what stress corrosion cracks need
to be repaired and which ones can be left
alone. When steel is in contact with ammo-
nia with very low oxygen content, cracks do
not grow. However, cracks do grow in tanks
when the ammonia is contaminated with
air. The tank in question had been out of
service for some time and had a number of
stress corrosion cracks. The owner wanted to
recommission the tank, and hence the project.
Utilizing API RP 579 Fitness for Service, the
engineers on the project created crack ratio
charts that let field crews know which cracks
needed repair. Cracks under a certain size for
a given aspect ratio, though detected, could
remain in place.
The effort began by mining Charpy tough-
ness data from material test reports. Using
the master curve approach, the engineer cor-
related Charpy values to fracture toughness
K1 values. The correlations are a function of
thickness and Charpy energy values. This
provided one side of the equation the other
being the stress intensity factor.
Utilizing this data, the engineer developed
stress intensity solutions based on the basic
crack geometry shown in Figure 4. These
are from solutions in API 579. Selecting a
crack length 2c, a crack depth a is calculated.
Doing this for numerous crack lengths, the
curves in Figure 5 and Figure 6 are generated.
Where the crack depth is greater than the
tank wall thickness (Figure 5), a leak-before-
break condition exists. This approach is good
because the tank will leak before rupturing.
However, for lower toughness material, like
in the weld or heat affected zone, a break-
before-leak condition existed (Figure 6 ).
This is of more concern, given the lack of
warning before catastrophic failure.
This analysis tells two things. In the base
metal, long, shallow cracks need to be
repaired, as a break-before-leak condition
exists for aspect ratios (a/2c) less than 0.5.
In the weld base metal, all cracks of a given
size need to be repaired. The engineer can
decide what crack size, for a given aspect
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 5. Critical crack size, a leak-before-break Figure 6. Critical crack size, a break-before-leak
condition in the tank wall. condition in the weld.
ratio, needs to be repaired by choosing an A key lesson to learn from the bridge crane
acceptable safety factor. is the importance of thorough inspection.
Finally, perhaps a third lesson: Not every The stress and fatigue analyses showed the
crack is a problem and needs to be repaired. bridge crane was in good shape. However,
reality showed a very different picture, one
that eventually saved lives.
Bridge Crane In the end, the principles of damage tolerance
The bridge crane in Figure 7 was one of the can be applied to traditional civil engineering
dozens in the area that were decommissioned structures in a way that provides clarity to the
over the years. It was about 100 years old and cracks they may contain. These are rooted in
had experienced somewhere between 5 to 10 fracture toughness testing, stress intensity
million fatigue cycles. The owner wanted to factor solutions, fatigue testing, life correla-
know if the structure was safe before investing tions, and non-destructive testing. These case
in a major electrical upgrade. studies show the approach in utilizing some
The study looked at the member forces, of these tools and the insight gained through
AISC fatigue requirements, and non-destruc- their application. Greater application of these
tive testing of the eyebars. tools to civil engineering structures would
The force analysis did not identify any prob- lead to increased safety of the structures for
lems. The model results matched the Maxwell which engineers are responsible.
diagram in the original drawings. The fatigue
analysis indicated stresses in most members
below the threshold values in AISC of 4.5
ksi. A few members towards the middle of
the truss had stresses near 10 ksi. They had
failed at one point, causing the truss to lose
over a foot of camber. Up to this point, noth-
ing was of major concern. However, enter
non-destructive testing (NDT).
Before any NDT testing occurred, ironwork-
ers stripped the paint of some key joints and Figure 7. Bridge crane with eyebar bottom chord
discovered cracks, visible to the naked eye, and diagonal members.
shown in Figure 8. The phased array ultra-
sonic and magnetic particle testing found
cracks inside and at the surface of a substantial
number of joints. The cracks ranged in size
from 1/8 to 2 inches long and 1/64 to 1/32
inches wide.
After lengthy discussions and a second
engineering opinion, the owner elected to
retire the truss creating a serious opera-
tional challenge to the site. Given the size
and extent of the cracks and difficulty in
repairing eyebars, it was truly the only ratio-
nal decision. Figure 8. Eyebar cracking.
15 February 2017

ConstruCtion
issues
discussion of construction
issues and techniques
What is a 10d Common
Nail? AGAIN
Part 2
By Williston L. Warren, IV, S.E.,
SECB
Williston L. Warren, IV is
Principal Structural Engineer,
SESOL, Inc., Newport Beach,
California. Treasurer of the
National Council of Structural
Engineering Associations (NCSEA),
Member of the NCSEA Code
Advisory Committee (CAC), Chair
of the CAC Evaluation Service
Committee, Past President of the
Structural Engineers Association
of California (SEAOC), Member
of the Applied Technology Council
(ATC) Board of Directors, Board
Representative on the Project
Review Panel for ATC 58-2,
ATC-110 and ATC-124.
H
ave you ever been in a discussion,
adversarial or entertaining, with a
non-engineer or even an engineer,
about what code requirements
exist for construction activities? For example, a
discussion about the generation of structural
calculations for an existing building where the
construction does not comply with the per-
mitted construction drawings and, in some
cases, with specific code requirements. The
justification usually includes the excuse that
structural engineers are commonly overly con-
servative and that the buildings described in the
construction documents exceed the minimum
requirements of the building code.
What follows is a review of what should be con-
sidered non-negotiable points.
The 2012 International Building Code (IBC),
in Section 101.3, states The purpose of this
code is to establish the minimum requirements to
provide a reasonable level of safety, public health,
and general welfare through
structural strength, means
of egress facilities, stability,
sanitation, adequate light
and ventilation, energy con-
servation, and safety to life
and property from fire and
other hazards attributed to the built environ-
ment and to provide a reasonable level of safety
to firefighters and emergency responders during
emergency operations.
IBC Section 101.2 states Scope. The provisions
of this code shall apply to the construction, altera-
tion, relocation, enlargement, replacement, repair,
equipment, use and occupancy, location, mainte-
nance, removal and demolition of every building
or structure or any appurtenances connected or
attached to such buildings or structures.
The administration chapter of the code also
describes what constitutes violations of the code,
that the power of the building official is that of
a law enforcement officer, and that the building
official is not liable for any injury resulting from
an omission in the construction when acting
in good faith and without malice. This liability
section states, The building official, member of
the board of appeals or employee charged with
the enforcement of this code, while acting for the
jurisdiction in good faith and without malice in
the discharge of the duties required by this code
or other pertinent law or ordinance, shall not
thereby be civilly or criminally rendered liable
personally and is hereby relieved from personal
liability for any damage accruing to persons or
property as a result of any act or by reason of an
act or omission in the discharge of official duties.
IBC Section 104.1, Powers and Duties of
Building Official, also states that The building
official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce
the provisions of this code. The building official
16 February 2017
shall have the authority to render interpretations
of this code and to adopt policies and procedures
in order to clarify the application of its provisions.
Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall
be in compliance with the intent and purpose of
this code. Such policies and procedures shall not
have the effect of waiving requirements specifically
provided for in this code.
IBC Section 107.3, Examination of Documents:
The building official shall examine or cause to
be examined the accompanying submittal docu-
ments and shall ascertain by such examination
whether the construction indicated and described
is in accordance with the requirements of this
code and other pertinent laws or ordinances.
Once the code is adopted by city, county, or state
ordinances or laws, the following apply to design
and construction of every building:
1) The code is the minimum standard for
building design and construction.
2) The most restrictive section of the
code governs.
3) Any construction omissions or defects are
not the building officials responsibility.
4) Inspections do not lessen the builders
responsibility for defects in construction.
5) The building official is responsible for
determining if the construction is in
accordance with the code.
6) Interpretations of the code must be
consistent with the intent and purpose
of the code.
7) The construction is required to comply
with the permitted drawings unless noted
by the building official.
There doesnt seem to be a lot of wiggle room in
these seven requirements. In the authors opinion,
this looks to be intentional in order to take con-
tractors creativeness out of the design documents
and construction process.
The engineering professionals that defend poor
and deficient construction regularly claim that
there is testing that shows This claim is
used to justify the construction based on these
test results, even knowing that these reports are
incomplete or inconclusive. For example, after the
1994 Northridge Earthquake, testing of timber-
framed buildings was performed by universities
across the country to examine not only component
performance but system behavior during cyclic
loadings. These investigations included the deter-
mination of the performance of stucco and drywall
covered framed walls subjected to cyclic loads and
cyclic testing, and force transfer behavior of anchor
bolted sill plates of shear panels. One finding for
the sill plate testing is that the behavior and capac-
ity for the sill plate configurations without nuts on
the anchor bolts are similar to tested configurations
with tightly installed anchor bolt nuts.
These findings are brought up regularly in
discussions of code requirements for anchor
bolt nuts and are used to justify a myriad learn-by-doing. The example of a nail attach- Other resources also define a 10d nail. In
of conditions that are not allowed by the ing two pieces of wood would appear to be a ASTM F-1667 Standard Specifications for
code. This justification dismisses the fact simple example because almost everyone has Driven Fasteners: Nails, Spikes, and Staples,
that when this issue has been brought up used a nail to connect two pieces of wood. Table 15 Type I, Style 10 Common Nails,
during the code development process, it was The previous article on this subject discussed steel wire, defines a 10d common nail as a
rejected, and the code still states that nuts the point of connecting wood structural length of 3 inches and a diameter of 0.148
on anchor rods are necessary. Perhaps what panels to framing to resist lateral loads with inches. Reviewing American Institute of
our profession needs is an extensive discus- a 10d common nail. The building code and Timber Construction Timber Construction
sion on construction tolerances and the code current AWC Special Design Provisions for Manual, Second Edition 1974, page 5-65,
provided minimum requirements. Wind and Seismic (SDPWS) clearly define Table 5.19 describes a 10d common nail
If you investigate two out of 10 shear walls, the length of a 10d common nail as 3 inches as having a length of 3 inches and a wire
and you find problems at those shear wall loca- long and the minimum penetration of that diameter of 0.148 inches.
tions, is that an indication of non-compliant 3-inch long nail. continued on next page
construction? If you specify concrete rein-
forcement spacing of 5 inches on center, is
6 inches on center acceptable? Remember,
all construction is required to be code com-
pliant, so it is hard to justify that anything
else is sufficient.
As a profession, we really do not under-
stand the effects construction tolerances
have on the engineering behind the draw-
ings. Our profession is continuing to strive
to understand material performance under
loadings in an attempt to economize and
provide for the safety of occupants, and
protect the investments made by build-
ing owners. We can question whether the
constructors of these buildings understand
that the engineering design of today is not
that of twenty years ago. The loadings are

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

better understood and now have less of
a confusion factor in them, especially
true for those infrequent but high demand
loadings such as lateral loads resulting from
ground motion and winds.
Another issue we should be concerned

SUPERIOR
with is whether a structural component
designed 25-plus years ago is going to
perform the same or in a similar fashion
compared to one designed today. Are we ENVIRONMENT
sure they would perform similarly based
on the advances in the understanding RAPID
THE
of expected loading conditions, mate-
rial behavior, and, in the case of timber,
LEGACY
INSTALLATION
the actual material changes over the past CUSTOM-DESIGNED
30 years? These differences would also ADVANTAGE FABRIC BUILDINGS
vary across the materials and loadings.
But, do the constructors understand the Fast Construction
differences in 25-plus-year-old designs Concept to Installation
versus current designs in construction or In-house Engineering
do they see them as the same? Is a rein-
forced concrete element designed using Patented Attachment System
the allowable stress method versus one Relocatable
designed using ultimate strength going
to perform the same?
The NCSEA Basic Education Committee
has identified timber engineering design 877.259.1528
as a subject not frequently available in a LegacyBuildingSolutions.com
significant number of universities and as
a result, in too many cases, practitioners

STRUCTURE magazine 17 February 2017

 OK, you are probably saying, Cant you
calculate this using the NDS? Sure you can
but with care. First, you need to consider
that the information in the shear wall tables is
a product of testing versus the results you get
from the calculations, and there is a difference.
What is the capacity of a given configura-
tion versus the specified configuration on the
permitted drawings? With many materials,
this is fairly direct for assemblies consisting of
various components, as with concrete where
the variables are considered in the analysis,
but what about that of an assembly that uses
table values out of the code? Frequently, this
discussion is about a wood structural panel
shear wall specified to have 10d common nails
spaced at 4 inches on center on the boundar-
ies and edges. This example was observed to
have 21/8-inch long by 0.148-inch diameter
nails with one boundary having an average
spacing of 3.2 inches on center of a 24-inch-
long distance, edge nailing condition of 4.3
inches on center, and yet another boundary
nailing found to be an average of 1.65 inches
on center. Also, the boundary nailing into
the pressure-treated sill plate is not corrosive
resistant, as required by the code.
So what is the capacity of this assembly?
This is one of the hundreds of thousands of
incorrectly constructed shear walls that have
not been tested because the code requires the
builder to comply with the requirement of
Section 107.4 which states: Amended con-
struction documents. Work shall be installed
in accordance with the approved construction
documents, and any changes made during
construction that are not in compliance with
the approved construction documents shall be
resubmitted for approval as an amended set
of construction documents. (Emphasis added
by author.) Is this why this section of the
code exists, to eliminate the re-engineering
of work (performed by licensed engineers) by
constructors that most likely lack the perspec-
tive, knowledge, and experience to understand
the situation?
The discussions do involve a lot of non-
technical individuals, but they have retained
structural engineering consultants. They make
a circular discussion due to the belief that nail
size choices are made in the field by adding the
sheathing thickness to the minimum penetra-
tion. There have been tests, by various sources,
performed on wood structural panel shear
walls subjected to cyclic lateral loads and it
was observed that withdrawal of the nail is a
significant response component. Moreover,
according to the codes, the withdrawal capac-
ity is a function of its length. Shorter nails
would have less withdrawal capacity to draw
on than the required length.
STRUCTURE magazine
So which is it? If you make a trip to the
building supplier and look at nails, you
find that nails, independent of diameter,
come in lengths of a quarter to eighth-of-
an-inch increments. Due to the number of
times we observe short nails just due to
the probability my suggestion is that any
engineer designing timber buildings with
wood structural panel shear walls to resist
lateral loads needs to check nail lengths
if 10d common nails are specified and, as
the current code does, clearly specify the
diameter and length of all fasteners. Now
consider a reinforced concrete example of
varying spacing of reinforcing bars. With
the current understanding of reinforced
concrete, analysis tools are available that
allow for such variation and determina-
tion of constructed capacities. Assemblies
such as timber sheathed shear walls do not
have these tools. Also remember that the
capacities in the code are a result of testing
specific configurations, and do not include
all combinations and permutations.
Another thought, and you may not like it
a new cottage industry of engineers, or per-
haps not engineers, has grown to review your
submittal and submit a report to the build-
ing owner or whoever paid you. That review
report could conclude that the original design
is overly conservative, requires the building
owner to spend more money to build than it
should, and you (the Engineer) should help
pay the difference because it was because of
you that there is a difference.
If it is acceptable to have the judicial process,
involving judges, juries, lawyers and other
experts, accept construction that does not
comply with 107.4, and the variation is sub-
ject to interpretation by those not educated
in the profession or by those who improperly
build, then why do building departments
require that a responsible licensed engineer-
ing professional remain responsible for that
design? Also, why do we then have to endure
plan review processes that vary in both quality
and depth? Why are so many of us volun-
teering time in code development, reviewing
proposals, and attending hearings?
So is the reasonable level of safety, public
health, and general welfare purpose of the
code so important? Many will say that this
is important to engineers and, yes, my dis-
cussion has been about items that are only
included just to make engineers happy,
correct? Moreover, yes, many of these com-
ponents are included in construction to allow
the building to resist loading it may never see
in its lifetime. Also, components designed to
resist gravity loads get tested often and they
are within the understanding of the builders
18 February 2017
because, if not, they fail when walked on.
However, the lateral force resisting system is
different and, unfortunately, can be a source
of savings for builders.
Most evening news programs include a
story about some natural loading conditions
on structures such as floods, tornadoes, and
occasionally earthquakes; many of us work
actively to reduce the loss of life aspects of
these loadings. With this confusion, it could
come down to one of the following:
1) The building code is a collection of
recommendations and happy wishes.
Adoption of the code by ordinance is
merely a pro forma measure. What nail
size to be used in all the construction
underway nationally is an individual
exercise in simple math performed
multiple times a day. Nail spacing
of shear wall panels does not need
to be as described by the drawings
whatever is provided is good enough
because the panels really will not ever
see the lateral loads for which they are
designed. Use of corrosion resistive
nails in pressure treated lumber is also
unnecessary because, even though the
code requires pressure treated lumber
on concrete slabs due to water, we
all know there really will not be any
water ever. And just so you can sleep
at night, remember, there is a ten-year
statute on construction litigation for
the project.
2) OR, is the building code the minimum
requirement for construction as it
states? And, when it notes that the
heads of nails shall be installed with
the crown of the nail flush with the
sheathing, it means it. Any other
requirement that accepts some
over-driven nails and some under-
driven would require an engineer be
observing with calipers to measure
each installation when they vary from
flush. As for nail lengths, that only
one length should be used for each
nail size, so the framer does not need
someone to oversee the minimum
penetration and sheathing thicknesses.
Moreover, that nail spacings be
installed as specified, not accepting just
what ends up in the field.
Is there a specific and uniform construction
standard, or is it non-standard or non-uni-
form? Which is it?
Part 1 of this series was published in the
July 2016 issue of STRUCTURE magazine.
Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.

InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques
and current industry issues
Infrastructure Check-In
By Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
Brian J. Leshko is a Vice President,
Principal Professional Associate
and the Infrastructure Inspection
Program and Practice Leader
with HDR, Inc. in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. He is an FHWA
National Certified Tunnel Inspector,
an FHWA-Certified Bridge
Inspection Team Leader, an NHI
Certified Instructor (teaching the
Tunnel Safety Inspection Course)
and a former SPRAT-Certified
Level I Rope Access Technician.
Brian recently completed 11 years
on the STRUCTURE magazine
Editorial Board.
O
ne of the most frequently used
buzz words in the media lately is
Infrastructure, a term used to repre-
sent many different things to many
different people. One definition of Infrastructure
is the basic physical and organizational structures
and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power
supplies) needed for the operation of a society or
enterprise. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/
definition/infrastructure)
The list in the sidebar is by no means exhaustive
but serves as a point of discussion. This article will
Infrastructure Elements
focus on just a few of these elements. For structural engineers, infrastructure can
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) include the following:
most recent Report Card for Americas Infrastructure, Bridges
issued in 2013, gives an overall grade of D+ across Highway
16 categories. Railroad
In the 1950s, structures and roadways were Transit
designed for a lifespan of 50 years. It is no wonder Tunnels
that 20% of the nations 900,000+ miles of inter- Highway
state and major roads are in need of resurfacing Railroad
or reconstruction, and 25% of Transit
the nations 600,000+ bridges Hydraulic Structures
are either structurally deficient Dams
or functionally obsolete. Spillways
Focusing solely on the countrys Boat Locks
highway bridges, one out of nine Weirs
is rated as structurally deficient and the average Culverts
age of the 607,380 bridges is 42 years. The Federal Pump Stations
Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that Wharves & Piers
$20.5 billion would need to be invested annu- Pipeline Structures
ally in eliminating the nations bridge backlog by Petroleum
2028, while only $12.8 billion is spent each year. Water
As far as roadways, 42% of Americas major urban Wastewater
highways remain congested. The FHWA estimates Storage Tanks
that $170 billion in capital investment would be Water
needed annually to improve conditions and per- Petroleum
formance, while only $91 billion is spent each year. Towers
Highway tunnels were not addressed in the ASCE Communication
Report Card or the National Bridge Inspection Transmission Power Lines
Standards (NBIS); however, the National Tunnel Wind Turbines
Inspection Standards (NTIS), effective as of August Buildings
13, 2015, established regulations for the unifor- High-Rise
mity of tunnel inspections similar to the NBIS for Stadiums
bridges. The initial inventory of highway tunnels Facades/Chimneys
resulted in a total of 473 tunnels identified by Convention Centers
owners across the country. These highway tunnels Coliseums
will have initial inspections performed in accor- Theaters
dance with the new NTIS regulations to determine Monuments
their baseline condition for future asset manage-
ment. In addition to the structural elements and For structural engineers, maintaining the nations
civil elements, many tunnels feature mechanical infrastructure presents a challenge in the face of
systems (i.e. ventilation), electrical systems (i.e. limited fiscal resources as well as vacillating priorities
lighting), life safety systems (i.e. fire detection and at the local, state, and federal levels of government.
protection), and additional components (signage, As such, asset maintenance programs are helping to
SCADA, etc.), which are now being inventoried inform asset management initiatives nationwide as
and inspected every 24 months. Stay tuned for owners and maintainers of infrastructure optimize
the FHWA report of findings that will follow the their limited resources. Repair and rehabilitation
uploading of data into the newly created National strategies appear to remain the major focus of fund-
Tunnel Inventory resulting from the completion of ing programs, with the occasional new design of
the initial tunnel inspections by August 13, 2017. replacement structures the exception to the rule.
20 February 2017
WHEN THERES A SOFT-STORY PROBLEM
THERES A FAST AND SIMPLE
HARDY FRAME SOLUTION.

When space is at a premium, the Hardy Frame Special

Moment Frame turn-key system offers more flexible
solutions for soft-story applications than any other
moment frame on the market. Its no wonder its the
preferred solution for soft-story retrofit projects in
San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Pre-assembled: no field welding
AISC 358 Pre-qualified
No lateral bracing at beam required
Code compliant
Custom designs available
Hardy Frame from MiTek, the retrofit experts. Contact
us today and learn how easy soft-story retrofit can be
at hardyframe.com/softstory or 800.754.3030.
BY

2017 MiTek, All Rights Reserved

Codes and W
hen done rationally, main-
taining and repairing existing
buildings represents an efficient

standards
updates and discussions
related to codes and standards
Current Code and Repair
of Damaged Buildings
Are Upgrades Required?
By Zeno Martin, P.E., S.E.,
Brian Tognetti, R.A., and
Howard Hill, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Zeno Martin is an Associate
Principal at Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. He
can be reached at
zmartin@wje.com.
Brian Tognetti is an Associate
Principal at Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc., Bingham Farms,
MI. He can be contacted at
btognetti@wje.com.
Howard Hill is a Senior Principal
at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates,
Inc., Northbrook, IL. He can be
reached at hhill@wje.com.
use of resources that should be
promoted. Also, reusing and repairing existing
construction becomes increasingly important as
sustainability becomes a higher priority (SEI 2013).
Model building codes change over time, with
hundreds of changes every few years. Given such
revisions, existing buildings would either require
frequent modifications or need to be treated dif-
ferently. Fortunately, lawful existing building
conditions are typically grandfathered, which
means they can be used without modification.
Various incidents such as fires, accidents, and
storms cause damage to buildings that often
requires repair to maintain conformance with
applicable requirements. When damage occurs,
the minimum required scope of work must be
determined in many cases. Can the building be
maintained as it was? What upgrades, if any, must
be added to the repairs?
Answers to these and simi-
lar questions can be found
within the code provisions
that govern repair of exist-
ing buildings. The intent of
code repair provisions can be
better appreciated by studying their evolution.
The 50% Rule & Upgrade
the Entire Building
The very first model codes in the U.S., the
Uniform Building Code (UBC 1927), Southern
Standard Building Code (SBC 1946), and Basic
Building Code of the Building Officials Conference
of America (BOCA 1950), contained specific pro-
visions applicable to existing buildings. These
stated what was required to be done depending
on the type of work performed (i.e., repair, altera-
tion, and change in use) and its cost. For repairs,
if the anticipated cost exceeded 50 percent of
the buildings value before the damage, then all
aspects of the entire building, not just portions
affected by damage, needed to be upgraded to
meet new construction requirements. Some of
these earlier codes included an additional 25 per-
cent repair cost threshold. When the anticipated
cost of repair was between 25 and 50 percent
of the buildings pre-damage value, then unaf-
fected portions of the building did not have to
be upgraded to meet new construction rules. If
the cost of the proposed work was less than 25
percent, then in-kind repair was typically allowed.
The three model codes maintained these cost-
of-repair based upgrade triggers until the late
1970s. At that time, these percent-rule upgrade
triggers were deemed an obstacle to the re-use of
existing buildings (Mattera, 2006) and so were
largely eliminated.
Upgrade Only What
Was Affected
After removal of the general percent-rule triggers,
and starting with the 1979 UBC, 1981 BOCA,
and 1982 SBC, the extent to which new construc-
tion provisions were triggered by repair work was
no longer dependent on cost. Instead, the intent
was to leave undamaged, unaffected elements
alone, and apply new construction rules only to
elements of the construction that were affected by
the damaging event. This upgrade only what was
affected philosophy was promulgated by each of
the model codes until they were consolidated into
the International Building Code (IBC) in 2000.
Current Code Repair with
No Upgrades?
Starting with the 2015 versions of IBC, matters
governing the repair of existing buildings are
addressed almost exclusively by the International
Existing Building Code (IEBC). The IEBC has
three optional approaches to repair, per Section
101.3: to provide flexibility to permit the use
of alternative approaches to achieve compliance
with minimum requirements The applicant is
required to select one of three compliance meth-
ods, which are termed: Prescriptive, Work Area,
and Performance.
However, not all alternatives may be available in
all circumstances. The Performance Compliance
Method is detailed in IEBC Chapter 14. It is
the most lenient compliance alternative in that
it merely requires repairs to be consistent with
pre-damaged construction. It contains no require-
ments associated with particular building code
provisions, regardless of the extent of the damage.
According to the associated commentary, it was
written in this fashion to accommodate treatment
of buildings that cannot be associated with any
particular code, and yet were considered suit-
able for occupancy and use before the subject
damage. This situation occurs when a building

22 February 2017
pre-dates the jurisdictions adoption of codes
and there is no documentation as to what
standards were used in its construction. The
Applicability section of Chapter 14 (1401.2)
provides a prior to date that defines what
structures can be evaluated using its provi-
sions. This section recommends that the date
in question coincide with the effective date of
building codes within the jurisdiction. There
is a recommendation that the Performance
Compliance Method only apply to buildings
constructed before there were any identifiable
code provisions being enforced. This makes
sense since buildings constructed after codes
were put into effect have defined provisions
as benchmarks, while buildings that pre-date
code enforcement typically do not.
In spite of the recommendation to limit
application of the Performance Compliance
Method to buildings that pre-date code
enforcement, some jurisdictions make it effec-
tive to a much broader category of buildings,
even all existing buildings. In such cases, it is
certainly appropriate to use the Performance
Compliance Method, which usually com-
prises the minimum requirements for repairs.
Consider the following excerpt from Chapter
14: An existing building or portion thereof
that does not comply with the requirements
of this code for new construction shall not
STEEL BUILDING SYSTEMS
MAKE THEIR GRAND ENTRANCE
ROOFING & FLOORING SYSTEMS | CEILING & CLADDING SYSTEMS | LONG-SPAN COMPOSITE SYSTEMS | STEEL & CONCRETE BRIDGE SYSTEMS
17-NMBS-2_structure-halfpage.indd 1
STRUCTURE magazine
be altered or repaired in such a manner that
results in the building being less safe or sani-
tary than such building is currently. [2015
IEBC, Section 1401.2.4]
The only stated requirement for a repair is
that the repaired condition be no less safe
or sanitary than it was before the damage
being addressed occurred. This is based on
the entirely rational premise that, as long as
the building was considered safe to use before
the damage, restoration to the pre-damage
state should be sufficient for continued use.
The Prescriptive and Work Area compli-
ance methods also allow like-kind repair of
damage, with certain exceptions. For exam-
ple, the Work Area Compliance Method, in
Section 601.2 states, The work shall not
make the building less conforming than it
was before the repair was undertaken. The
method then has separate sections outlin-
ing requirements for Building Elements
and Materials, Fire Protection, Means of
Egress, Accessibility, Structural, Electrical,
Mechanical, and Plumbing. With the excep-
tion of Building Elements and Materials,
Structural, Electrical and Plumbing, each
of these specific sections repeats the gen-
eral requirement that the repair shall not
make the building less conforming than it
was before the repair was undertaken. The
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
23 February 2017
Building Elements and Materials, Structural,
Electrical and Plumbing sections also indi-
cate when pre-damage conditions can be
recreated or when like materials can be uti-
lized, but also describe situations in which
repair to something other than the pre-
damage state is required.
Each of the IEBC compliance methods
has provisions that dangerous (2015 IEBC
Sections 401.3 and 606.1) or unsafe (2015
IEBC Section 1401.3.1) conditions be abated.
So if the damage was related to a hazardous
or unsafe condition, as defined in 2015 IEBC
Section 202, then in-kind repair that would
restore such a condition would clearly not
be allowed.
Substantial Structural Damage
Starting with the first IEBC (in 2003), the
concept of Substantial Structural Damage
(SSD) was introduced as a means for
defining when structural repair to some-
thing other than the pre-damage condition
might be required. In the 2015 IEBC, SSD
is defined in Section 202 and is used in the
repair provisions by both the Prescriptive
(Section 404) and Work Area (Section 606)
compliance methods. The SSD threshold
is used, in part, as follows: For damage
less than substantial structural damage, the
Optimize your building
design and construction
We are your nationwide resource for
the broadest range of custom-engineered
structural steel building systems. To reduce
total-project costs, bring us in early on
your project to evaluate and determine
the best solution for your application.
FREE whitepaper: www.newmill.com/systems
NASCC BOOTH # 7047
1/12/17 9:02 AM
 damaged elements shall be permitted to be
restored to their pre-damage condition.
(2015 IEBC, Section 606.2.1; and similar
in Section 404.4)
If damage greater than SSD has occurred,
then an evaluation is triggered. The outcome
of the assessment determines the required
scope of the structural-related repairs. If
the evaluation establishes compliance of
the pre-damage building with the associated
criteria, then repairs are allowed to restore
the building to its pre-damage state. If the
evaluation does not establish compliance of
the pre-damage building with the associ-
ated criteria, structural-related repairs to
something other than the pre-damage state
are usually, but not always, required. An
important aspect of the SSD provision is to
recognize that if such upgrades are necessary
as a result of the evaluation, the extent of
the upgrades are limited to the structural-
related work and do not alter the previously
discussed scope of the provisions within
the IEBC that address the other aspects of
the building (i.e., fire protection, means
of egress, etc.)
Flood Hazard Areas and
the Redacted Percent Rule
Although the historic general and wide-reach-
ing percent-rule cost thresholds are not in the
IEBC, a limited version is still present within
all three IEBC compliance methods when
addressing damage to buildings located in
identified flood hazard areas. When a build-
ing, damaged by any means, is located in what
Section 202 of the 2015 IEBC defines as a
flood hazard area, and the cost of restoring
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
it to the pre-damage state exceeds 50 per-
cent of the market value of the pre-damaged
building, then all aspects pertaining to flood
design for the building shall be brought
into compliance with requirements for new
construction. Similar to the limitations of
the SSD upgrades, eclipsing the 50 percent
threshold of the flood provisions does not
require other non-flood design aspects of the
building to be brought into compliance with
new construction provisions.
Too Much Damage to
Qualify as Repair?
Sometimes people reach the wrong conclu-
sion that replacing damaged materials is
not a repair but rather new construction
or an alteration, or that too much damage
has occurred to use the repair provisions.
This interpretation is incorrect because it is
contrary to the code provisions themselves.
The 2015 IBC and 2015 IEBC definition
of repair in their respective Section 202 is,
The reconstruction or renewal of any part
of an existing building for the purpose of its
maintenance or to correct damage. Repair
work then, by definition, reconstructs, renews
(i.e., restores), or otherwise maintains what
was previously there.
Within the 2015 IEBC, Section 502 states
that repairs include thereplacement of years (from 1927 to the late 1970s) when
damaged materials, elements, equipment or
fixtures... There is no limitation that cor-
recting damage (repair) pertains only to a
certain amount of damage. In fact, both
the Prescriptive and Work area compliance
methods contain provisions to repair buildings
24 February 2017
that have sustained substantial damage, such
as SSD. A description is offered by NCSEA
(2014) that is: essentially, if the work only
fixes what was previously there, then it is
classified [in building codes] as repair work.
Meeting Current Code
Meeting current code in the context of repair-
ing an existing building means to meet the code
provisions that control such work. Upgrades
to improve aspects of buildings beyond the
explicit requirements of the applicable code
provisions that apply to the repair of existing
buildings (e.g., the 2015 IEBC discussed above)
may be recommended, prudent, or a good
idea but are not required in order to repair
and maintain buildings. For excellent reasons,
the concept of grandfathering has been applied
to the repair of damaged buildings since the
inception of building code provisions dealing
with repair, and continues today. This prac-
tice is based on the reasonable and rational
notion that the victim of an unfortunate
event should not have to bear substantial costs
to provide a better structure than what would
have existed had the event not occurred.
The code provisions for repair of buildings
have evolved since their beginning almost
90 years ago. There are now fewer upgrades
required. For example, for approximately 50
repairs in excess of fifty (50) percent of the
pre-damage value of a building were made
to any building within any period of twelve
months, the entire building was then required
to be made to conform to all requirements
for new buildings. In the 2015 IEBC, repair
that does not make the building less con-
forming than it was before the damage
occurred, is, with few exceptions, allowed
for nearly all aspects. The significant
repair-related upgrade requirements are
now limited in the 2015 IEBC as follows:
A 50 percent repair cost threshold,
which only pertains to flood hazard
areas and only triggers upgrade for
flood design features.
If SSD occurs, at most, upgrades
are limited to specific structural
aspects.
This article summarizes an ASCE
published Technical Paper written by
the same authors (Martin et al., 2015).
Reprinted with permission from ASCE.
The online version of this article
contains detailed references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Power Beam | Power Joist | Power Preserved Glulam | Power Pine msr lumBer | 2400F Glulam

A DURABLE
SOLUTION.

POWER PRESERVED
GLULAM BEAMS
AND COLUMNS
s
strong, long lasting, cost-effective solutions
for decks, raised floor construction, coastal
boardwalks and pier/beam foundations
foundations.
Learn more. Request or download a brochure today.
1.800.221.2326 or www.anthonyforest.com

also offering: spf dimension lumber | syp dimension lumber | dfl | specialties
anthony forest products is now part of the canfor group of companies
 Lone Tree Bridge
By Scott Lomax, M.Eng, C.Eng, MICE
and Kelly Dunn, AIA, LEED AP BD+C

Bridge rendering by Fentress Architects.

P
edestrian bridges capture the imagination and have the potential
to transcend conventional design. There is a long history of
landmark bridges created by some of the industrys greatest
engineers and architects. However, the overarching aesthetic
demands an integrated approach. This article discusses the historical
context of signature pedestrian bridges and showcases the tools and
processes that facilitate an integrated design approach, using the
example of the Lone Tree Bridge in metro Denver, Colorado, designed
by Fentress Architects and Thornton Tomasetti.

Background/Historical Context
Throughout history, bridges have been seen as pivotal links in
infrastructure, the means for the consolidation or expansion of a
community, a testament to progress in terms of design and materials, Puente de la Mujer.
and above all, landmarks. The raw nature of these objects appeals to
a wide audience, and enormous civic pride is captured in the expres-
sion of a crossing. While there are many historic precedents such
as Pont des Arts in Paris or Venices Ponte dellAccademia, in more
recent times, there has been a significant increase in the design of
signature or landmark pedestrian bridges. Projects such as Gateshead
Millennium Bridge in the U.K., Langkawi Sky Bridge in Malaysia,
or the Puente de la Mujer in Argentina have raised the profile of
pedestrian bridges, and owners are aware of the impact such designs
may have on the urban fabric.
Aesthetic through expression of the structural behavior is not a
revolutionary concept. The work of artists such as Nervi, Candela,
Dieste, and Calatrava, among others, resonate through a deeply rooted
integration of architecture and structural engineering. Indeed, as
Candela once stated, Structural design possesses more art than it does
science. The attraction of the purity of bridge design has fascinated
many famous designers, and the most successful projects are a result
of an integrated approach combining architecture, engineering, and Context plan by Fentress Architects.
an appreciation of constructability.
basic requirement was to provide a 170-foot crossing over Lincoln
Avenue in Lone Tree, Colorado.
Approach A closer look showed the need to connect communities and provide an
The success of a project depends on clearly identified goals and essential link in a network of cycling trails. A more aspirational outlook
objectives, which is more difficult that it sounds. Each project has was to create a landmark that would represent the ambition of the city and
its unique circumstances and challenges that must be analyzed on be respectful of the amazing natural beauty and vistas of the nearby Rocky
a project-specific basis. It starts with basic requirements such as Mountains, yet be functional, practical, and within budget. Several con-
length of span, followed by clearance envelopes, a discussion of cepts were developed, and designs pushed, pulled, and tested. Sometimes
cost and schedule, and then on to intangibles such as an improved this led to minor tweaks, while other times to seismic shifts in the form.
quality of life and a catalyst for development. From the outset, the Some of the tools available, such as advanced computational modeling
challenge is a combination of practicalities, such as constructabil- (ACM) and 3D printing, were useful during the early stages. However,
ity or the contextual design of a signature component. The process the principal mode of communication was through hand sketching,
demands varying skill sets and experience, as well as integration preliminary hand calculations, and a mutual respect for the experience
between architect and engineer. For the Lone Tree Bridge, the most and insight that each team member brought to the table.

STRUCTURE magazine 26 February 2017


Overall massing model by Fentress Architects.
As the core form of the bridge an asymmetric cable stay began
to take shape, the analysis and sculpting advanced further. With an
efficiency of form founded in the basic layout, the design team focused
on the sensitivities of the cable and pylon geometry to create a balance
between structural efficiency and art form. Paying homage to the sym-
bolism of the client (the City of Lone Tree), the team refined the pylon
to an elementary leaf while retaining the structural integrity. The pylon
is essentially a three-dimensional lattice truss, constructed of industry
standard elements with a twist in the geometry to create a sculptural form.
As the form and vision were consolidated, a number of studies were
undertaken to investigate member and material options. The benefits
of a lightweight, slender yet stiff structure led to the selection of a steel
pylon and deck with a precast concrete walkway. The main legs of the
pylon are 24-inch-diameter and 18-inch-diameter for the front and
rear legs, respectively. The use of pipe section helped reduce the amount
of welding on the project, proved convenient for the intersection of
the nodes, and provided a softness to the pylon in keeping with the
aesthetic intent. A wall thickness of one-inch was selected to avoid
changing thickness, which would incur a splice, and to avoid local
stiffening or high stresses at the anchorage connections. This balance
of artistry, engineering efficiency, and practical construction was a
recurring theme throughout the design and design-assist process. Twin
backstays anchor the pylon and the forestay cables splay to support
the deck at 24-foot spacing. The 12-foot wide deck is connected to
the cables via outriggers that cantilever from the deck sufficiently to
ensure the cables do not conflict with the enclosed walkway. The deck
is defined by an in-plan truss created by longitudinal edge beams,
crossbeams, and diagonal bracing all using conventional rolled steel
members. The main span has an enclosure to protect users in severe
weather yet enables one to enjoy the open air and direct sunlight on
nice days via a stainless steel mesh on the sides and an ETFE roof. A
simple portal frame, supported on the main span deck, provides the
infrastructure for the enclosure.
As with many pedestrian bridges, the final sizing was a balancing
act between strength to carry the imposed loads, stiffness to yield
acceptable movements under use, economy through efficiency of
sections, type of member and detailing, and attention to the aesthetic
vision. The pylon is a signature component, and the member selection
and connections were honed with architectural input. The deck was
required to be slender for both aesthetics and to maintain the clearance
envelope without added depth, which would have a knock-on effect
of increasing the approach spans. However, the member types could
STRUCTURE magazine
be conventional, which helps the overall economy. The cables help
to yield a lightweight structure, but both redundancy and dynamic
behavior became key criteria in the design and were studied in detail.
The dynamic behavior, in particular, required time-history analysis
of user-induced vibrations to simulate occupancy and determine
acceleration levels.
Tools
To work fluidly and communicate effectively, the team used a number
of different software packages as the project advanced. From early
Sketch-up files through to Revit and then Tekla for the fabrication
process, the geometry was developed and shared among the team.
The team also developed parametric models to create multiple analy-
sis models and test global configurations to optimize the form. The
design team used software to import geometry files into analysis
models and then export from analysis models back to the geometry
files. This enabled direct communication between the architectural
and engineering team, and facilitated a smoother process. Tools and
ACM were an integral part of the process; however, it is important to
note that they did not drive the design intent. The design was con-
ceived, developed, and finalized through sketches, physical models,
and drawings. It was an artistic process rather than a mechanical one.
Process + Design Assist
The client made a decision to follow a design assist approach and
engage a contractor early in the project. Once the design concept
was consolidated by Fentress Architects and Thornton Tomasetti, and
vetted by the public via consultations, the next hurdle was to ensure
the vision was realized within the schedule and budget constraints. The
overall project cost was set at $6.8 million, with a design period of eight
months and a construction schedule of 12 months. By integrating the
contractor into the design process and using Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP) milestones, the client reduced cost and schedule risk.
For a long-span signature project, the design assist process was also
invaluable to develop and finalize the design with input from the
industry. Conventional project milestones of SD, DD and CD were
replaced with IGMP, GMP, and Mill Order. The design team worked
live and directly with the contractor/fabricator to develop options and
select details, and received immediate feedback on how they would
impact schedule and budget. The process helped control the quality
of the final product and reduced risk across the project. Design assist
is a loosely defined process and can be of enormous benefit if correctly
applied. Some key requirements include:
Engagement of the contractor at the correct stage of project
development. Balancing sufficient design development
to show feasibility, intent, and consolidation of principal
Architectural rendering by Fentress Architects.
27 February 2017
 Local FEM of the pylon base pin. Stress contour map.

requirements, yet allowing enough latitude for the
construction team to have influence.
Selection of the most appropriate construction partner. In
addition to cost and experience, the understanding and
willingness of the contractor to engage in design assist in
a collaborative manner is paramount. The contractor must
understand the design goals, and the entire team must be
committed to achieving the balance of cost, schedule, and quality.
Respect for the experience and skill set of the various parties.
Essentially, for design assist to be successful, the design and
construction teams must work toward common goals and
value input across the board. Clarity of the objectives and
challenges is key, followed by effective communication.
For Lone Tree Bridge, general contractor Hamon Construction
and steel fabricator King Fabrication joined Fentress Architects
and Thornton Tomasetti during Schematic Design. Their input,
knowledge, and expertise were fundamental to advancing the project.
A series of charrettes and workshops created a common understanding
of the issues, and open lines of communication facilitated the platform
to work through solutions. An example of this was the pylon base a
joint that was not only of huge engineering and architectural signifi-
cance but would also be influenced by the fabrication process and the
erection requirements. The use of a sculpted pin connection provided
a strong yet artistic architectural expression, and was in keeping with
the contractors preferred erection scheme whereby the pylon would
be assembled flat and rotated into position. The engineering team
worked closely with the fabricator and developed local finite element
models of connections to optimize the configuration and sizing.
Design assist is not necessarily the correct approach for every project;
however, in the case of Lone Tree Bridge, where an outstanding team
was assembled at the critical project milestones with experienced,
committed, and passionate individuals, it has been a success to date.

Summary
2016 Commercial
The most successful pedestrian bridge
Real Estate Award designs are often pure in their concept.
Portland Business Journal There is an elegance to their simplicity
and form that transcends conventional
Citation Award architecture and engineering. To deliver
AIA Portland 2016 Architecture Awards such a project requires an integrated
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

process starting at conception and con-

tinuing through the design development
and construction. It is essential that the
design is influenced by architectural,
engineering, and construction principles.
Lone Tree Bridge is a wonderful example
Seattle Long Beach
Tacoma Pasadena
of an educated client; a balanced, expe-
Lacey Irvine rienced and focused design team; the
Portland San Diego exchange of ideas and tools to commu-
Eugene Boise
nicate effectively between
Sacramento St. Louis
San Francisco Chicago parties; and integration of
Los Angeles New York constructability with the
design process.

KPFF is an
Equal Opportunity Scott Lomax, M.Eng, C.Eng, MICE, is
Employer.
a Principal with Thornton Tomasetti in
www.kpff.com New York, NY.
Kelly Dunn, AIA, LEED AP BD+C,
The Cosmopolitan Condominiums
Portland, OR
is an Associate Principal with Fentress
Architects in Denver, CO.

STRUCTURE magazine 28 February 2017

FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER COMPOSITE STRUCTURAL SHAPES & PLATE

FIBERGLASS...
THE STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE

RS
Y E ACorrosion Lightweight Transparent to High Strength- Low Electrical Maintenance
Resistant EMI & RFI to-Weight Ratio & Thermal Free
Conductivity

VISIT STRONGWELL.COM/STRUCTURE TO LEARN MORE

STRONGWELL PRODUCTS PROUDLY

B R AT
LE I

60
N
CE

56 16
YEARS ISO-9001 Quality Certified The World Leader in Pultrusion and Pultruded
U - IN -
P

LT
RUSI
O Manufacturing Plants FRP Structures & Shapes
276-645-8000 info@strongwell.com www.strongwell.com
Restoring New Havens
East Rock Road Bridge
By Thomas Strnad, P.E.
A
popular community destination in New Haven,
Connecticut, East Rock Park is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The 427-acre park, which
attracts visitors year-round for hiking, picnicking, bicy-
cling, boating, and cross-country skiing, features a number of
historic buildings, gardens, and structures that date to the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. Among these is the circa-1900 East Rock
Road Bridge, a steel arch bridge that crosses the Mill River on the
west side of the park.
The 84-foot-long, single-span bridge carries a two-lane roadway
with a 20-foot curb-to-curb width. The bridge is also used by many
hikers, runners, and bicyclists, and has two five-foot-wide sidewalks.
The superstructure consists of a steel grid deck with infill concrete sup-
ported on steel floor beams, columns, and deck arches. The arches are
part of the original construction; the remainder of the superstructure
was replaced during a rehabilitation project in 1984.
The original abutments and wingwalls are gravity-type walls with
brown, cut-stone masonry facing. These elements were modified during
the 1984 rehabilitation by adding a concrete cap to support the new
sidewalk and railing on the wingwalls. The east and west abutments are
supported on spread footings and timber pile foundations, respectively.
In 2007, the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT)
performed a routine biennial inspection of the East Rock Road Bridge
that led to ratings of serious for the bridge deck condition and poor
for the superstructure. Based on the states inspection, the City of New
Haven determined that the bridge required a major refurbishment.
Historical Research, Modern Analysis
The city selected the firm of Dewberry as the prime consultant to
perform an in-depth inspection and design of the bridge rehabilitation.
STRUCTURE magazine
The consulting team also included William Kenny Associates, LLC,
for Wetlands delineation, Martinez Couch & Associates, LLC, for
the site survey, and Archeological & Historical Services for archeo-
logical consulting.
City officials challenged Dewberrys engineers to develop a design that
complied with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), ConnDOT,
and AASHTO guidelines and specifications, and in particular the
AASHTO LFRD Bridge Design Manual with the HL-93 design
vehicle. This led to the final design capacity of 36 tons, as compared
to the previous weight limit restrictions of 17 tons and 24 tons for
trucks and tractor-trailers, respectively. In conjunction with these
design standards, the design was required to emphasize aesthetics
and incorporate historical elements into the process. The process
began with a review of the original, circa-1900 engineering plans
and an effort to supplement information missing from those plans.
Dewberry also inspected the bridge to document section losses and
current conditions. This required the use of a specialized tracked
vehicle to inspect the bridge from the riverbed, as the bridges weight
restrictions prohibited the use of an under-bridge inspection vehicle
located on the bridge deck.
Geotechnical investigations included excavating test pits in front of
the abutments, verifying existing foundation details, and performing
non-destructive testing on the original timber piles to assess their
condition and verify their adequacy for design scour events. The
excavations extended down to the bottom of footings to observe the
tops of the timber piles, which were still in excellent condition. The
testing enabled Dewberry to verify the capacity of the original founda-
tion and its ability to carry increased loads. The firm also performed
hydrologic, hydraulic, and scour analyses.
The design team obtained the required permits from city and state
regulatory agencies. Throughout the duration of the project, the
30 February 2017
The rehabilitation replicated the ornamental pedestrian rail system and added
decorative lighting.
city and the consulting team maintained a robust public outreach
program, including a project-specific website and three public
information meetings. An initial proposal to widen the roadway
by four feet to comply with current AASHTO standards met with
some concern from community members and the Connecticut
Commission on Culture and Tourism, which sought to maintain
the historic character of the bridge and limit speeding. Dewberry
successfully obtained an exception from FHWA to keep the exist-
ing roadway width.
Complex Issues
The $2.1 million rehabilitation of the East Rock Road Bridge
required that the superstructure be completely removed. ROTHA
Contracting Company, Inc., led the construction effort, aided by
several specialty contractors. The historic arches and the circa-
1984 columns were transported to Boston Bridge and Steel,
Inc., Massachusetts, where they were dismantled, blast cleaned,
repaired, strengthened, and painted. Southington Metal Fabricating
Company provided the rail fabrication and ADF Industries, Inc.,
served as the rail erector.
The strengthened bridge elements were then transported from Boston
back to the site, where they were erected in their original location. The
bridge construction was completed with the installation of new floor
beams and a steel grid deck partially filled with concrete, which was
selected to reduce loads on the arch while at the same time providing
a paved riding surface.
The project addressed several complex issues, including:
The existing arches were riveted I-section members consisting
of a web plate, flange angles and cover plates, with lower
steel material properties resulting in insufficient capacity
to meet current standards for legal loads. When the bridge
was disassembled, the arch pieces were sent to Boston
Bridge and Steel, where the contractor removed the rivets
and cover plates and installed thicker cover plates on the
top and bottom flanges to increase their capacity. The
contractor blast cleaned all of the pieces, removed lead paint,
repaired deteriorated steel, and painted each piece. The shop
fabricated the new floor beams to support the bridge deck
and shipped the pieces back to New Haven for reinstallation.
All of the original arch pins were replaced as part of the
reconstruction. Because the arch strengthening resulted
in a deeper section, ROTHA Contracting Company took
STRUCTURE magazine
Construction views showing erection of rehabilitated steel arches.
many careful measurements to determine the thickness of
shim plates required to install the floor beams at the proper
roadway elevations on top of the bridge.
Some fragile elements, such as the original arch cast iron
bearing assemblies, could not be re-used as they were
damaged during removal operations. These elements were
replaced in kind with new steel bearing assemblies. Also, after
blast cleaning, the team determined that the deterioration
in some steel members was significant. These discoveries
required quick action to develop repairs or new details to
accommodate these elements.
The design combined the ornamental pedestrian rail system,
containing lattice bars and rosettes, with a crash-tested bridge
rail system. This resulted in a safe and aesthetically pleasing
solution. The contractor also took many measurements and
installed shim plates to ensure that the railing posts were
installed vertically, and the railing was aligned properly.
Award-Winning Design
The rehabilitation of New Havens East Rock Road Bridge over the
Mill River, as the structure is formally known, reopened in 2015
and was well received by city officials and community members.
The bridge continues to contribute to the historic ambiance of East
Rock Park. In addition to the engineering solution that preserved the
ornamental rail system, the project incorporated decorative lighting
designed by city staff as well as new wayfinding signs, landscaping,
and brownstone masonry facing on the concrete surfaces of the new
lighting pedestals and bridge rail end walls.
The project was awarded a 2016 Engineering Excellence Award
from the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) of
Connecticut, in recognition of the engineering challenges addressed
during the rehabilitation as well as the care taken to maintain the
structures historic integrity. Identical plaques on either side of the
bridge credit the design and construction team, noting that the proj-
ect was undertaken to meet modern traffic loads and
return the bridge closer to its original splendor Care
was taken to respect the historical setting of East Rock
Park in the shadow of East Rock itself.
Thomas Strnad, P.E., is a Senior Bridge Engineer in the New
Haven, Connecticut, office of Dewberry.
31 February 2017
EnginEErs
notEbook
aids for the structural
engineers toolbox
Mechanical Bridging
of Axially Loaded
Cold-Formed Steel Studs
By Nabil A. Rahman, Ph.D., P.E.
Nabil A. Rahman is the Director
of Engineering and R&D for
The Steel Network, Inc. and
a Principal at FDR Engineers
in Durham, NC. He is the
current chairman of ASCE-SEI
Committee on Cold-Formed Steel
Members. He serves as a member
of the Committee on Specification
and Committee on Framing of the
American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI), and a member of ASCE
Committee on Disproportionate
Collapse. He can be reached at
nabil@steelnetwork.com.
T
his article provides a better under-
standing of the design requirements
and methods to laterally brace
(bridge) axially loaded cold-formed
steel stud walls. Cold-formed Steel (CFS) studs
provide a cost effective and extremely efficient
structural solution for the typical mid-rise build-
ing. In recent decades, CFS design has evolved
tremendously as the behavior and design con-
straints of the material continue to be better
defined through comprehensive research and
testing. As our understanding of the behavior
of CFS studs continues to evolve, the height of
a typical mid-rise CFS structure continues to
increase. Thus, it is more critical to the integrity
of the structure that these heavily loaded studs
be adequately braced.
Global buckling of an axially loaded stud can
occur in one of three modes: flexural buckling,
torsional buckling, or flexural-torsional buckling.
Bridging is used within the plane of the wall to
prevent global buckling and
specific performance require-
ments of the bridging must
be maintained.
The bridging methods
described herein represent
a mechanical bracing design
consistent with an all-steel
design approach. The all-
steel design approach indicates that the CFS studs
rely on bridging for stability and that bracing by
structural sheathing or gypsum wallboard is not
typically considered for axial load stability in
the design. One primary reason that CFS walls
in mid-rise buildings require an all-steel design
bridging approach is that the lower floors may
go unsheathed for weeks at a time during con-
struction. Also, for axially loaded walls, it is an
industry practice to disregard gypsum sheathing
as a structural brace because of durability issues
associated with possible water damage. It should
be noted that bridging requirements for studs
loaded laterally, perpendicular to the plane of the
wall, are not discussed herein. Brace forces for
studs with combined axial and lateral loading are
additive, and the designer is encouraged to refer
to The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
design guide, Cold-Formed Steel Framing Design
Guide (AISI D110-16) where a design example
showing the interaction check for combined load-
ing condition can be found.
Design Requirements
The design requirements for the bridging com-
ponents of axially loaded cold-formed steel studs
are described in the North American Specification
for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural
Members, AISI S100-12, Section D3.3, and
Section B3.1 of the North American Standard
32 February 2017
for Cold-Formed Steel Framing Wall Stud Design,
AISI S211-12.
AISI S100 Section D.3.3, Bracing of Axially
Loaded Compression Members, gives both
a strength and stiffness design approach. The
required strength of the brace to restrain lateral
translation at a brace point for an individual com-
pression member is given as:
Prb = 0.01Pra (Eq. D3.3-1)
The required brace stiffness for the ASD design
method is given as:
2[4 (2/n)]
rb = (Pra), = 2.0
Lb
(Eq. D3.3-2a)
While the required brace stiffness for LRFD and
LSD design methods is given as:
2[4 (2/n)] Pra
rb = ( ), = 0.75 (LRFD) or
Lb
0.70 (LSD)
(Eq. D3.3-2b)
where,
Prb = Required brace strength (brace force) to
brace a single compression member with
an axial load Pra
Pra = Required compressive axial strength
[compressive axial force] of individual
concentrically loaded compression
member to be braced
rb = Minimum required brace stiffness to
brace a single compression member
n = Number of equally spaced intermediate
brace locations
Lb = Distance between braces on individual
concentrically loaded compression
member to be braced,
AISI S211 Section B3.1, Intermediate Brace
Design, states that: For axially loaded members,
each intermediate brace shall be designed for 2%
of the design compression force in the member.
When using AISI S211 approach, there is no
explicit brace stiffness requirement compared
to the approach in AISI S100. As a result, AISI
S211 uses a more conservative strength require-
ment, 2%, compared to 1% in equation D3.3-1
in AISI S100.
Bridging Methods
Several bracing concepts are available to effec-
tively brace axially loaded CFS against both
flexural and torsional buckling modes. The
methods of bracing may be categorized into three
groups: tension systems, tension-compression
systems, and compression systems. Regardless
of the type of bracing used, the bridging must
be effectively continuous between anchorage
points. Where bridging is spliced, engineered
splice details are required to maintain the per-
formance requirements of the bridging along
the length of the entire wall.
Figure 1. Flat strap tension bridging system.
Tension System
In a tension system (Figure 1), the bridging
member is designed to resist the stud buckling
by means of pure tension. An example of a
pure tension system consists of flat straps
attached to both flanges of the stud with
blocking at intervals along the wall to pro-
vide resistance to the rotation tendency of
the studs within the wall. This type of bridg-
ing is advantageous in scenarios requiring a
significant number of mechanical and electri-
cal utilities within the wall plane. However,
installation requires access to both sides of the
wall, and the flat straps must be installed tight
enough to provide the required stiffness. The
flat straps are typically attached to each stud
flange with screws. The blocking is set at the
required intervals (typically first and last stud
spaces and at 8 to 12 feet on center) to resist
the rotation and is attached to the flat straps
on each side of the wall as shown in Figure 1.
Tension-Compression Systems
A bridging system having the capabil-
ity to resist the buckling of the stud in
either tension or compression is illus-
trated in Figure 2. An example of this
type of system is a cold-rolled channel
inserted through the punch-outs of the
studs with a clip attaching the bridging
member to each stud. The clip transfers
the load induced from the flexural and
torsional buckling of the stud into the
bridging line. A static analysis suggests
that the cold-rolled channel functions
in 50% compression and 50% tension
between anchorage points. This concept
is illustrated in a design example given in
CFSEI Tech Note W400-16. The typical
cold-rolled channel member used for a
load bearing stud wall application is a
150U50-54, 33 ksi section. The advantage
of this bridging method is that it requires
access to only one side of the stud wall
for installation. The disadvantage is that
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2. Cold-rolled channel tension-compression Figure 3. Continuous blocking compression
bridging system.
the stud punch-outs must align horizontally
for the channel to be inserted continuously
throughout the wall length.
Compression-Only System
A compression-only system is capable of
resisting stud flexural and torsional buck-
ling using compression only (Figure 3). The
compression system may offer higher brace
stiffness compared to the tension and the
tension-compression bridging systems.
Load and stiffness capacities of the three
bracing concepts can be achieved through
engineering calculations. Proprietary bridging
members offer the advantage that they have
also been tested.
Refer to Cold-Formed Steel Engineers
Institute TN W400-16, www.cfsei.org, for
a numerical example problem illustrating
the design of a bridging member. The design
example provides the detailed calculations for
bracing (bridging) and bridging anchorage of
axially loaded studs, and compares the AISI
Connect Steel to Steel without
Welding or Drilling
Full line of high-strength, corrosion-resistant fasteners
Ideal for secondary steel connections and in-plant equipment
Easy to install or adjust on site
Will not weaken existing steel or harm protective coatings
Guaranteed Safe Working Loads
BoxBolt for HSS blind FastFit universal kits
connections. ICC-ES for faster, easier steel
certified. connections.
For a catalog and pricing, call toll-free 1-888-724-2323
A K E E S A F E T Y C O M PA N Y
or visit www.LNAsolutions.com/BC-2
33 February 2017
bridging system.
S100 and AISI S211 bracing design alterna-
tives that are available to designers.
In Summation
To ensure the integrity of the structure,
the design engineer must fully understand
the behavior and bracing requirements of
a CFS load bearing stud. An integral part
of the bracing requirements is the bridging
required in the wall to prevent the ten-
dency of a cold-formed steel stud to buckle
about its weak axis under increasing load.
For the bridging to be effective, it must
be anchored periodically as the accumula-
tion of the bridging force approaches the
allowable capacity of the bridging method
used. The contents of this article have
offered an overview of the current code
requirements for the design of the common
framing methods of achieving the bracing
requirements. The reader is encouraged to
refer to the standards referenced above for
additional information.
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
 O F
C E
E N
E R
IF F
E D
T H

Software that
CONNECTS.
Design Data, and the implementation of SDS/2,
has bolstered Delta Structural Steel Services ability
to elevate the quality of product that we offer our clientele.
Prior to SDS/2, Delta was using another popular CAD program
of which we were becoming increasingly disappointed. Our initial
investment in SDS/2 began with two seats, and we have since grown
to 17. Because of their outstanding product development and impeccable
customer service, we feel Design Data has helped make Delta Structural Steel
Services the multi-million dollar business we are today.

Paul Hemenway CM-BIM

Estimating/Production Manager, Delta Structural Steel Services

1501 Old Cheney Rd., Lincoln, NE 68512 // 1-800-443-0782 // sds2.com

 significant structures of the past
Williamsburg Bridge
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M.ASCE, D.Eng., P.E., P.L.S.
T
he Williamsburg Bridge across
the East River in New York City
is now over 100 years old. After a
complete rehabilitation, it is still
considered by some the Ugly Duckling of
suspension bridges. In May 1883, the Brooklyn
Bridge opened over the East River between
New York City and Brooklyn. Even before the
Brooklyn Bridge opened, however, residents
of Williamsburg created an organization to
pressure politicians for a new bridge. No real
action resulted from this pressure. It was into
this period of inaction that Frederick Uhlman
and his associates from the Brooklyn Elevated
Railway moved in early 1892. They put
together a strong base of support in the legisla-
ture. On March 9, 1892, the East River Bridge
Company, a private corporation, received a
charter from the State of New York to build
two bridges to form a loop transit line con-
necting Brooklyn and Manhattan.
After the passage of the bill, the company
retained George B. Cornell in April 1892 as
its chief engineer. He planned a suspension
bridge, similar to the Brooklyn Bridge, with a
span of 1,620 feet and a width of 106 feet to
accommodate four tracks for passenger trains,
two driveways, and a promenade. The towers
would be 280 feet high with a clearance over
high water of 135 feet, the same as required
for the Brooklyn Bridge. Cornell proposed
that the towers be made of masonry to a
height of 180 feet above the water level and
that the remaining 100 feet be made of steel.
The company submitted plans for both
bridges to the Board of Alderman of Brooklyn
in early October, and they approved the plans
on November 22, 1892. The company also
went before a Board of Engineers represent-
ing the Secretary of War for approval. To the
surprise of many, the Board recommended a
clearance of 145 feet to the Secretary of War.
The company appealed this recommendation
and requested a hearing with the Secretary
of War. In mid-January, 1893, the Secretary
approved a clearance of 140 feet, but little
work was done for over a year.
Based on the slow progress made by Uhlman,
Brooklyn Mayor Charles Schieren pushed
for a bridge owned by the two Cities. He
told the New York Times, We propose to
build a bridge similar to the Brooklyn Bridge,
and one that will be a thing of beauty and a
STRUCTURE magazine
Historic structures
joy forever. I have not consulted Manhattan
Mayor Strong yet in regard to the matter, but
I think he will acquiesce in anything that is for
the benefit of the two cities. Mayor William
L. Strong went along and together they pre-
sented their proposal to the Legislature, who
approved it on May 27, 1895.
Commissioners were appointed and met
with the Mayors of both cities for the first
time on June 26, 1895. Their first problem
was selecting a Chief Engineer. From the mul-
titude of engineers available, eleven applied
including Leffert L. Buck, Virgil Bogue,
George Morison, William Burr, A. P. Boller
and others. The choice evidently came down
quickly to Leffert L. Buck, George Morison,
and Virgil Bogue. Buck (STRUCTURE mag-
azine, December 2010) was selected to design
what was to be the longest and most heavily
loaded suspension bridge in the world. His
decision was to concentrate on one bridge,
not the two bridges originally chartered.
On August 7, the commissioners and Buck
met with Uhlman and Cornell to discuss the
bridge. Uhlman indicated he did not see how
the engineers of the Commission could plan a
bridge that would not interfere with his com-
panys rights. For the rights of his company,
he wanted $200,000 which he eventually
got. On January 23, 1896, Buck submitted
his report recommending a six-track layout,
based on the original plans for four tracks,
two roadways, and a promenade. He decided
the best arrangement seems to be to place
the elevated tracks in the middle, and to have
two trolley tracks on each side of them. The
commissioners, after much discussion, unani-
mously resolved to construct a bridge, not
exceeding 118 feet in width, with six tracks
thereon, two for elevated railroad service and
four for the surface railroad service, with all
the necessary approaches and switches, and
terminals all tracks to be on the same level
at the centre of said bridge, and to build a
promenade for pedestrians over said tracks.
O. F. Nichols, Bucks Rensselaer classmate,
was appointed Bucks first assistant engineer.
On February 6, 1896, an engraving of Bucks
bridge was printed in the New York Times. The
article said that the main span would be 1,700
feet and it would be the Stiffest Suspension
Span in the World and the Longest. The
estimated cost of the bridge is $12,000,000
35 February 2017
Williamsburg Bridge.
$8,000,000 for the bridge proper and
$4,000,000 for the approaches.
Buck and the commissioners went back to
the War Department to obtain approval for
the 135-foot clearance granted the Brooklyn
Bridge, which was finally given on February
28. Buck concluded that a 1,600-foot con-
tinuous stiffened suspended structure was the
best and added, There is no more durable
bridge than a well-built suspension bridge,
and said there is no more enduring reputation
than that of the man who will sometime in
the future build one of large size as it should
be built. He described his bridge as follows:
The towers are of steel columns thoroughly
braced, eight columns to the tower on each
side of the river. The distribution of the
roadways and tracks were to be passed
through the tower, the tracks in the middle
portions or openings and the roadways to
pass through between the columns on that
side of the tower. This fixed the width of the
tower at the roadway. The cradling of cables
before mentioned and position of the trusses
fixed the position of the columns at the top
of the towers, as it was desirable to have
each pair of columns rest directly under the
saddles in which the cables were to rest. This
arrangement gave considerable batter to the
tower above the roadway in a transverse
direction. In the longitudinal direction,
the tower at the roadway had a width of
40 feet longitudinally, and at the top of
the tower about a width of 20 feet was
required; and the saddles are 19 feet long
and between centers of the columns at the
top longitudinally there is a distance of 15
feet, making a batter in that direction
On July 22, 1896, the plans were approved.
The caissons were to be sunk by the pneumatic
method. On top of the caisson, the masonry
would be placed. Unlike the Brooklyn Bridge,
the masonry only extended a short distance
above the river level. The anchorages were to
be approximately 150 feet by 180 feet in plan
and 75 feet high.
continued on next page
 In May 1897, the commissioners approved
a slightly revised plan. At that time, Buck
estimated that he could build the bridge for
$7,510,000 and, if all the contracts for the
bridge are completed in accordance with his
schedule, would open on January 1, 1900.
Contracts for the foundation, caissons, and
stonework of the two towers and the two
anchorages were let in 1897 for a sum of over
$2.4 million dollars. Work on the tower foun-
dations began in the late summer and early fall
of 1897. They were completed in September
1898. Work on the anchorages also started
in late 1897, with the Manhattan anchorage
completed in June 1898 and the Brooklyn
anchorage completed in December 1899.
In 1898, in a general election, the Greater
New York Act was passed that merged the
cities of New York, Brooklyn, Queens, the
East Bronx, and Staten Island. The commis-
sioners and Buck were of the opinion that this
change in governmental structure would have
no impact on the construction of the bridge.
They were wrong. The new Mayor, Robert A.
VanWyck, relieved the commissioners and
replaced them with an entirely new set of
commissioners on January 20, 1898. The
New York Times reported, Engineer Buck,
who was an engineer for the old commission,
will probably be retained. President Nixon
said that the new commission had every con-
fidence in Mr. Buck and that there was no
reason for a change. The cities did not always
make sufficient funding available but, in spite
of this and other delays, the tower piers and
anchorages went on without much delay.
The contract to spin the 18-inch diam-
eter cables and attach all the suspenders was
awarded to John A. Roebling Sons Company
on January 1, 1900, for the sum of $1,398,000.
Buck made many changes to what Washington
Roebling used at the Brooklyn Bridge on his
cables and suspenders. Instead of galvanizing
the wires, he took other steps to minimize
corrosion. His first step was to have the wire
soaked in hot linseed oil at the mill. After the
wire was spun into a strand consisting of 281
wires and banded, he had all the voids filled
with what he called a special anti-oxidation
filling. When the strands were all banded into
a single cable, he had the voids filled with the
same material. The next step was to attach the
suspender castings tightly to the cables every
20 feet. Instead of wrapping the cables with
wire as Roebling had done, Buck decided to
encase the wire in a 1/16-inch thick steel jacket
overlapped to prevent the penetration of water.
Contracts were let for the steel towers to
the New Jersey Steel and Iron Company
on February 21, 1899, in the amount of
$1,220,230. The Pennsylvania Steel Company
STRUCTURE magazine
won the contract for the suspended steel
structure and both approaches at a price
of $1,123,400. The project was primarily a
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute project with
Buck and Nichols as engineers, and John A.
Roebling & Sons with Washington Roebling
still active in the company along with his son
who was also a Rensselaer graduate. John
V. W. Reynders from the Pennsylvania Steel
Company was also a Rensselaer man.
The deck structure was much heavier than that
at the Brooklyn Bridge. The four cables were
placed at the ends of long, deep plate girders.
The cables started 34 feet apart at the end of the
anchorage, converging to 22 feet apart on top
of the towers. From there they converged to 4
feet apart at mid span. Wire spinning would
not begin until November 27, 1901. Once
commenced, however, the cable spinning was
carried to completion in only seven months,
the last wire laid on June 27, 1902.
Once again things were going well for Buck
and the bridge when, on January 1, 1902,
Seth Low became Mayor of New York. He, in
turn, appointed Gustav Lindenthal as Bridge
Commissioner with full authority for the bridges
planned and under construction in the city.
One of Lindenthals first actions was to reor-
ganize his office by appointing Mr. L. L. Buck
as chief engineer of the entire department, with
Mr. R. S. Buck as a principal assistant engineer
and chief engineer of the East River Bridges
No. 3 and 4 (Blackwells Island and Manhattan
Bridges)Mr. O. F. Nichols remains in charge
of the New East River Bridge with the rank of
principal assistant engineer... It became imme-
diately clear that Lindenthal and the Buck
group did not see eye to eye on the design of
large bridges, particularly the East River Bridge.
R. S. Buck resigned on May 1, 1902. Leffert
Buck, with the support of many New York
Engineers, vocally and in the press, challenged
Lindenthal, who threatened to fire him. On
May 3, 1902, Mayor Low, to clarify respon-
sibilities and resolve the fighting, issued the
following notice: The Bridge Commissioner
has appointed Mr. Leffert L. Buck consulting
engineer of the Williamsburg Bridge, at a salary
of $7,500. This is in accordance with an under-
standing mutually agreed upon in consultation
with the Mayor and Mr. Buck. The intention is
to assure to Mr. Buck the same relation to this
bridge, as its engineer, which he has occupied
from the beginning. Other than a reduction
in salary of $2,500, Buck was still in charge of
the bridge with Nichols as his assistant. O. F.
Nichols was fired by Lindenthal on July 1 for
his statements against Lindenthals change in
the design of the Manhattan Bridge.
One of the few problems of this period
occurred on November 10, 1902, when a
36 February 2017
workers shanty on top of the Manhattan tower
caught fire. Lindenthal appointed a commis-
sion consisting of L. L. Buck, George Morison,
and C. C. Schneider to report as to the extent
and manner in which repairs shall be made to
the steel wire cables and the other steelwork...
After testing the wires, they determined the
strength of the outside cable had been reduced
by only 2.5%. Since the wire as furnished was
12% stronger than specified, they determined
that the cables were still stronger than needed.
Bridge Opening
The opening of the bridge on December 19,
1903, was a great success featuring a large
parade in the afternoon. The New York Times
wrote, NEW BRIDGE IN A GLORY OF
FIRE; Wind-Up of Opening Ceremonies a
Brilliant Scene. BIG FLEET IN PARADE
Daylight Dedication Ceremonies and Night
Spectacle Witnessed by Immense Crowds
Enthusiasm on Both Sides of the River.
Buck would not ride with Lindenthal near
the head of the parade and instead rode in his
own carriage with his wife. When he got to the
spot where the ceremonies were to be held, he
and O. F. Nichols took a seat well away from
the speakers stand. It was now time for Mayor
Low to accept the bridge, but to whom would
he give credit for the design, Buck, Lindenthal,
Nichols or would he simply not mention the
designers at all? To the surprise of many, Low
was very complementary to Buck, mention-
ing his Civil War Experience and more. This
tribute to Buck surpassed that given to most
bridge engineers at or since that time.
The foot walks opened later, on April 24,
1904. It was estimated that over 25,000 people
crossed between 10:00 am and 3:00 pm on that
date. The first cars of the Metropolitan system
crossed the bridge on the last day of 1904.
Riding on that first car were many engineers
and dignitaries, including Chief Engineer and
Mrs. Lefferts Buck. The Bridge was named a
National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark
in 2009 and remained the longest span suspen-
sion bridge in the world for 21 years, until the
Bear Mountain Bridge across the Hudson River
opened in 1924 with a span of 1,631 feet.
Dr. Frank Griggs specializes in the
restoration of historic bridges, having
restored many 19 th Century cast and
wrought iron bridges. He was formerly
Director of Historic Bridge Programs for
Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP in
Albany, NY, and is now an Independent
Consulting Engineer. Dr. Griggs can be
reached at fgriggsjr@verizon.net.
 Qi t e!

Structural Software
Ea. Vrsa . Prouc .

Solve your next problem: iesweb.com/quick

(Whatever it is)

800.707.0816
info@iesweb.com
LegaL PersPectives
Understanding the Difference between
Indemnification and Insurance
By Gail S. Kelley, P.E., Esq.
I
ndemnification clauses in design
agreements are often considered to be
boilerplate something to be read
quickly (if at all) after the parties have
agreed on the scope of work and compen-
sation. However, if a claim arises from the
engineers services, an overly broad indemni-
fication clause can create an uninsurable and
potentially costly liability for the engineer.
The article Understanding Indemnification
Clauses published in the January 2017 issue
of STRUCTURE provided an overview of
indemnification clauses. This article takes a
closer look at indemnification clauses and
compares indemnification with insurance. In
many design agreements, the insurance and
indemnification obligations are in the same
section, which can create confusion. The
agreement may further confuse the issue by
requiring that the Indemnitees (the parties
being indemnified) be listed as additional
insureds on some of the engineers insurance
policies. While both insurance and indemni-
fication provide financial protection to the
covered individuals, it is important to under-
stand the difference between the obligations.
Additional Insureds
The insurance obligations in a design agree-
ment generally consist of the policies that the
engineer is required to carry and the limits
of each policy. The policies typically required
are Commercial General Liability (CGL);
Commercial Automobile Liability; Workers
Compensation / Employers Liability, and
Professional Liability Insurance (PLI). The
agreement may also state that various enti-
ties must be named as additional insureds
on certain policies. When an entity is an
additional insured on another partys insur-
ance policy, it is covered by the policy under
essentially the same terms as the Named
Insured (the party that the policy was issued
to), subject to any restrictions in the addi-
tional insured endorsement.
Often, an engineer will be required to name
its Client and the Clients lender (when the
Client is the Owner) as additional insureds
on its CGL policy. If a claim is filed against
the Additional Insured for injury or prop-
erty damage suffered by a third party, and
STRUCTURE magazine
discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers
the injury or property damage was caused,
at least in part, by the Named Insured, the
Additional Insured will be covered under the
policy, subject to the terms and limits of the
policy and any restrictions in the endorse-
ment. The Additional Insured is covered even
if the Additional Insureds negligence was
primarily responsible for the claim.
However, most claims against an engi-
neer will fall under its PLI, particularly if
the engineer is not providing construction
administration or doing work such as survey-
ing or condition assessments which require
the engineer to be on site. PLI policies do
not allow additional insureds to be added
to the policy; if the Client is performing
design work or other professional services
that could contribute to a negligence claim,
it needs to be covered under its own PLI
policy. Since the Client cannot file a claim
directly under the engineers PLI, most
design agreements require the engineer to
indemnify its Client against claims caused
by the engineers negligence.
Indemnification clauses are typically written
such that they apply to claims arising under
the engineers CGL insurance as well as its
PLI policy. This provides additional protec-
tion to a Client who has been named as an
additional insured on the engineers CGL
policy. For example, if the engineers employee
was injured while working on-site and filed
a claim alleging that the Client was partially
responsible, the Client could either file a claim
under the engineers CGL insurance or seek
indemnification from the engineer. However,
the indemnification obligation is completely
independent of the engineers insurance. In
particular, naming the Client as an additional
insured does not provide insurance against
the indemnification clause. The extent of the
protection provided to an additional insured
is determined by the wording of the additional
insured endorsement and the other terms of
the insurance policy, not the wording of the
indemnity clause.
The Indemnification
Obligation
The indemnification obligation is between
the engineer and its Client; if the engineer
38 February 2017
agrees to indemnify the Client for claims that
are not covered by insurance, the engineer
will be responsible for the claims itself. As an
example, PLI only covers claims to the extent
they are caused by the engineers negligence.
If the engineer agrees to indemnify the Client
for all claims arising from its services, it
could be liable for the entire claim, even if
the claim was partly caused by the Client or a
third-party. The portion of the claim that was
not caused by the engineers negligence would
not be covered by PLI. Likewise, PLI does
not cover defense of claims against indemni-
fied parties; an indemnification clause that
requires the engineer to defend claims arising
from its professional services can expose the
engineer to uninsurable risk.
An example of a well-written indemnifica-
tion clause is the one in AIA C401, Standard
Form of Agreement Between Architect and
Consultant, which is often used when the
structural engineer is providing its services
as a subconsultant to the Architect.
8.3 The Consultant shall indem-
nify and hold the Architect and the
Architects officers and employees harm-
less from and against damages, losses
and judgments arising from claims
by third parties, including reasonable
attorneys fees and expenses recoverable
under applicable law, but only to the
extent they are caused by the negligent
acts or omissions of the Consultant, its
employees and its consultants in the
performance of professional services
under this Agreement.
The indemnification clause in DBIA 540,
Standard Form of Agreement Between Design-
Builder and Consultant, can also be used as
a model; however, two changes are recom-
mended, as shown below. An agent can
be almost anyone with a connection to the
Owner; many risk management consultants
recommend not providing indemnification to
such an ill-defined universe of entities. Also,
attorneys fees should be explicitly limited to
those that are reasonable in terms of the claim.
10.2.1 Design Consultant, to the fullest
extent permitted by law, shall indem-
nify and hold harmless Owner, DB and
their officers, directors, and employees
from and against losses, and damages
including reasonable attorneys fees and
expenses, for bodily injury, sickness or
death, and property damage or destruc-
tion (other than to the Work itself ) to
the extent resulting from the negligent
acts or omissions of Design Consultant,
anyone employed directly or indirectly
by any of them or anyone for whose acts
any of them may be liable.
It should be noted that, unlike the indem-
nification clause in the AIA C401, under
the DBIA 540 the Indemnitee is entitled to
attorneys fees to the extent the claim resulted
from the engineers negligence, even if the fees
are not recoverable under state law. Under
the law in some states, a successful plaintiff
in a negligence action is entitled to recover its
attorneys fees, but this is not true in all states.
PLI generally will not cover attorneys fees
RFEM 5
Structural Analysis
& Design Software
Multi-Purpose Stadium
DOWNLOAD
in Uyo, Nigeria
www.form-TL.de
FREE TRIAL
www.dlubal.com
STRUCTURE magazine
unless they are recoverable under state law,
but many clients will not accept the limitation
that attorneys fees are only indemnified to
the extent recoverable under state law and will
require language similar to that of the DBIA
540. Depending on state law and the terms
of the engineers PLI, this language can result
in an uninsurable risk.
A Caution for Contracts
Governed by California Law
Under California law, an agreement to
indemnify a claim arising from a design
or construction project includes a duty to
defend, unless there is an explicit disclaimer.
If the project is in California or the parties
have agreed that the design agreement will be
governed by California law, the indemnifica-
tion clauses cited above should be qualified
by the addition of a sentence such as: The
obligation to indemnify shall not extend to the
defense of professional liability claims.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, indemnification clauses
are often extremely long and difficult to
understand. Nevertheless, the wording of
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Powerful, Intuitive & Easy
Nonlinear Finite
Element Analysis
JOIN US
February 21-22, 2017
SEAU 5th Annual Conference
Provo, UT
March 22-24, 2017
NASCC
San Antonio, TX
39 February 2017
the indemnification clause in every design
agreement should be examined closely to
determine whether the indemnification obli-
gations will be covered by insurance. If the
Client insists on wording that will result
in uninsurable risks, the engineer should
consider requiring that there be a limitation
on its liability.
Gail S. Kelley is a LEED AP as well
as a professional engineer and licensed
attorney in Maryland and the District
of Columbia. Her practice focuses
on reviewing and negotiating design
agreements for architects and engineers.
She is the author of Construction
Law: An Introduction for Engineers,
Architects, and Contractors, published
by Wiley & Sons. Ms. Kelley can be
reached at Gail. Kelley.Esq@gmail.com.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is
for educational purposes only and is not legal
advice. Readers should not act or refrain from
acting based on this article without seeking
appropriate legal or other professional advice
as to their particular circumstances.
BIM USA / International
Integration Standards
MGM Konstrukcje Inynierskie Novum Structures LLC
www.mgm-ki.pl www.novumstructures.com
Dlubal Software, Inc.
Philadelphia, PA
(267) 702-2815
info-us@dlubal.com
www.dlubal.com
 A1085 HSS
COMING SOON
TO A SERVICE CENTER NEAR YOU

Delivering the Industrys Strongest Support

At Atlas Tube, we make A1085 HSS every 30 days. Now were delivering to service center locations across
the countrystarting with the seismic zones of the western United States. Theres no reason
not to spec A1085 HSS, the industrys strongest support for your projects!

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE TIGHT 5070 KSI STANDARD CHARPY

IN SEISMIC APPLICATIONS TOLERANCES YIELD STRESS V-NOTCH TESTING

Learn more and request your free A1085 Pocket Reference Guide at
atlastube.com/soon
Bridge resource guide
CADRE Analytic
Phone: 425-392-4309
Email: j4@cadreanalytic.com
Web: www.cadreanalytic.com
Product: CADRE Pro 6.8
Description: Analysis application for modeling
and assessing bridges, towers, tanks, and other
structures. Load conditions include discrete, pressure,
hydrostatic, seismic, and dynamic response. Features
for displaying, plotting, and tabulating extreme load,
stresses, and displacement across the structure and
across multiple load cases simultaneously. Basic code
checking for steel, wood, and aluminum.
Dlubal Software, Inc.
Phone: 267-702-2815
Email: info-us@dlubal.com
Web: www.dlubal.com
Product: RFEM
Description: Capable of linear, non-linear, static and
dynamic analysis, RFEM is complete with moving load
generation, cable form-finding, parametric modeling,
and multi-material design considerations. The powerful
yet user friendly FEA software is seamless in the design
and analysis of pedestrian and highway cable-stayed,
suspension, arch, and beam bridge structures.
DYWIDAG
Systems International USA Inc.
Phone: 630-739-1100
Email: dsiamerica@dsiamerica.com
Web: www.dsiamerica.com
Product: DYNA Grip Stay Cable Systems, Link Anchor
Box System, Force Elasto-Magnetic Sensor System
Description: DYWIDAG Systems International USA
Inc. is a globally leading system supplier of innovative
technologies for Construction. Across the continents,
the DSI Group designs, develops, produces and supplies
high quality products and systems such as DYWIDAG
Post-Tensioning Systems, Stay Cable Systems,
Geotechnical Systems and Concrete Accessories.
MDX Software
Phone: 573-446-3221
Email: support@mdxsoftware.com
Web: www.mdxsoftware.com
Product: MDX Software
Description: MDX Software Curved & Straight Steel
Bridge Design & Rating is in use by many top design
firms and DOTs to design and rate steel girder bridges
for compliance with LRFD, LRFR, LFD, and ASD
AASHTO Specifications.
Pile Dynamics Inc.
Phone: 216-831-6131
Email: dfischer@pile.com
Web: www.pile.com/TIP
Product: Thermal Integrity Profiler (TIP)
Description: TIP evaluates the entire cross-section
and length of a drilled deep foundation, using heat
generated by cement curing, to assess concrete quality
inside and outside of the reinforcing cage, accelerating
construction timelines and revealing necking or bulges,
variations in shape of shaft, and cage alignment.
STRUCTURE magazine
Top Firms (Engineering & Construction), Suppliers,
Coatings, Software Developers/Vendors
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risa.com
Web: www.risa.com
Product: RISA-3D
Description: With RISA-3Ds versatile modeling
environment and intuitive graphic interface, model
any structure from bridges to buildings in minutes.
Get the most out of your model with advanced
features such as moving loads, dynamic analysis, and
over 40 design codes. Structural design has never
been so thorough or easy!
S-FRAME Software
Phone: 604-273-7737
Email: info@s-frame.com
Web: www.s-frame.com
Product: S-FRAME Analysis
Description: Model, analyze and design structures
regardless of geometric complexity, material type,
loading conditions, nonlinear effects, or design codes.
S-FRAME efficiently integrates concrete, foundation,
and steel design as well as BIM and DXF data sharing
links within a single work environment to ensure
maximum productivity.
Product: S-STEEL
Description: Design and detail steel structures with
S-STEEL, an S-FRAME integrated steel design
solution. Code-check and auto design for both
strength and serviceability to multiple design codes.
Supports composite beam design, staged construction,
and numerous optimization criteria and constraints.
Comprehensive design reports include equations,
clause references.
Simpson Strong-Tie
Phone: 800-925-5099
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: FX-70 Structural Pile Repair
and Protection System
Description: Many bridges are constructed with
steel pipe and H-piles that deteriorate over time.
The FX-70 system makes in-place repairs of piles
possible and practical. By eliminating the need to
dewater repair sites or take structures out of service,
FX-70 drastically reduces the overall cost of restoring
deteriorating or damaged structures.
Product: Composite Strengthening Systems (CSS)
Description: A wide range of fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) products for concrete and masonry, including
code-listed fabrics providing some of the highest
design values on the market, and North Americas only
code-listed precured laminate. Contact us to help you
design a customized solution for your next structural
reinforcement project.
All Resource Guide forms for the 2017
Editorial Calendar are now available on the
website, www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Listings
are provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE magazine
is not responsible for errors.
41 February 2017
Strand7 Pty Ltd
Phone: 252-504-2282
Email: info@strand7.com
Web: www.strand7.com
Product: Strand7
Description: An advanced, general purpose, FEA
system used worldwide by engineers, designers,
and analysts for a wide range of structural
analysis applications. It comprises preprocessing,
solvers (linear and nonlinear static and dynamic
capabilities) and postprocessing. Features include
staged construction, a Moving Load module
and quasi-static solver for shrinkage and creep/
relaxation problems.
Stronghold Coatings
Phone: 937-746-7632
Email: strongholdone@cs.com
Web: www.StrongholdOne.com
Product: Dichtol
Description: A polymeric capillary sealer that
impregnates micropores and hairline cracks forming
a protective barrier against gasses and liquids.
It penetrates deeply into the coating to prevent
corrosion of the metal substrate. Easily applied and
cures at ambient temperature.
StructurePoint
Phone: 847-966-4357
Email: info@StructurePoint.org
Web: www.structurepoint.org
Product: Reinforced Concrete Design Software
Description: spColumn is used for design of
shear walls, bridge piers as well as typical framing
elements in buildings and structures. spMats is used
for analysis, design and investigation of commercial
building foundations, and industrial mats and slabs
on grade.
Trimble
Phone: 770-426-5105
Email: kristine.plemmons@trimble.com
Web: www.tekla.com
Product: Tekla Structures
Description: Increase productivity through higher
automation of fabrication and 4D project management.
Extensive range of steel profiles including elliptical and
tubular, and individual connection details with welds
and bolts. Drawings and reports can be automatically
generated from the constructible 3D model.
Wheeler Bridge
Phone: 952-929-7854
Email: jhoak@wheeler1892.com
Web: www.wheeler1892.com
Product: Prefabricated Bridges + Bridge Kits
Description: Utilizing steel and timber construction,
Wheeler manufactures vehicle and recreation bridges
of enduring beauty and durability. Knowledgeable
project advice, quality products and attention to
customer service.
 Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

STRUCTURES
CONGRESS 2017
Denver, Colorado | April 68, 2017
www.structurescongress.org
CASE
Spring Risk SAVE MONEY
REGISTER BY
Management
Convocation FEBRUARY 15

ADVANCE YOUR CAREER BY ATTENDING

STRUCTURES CONGRESS 2017
REASONS TO ATTEND:
Learn from the experts
Business Practice
CASE Risk Management
ASCE 7-16 and much, much more...
Network with Colleges
Earn up to 17.5 PDHs

REMEMBER to purchase your

ticket for the Special Evening
Reception Celebrating the
Future of SE, hosted by CSI on
Friday, April 7th, 6:3011:00
pm at the Denver Art Museum.
17.5

For exhibit and sponsorship information,

please contact Sean Scully at sscully@asce.org.

Pterodactyl, Culver City, California
By Hooman Nastarin, P.E.
NAST Enterprises Corp. was an Outstanding Award Winner for its Pterodactyl
project in the 2016 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering
Awards Program in the Category New Buildings under $10M.
T
he Pterodactyl is a uniquely
engineered office building, con-
ceived for an advertising agency,
constructed above a previously
designed four-story parking garage structure
in Culver City, Los Angeles. The Pterodactyl is
formed by the intersection of nine rectangular
boxes stacked on top or adjacent to each other,
connected by interior second-floor bridges,
and supported on the steel column grids
extended from the parking structure. The
Pterodactyl and the parking structure are both
made of structural steel members, strategically
positioned to satisfy demanding architectural
design as well as mechanical, plumbing, and
structural requirements. During the design
development, Mr. Nastarin and his colleagues
determined that only Structural Steel offered
the flexibility and strength to both support
and accommodate the slick profiles of the vis-
ible shell. The entirely open, main floor, with
full height glass enclosures, provides uninter-
rupted views of the surrounding cities. The
picturesque windows at the upper floor care-
fully highlight expansive scenic views to the
east, north, and west. The south facing walls,
however, are constructed with metal studs
covered with fire-retardant, treaded plywood
to receive Rheinzink panels. The partial mez-
zanine level and interconnecting bridges are
made of composite steel beams with concrete
filled metal deck, complementing the orienta-
tion of the boxes and rigorously following the
award-winning architectural design of Eric
Owen Moss. Through countless work study
sessions, the feasibility and constructability of
each element were carefully examined, while
realizing numerous architectural features in
each box.
Challenges
Placing a profoundly irregular Pterodactyl
over a pre-existing building presented several
structural challenges. The structural design
team at Nast Enterprises was limited by the
size and orientation of the parking garages
existing wide flange columns. Through close
collaboration with the architectural team, each
STRUCTURE magazine
award winners and outstanding projects
box was strategically reinforced
internally or was intercon-
nected to others to redirect
the loads to stronger columns. On the other
hand, the differential rigidities of each box,
in conjunction with their inter-connecting
mezzanine space, had to be fully optimized
to allow for utility and mechanical spaces.
The boxes were initially designed individu-
ally, using conservative stiffness assumptions.
Then the boxes were brought together and
reevaluated as a whole for compatibility. The
office building is laterally flexible in contrast
with the very rigid parking building and the
concrete block elevator shaft. Various slip
connections and separation joints are installed
to control inter-level movements, especially
at the three access stairs unevenly stretching
down to the top of the parking structure.
Another unique feature of the office building
is the open balconies and the executive offices,
extending beyond the west face of the garage,
over and beyond the access ramps. The design
of the structural system at each projection,
against numerous degrees of freedom, was
particularly challenging. This was due to the
asymmetrical shape, location, and stiffness
of the supports, conforming to ramp clear-
ances, styling of the building envelope, and
the location of the windows.
The System
The initial task of supporting the blended
yet individual boxes, which comprise the
Pterodactyl, on eighteen (18) existing col-
umns was achieved by utilizing more than
thirty (30) distinctive Ring like steel frames
to carry the Primary and Secondary mem- has presented Lectures at SCI-Arc, UCLA and
bers, elegantly showcased within the interior
design. The shape and interaction of the steel
frames allowed for much of the needed flex-
ibility to resolve the most challenging aspect
of this building. The columns sizes and ori-
entation were based on the demands of the
parking building. The Pterodactyls distinctive
modular design did not particularly align with
the support points. An intricate stiffness shar-
ing system of rings connected via main and
43 February 2017
Spotlight
Courtesy of Tom Bonner
secondary structural members was utilized
to further normalize the loads away from the
weaker columns and to help control the vibra-
tion and deflection of the boxes. Within the
overhangs, continuous cantilevered members
placed at corners and in the floor slabs pro-
vided support for the steel Rings at the far
end of the overhangs, which also functioned as
stabilizers. The functionality of the secondary
members was tested in various load patterns
against gravity as well as lateral, rotational,
and racking movement.
Constructability
Aggressive value engineering and coordination
studies were performed on numerous elements
to reduce the weight of material, evaluate the
visual aspect of the connections, and reconcile
the sculptural demand and financial feasibil-
ity of the entire project. The intricacy of the
projects design demanded close coordination
and interaction of the design teams from initial
concept through detailing, to shop drawing
production and implementation. NAST
Enterprises worked very closely with the teams
at Eric Owen Moss Architects, as well as with
Samitaur Constructs (the developer), to make
this building possible. The primary structural
engineering, and architectural and fabrication,
software used for the Pterodactyl were RISA-3D,
Auto Cad, and Digital Project. The engineers
at Nast Enterprises developed apps to maintain
efficient bidirectional communication between
the structural and architectural models. The firm
Woodbury University schools of architecture on
methodologies used for design and implementa-
tion of the Pterodactyl.
Hooman Nastarin is the President of
NAST Enterprises Corp. Consulting
Structural Engineering Services in Los
Angeles, California. He can be reached at
Hooman@nastenterprises.com.
 GINEERS
EN

ASS
SEA Update
RAL

OCIATI
STRUCTU

O NS

Florida Takes Their Conference on the Road

NATIONAL COUNCI L

Sara Guthrie, FSEA Executive Director

News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

In an effort to reach more of our members, the Florida Structural Engineers Association began hosting a traveling statewide
seminar. In just a few short years, this annual meeting has become the main fundraiser for the organization. This seminar travels
to three different locations within the state: South Florida, Central Florida, and Northeast Florida. Hosting daily seminars in
three locations ensures that our members do not have to travel a long distance to connect with other members of the organization.
The process of securing adequate education for the three-day event starts early. FSEAs Continuing Education Chairman, Carlos
Sanz, with the assistance of Roberto Hernandez, past Southern Florida Chapter President, begins the search for the right seminar
at the beginning of the year. Seminars with topics like significant changes to ASCE 7-16, AISC, masonry, steel, or changes to
the Florida Building Code are all presentations that our association is interested in attending and have been well received in the
past. It is important that our attendees value these seminars so every seminar provides them with PDH credit.
FSEA works hard to accommodate each attendee, speaker, and sponsor.
Because the seminars are given on three consecutive days, our chapter
officers are busy organizing (or even providing) travel for speakers
or sponsors to the next location, assisting with setup/tear down, and
confirming food orders, guaranteeing everything runs smoothly.
Marketing for the annual seminar starts several months before the
event. We typically start by sending out Save the Date flyers to all of
our members. Later, after all the logistics have been worked out, we send
out another mailing with the specifics for each location, general cost of
attendance, time to allot for the seminar, etc. We have found success with
our mailings, as the annual seminar is still widely received.
Each year we recruit several sponsors to take part in the event. Our
attendees benefit by widening their horizons in terms of products or
services, but our sponsors also gain a great deal by participating. For their efforts, the sponsors are given the opportunity to
present to our attendees at any given seminar; sponsors can choose to support one, two, or three days of our seminar.
Along with the NCSEA mission, it is important that we strengthen the member organization by growing our membership. In
trying to do this, we provide non-members the opportunity to join FSEA, at a discounted rate, by signing up for the seminar.
This effort has shown great success, as we receive approximately 20 new members a year with this promotion.
Since we started this traveling seminar, our gross revenues have increased by 283%. Our members look forward to this seminar
every year. Our speakers do not mind the traveling. We have a good turnout with sponsors. We will continue to do our yearly
statewide seminar, as it has proved to be a win-win situation for all.

SE Exam Review Course

Prepare for the Structural Engineering Exam
NCSEA News

Designed by NCSEA and leading structural

engineers, this targeted course will help you
advance on exam day. NCSEA SE Review Course Dates
Single Course Both Courses Vertical: March 4 5, 2017
NCSEA Member: $500 $800 Lateral: March 18 19, 2017
Nonmember: $600 $1000 Registration for these live online courses include:
Over 30 hours of seminars led by notable experts
Group pricing available by calling Updates to important codes and references
312-469-4600 Recommended publication guide
Recordings available 24/7 after the course
Register online at www.ncsea.com

STRUCTURE magazine 44 February 2017

 NCSEA News
Call for Abstracts
Join Fellow Experts
The 2017 NCSEA Structural Engineering Summit Committee
is seeking 75 minute presentations that deliver pertinent
and useful information that the attendees can apply in their
structural engineering practices. Submissions on best-design SAVE THE DATE
practices, new codes and standards, recent projects, advanced
analysis techniques and other topics that would be of interest to
practicing structural engineers are desired. The 2017 Summit
October 11th 14th, 2017
will feature education specific to the practicing structural Washington, D.C.
engineer, in both technical and non-technical tracks. All
sessions will include time for a Q & A. The cant-miss event for
To submit an abstract, please fill out the form located on
www.ncsea.com.
the practicing structural
Call for Volunteers
engineer.
Join an NCSEA Committee 3 jam-packed days of educational
NCSEA Member Organization members may apply for NCSEA
committee positions throughout the year using the Volunteer & networking opportunities:
Application on ncsea.com. Once submitted, the application
Learn from experts

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

will be reviewed to ensure NCSEA Member Organization
membership and then forwarded to the committee chair(s) Connect with fellow practicing
for review. engineers from across the U.S.
Currently, the following committees have openings for new
members: Visit with providers of the
Basic Education Committee: Corresponding Members newest in technology and
Communications Committee services at our bustling
Continuing Education Committee: All volunteers, with tradeshow
emphasis on Young Member Group representatives.
Structural Engineer Emergency Response (SEER)
Committee: Qualified Members from the North
Midwest, Northwest and Southwest U.S.
Young Members Support Group Committee
Even if the committee you want to join doesnt show an opening,
we suggest you still apply as committee needs regularly change.
Most committees admit new members on a rolling basis while
others add members only once per year.
The application can be found on www.ncsea.com/committees
March 16, 2017
NCSEA Webinars Draining Low-Sloped Roof Structures Rain Issues for the
February 21, 2017 Structural Engineer
Designing for Hot-Dip Galvanizing Provisions in the current ASCE 7 as well as other applicable design
With new, and innovative designs now specifying batch hot-dip codes can cause the design professional to bear unnecessary risks
galvanizing, it is important for architects, engineers, fabricators, to denied roofing warranty claims and roof collapses. This webinar
detailers, and other designers to understand the best design practices. will illustrate several case studies of rain-induced collapses, and the
This webinar will assist you in the design and integration of batch hot- perceived responsibility of the Structural Engineer.
dip galvanizing for corrosion protection in your next project. John Lawson, S.E.
Alana Hochstein April 4, 2017
March 9, 2017 Special Inspections for Masonry
Updated Concrete Repair Code and Companion Guide This presentation will provide an insight on the new requirements for
In 2013, ACI published the Code Requirements for Evaluation, field and lab testing technicians, and the expected improvement in
Repair, and Rehabilitation of Concrete Buildings and Commentary masonry quality control as a result of the new requirements.
as a standard for the repair of existing concrete structures. This John Chrysler, P.E.
presentation will provide an overview of the code including More detailed information on the webinars and a registration link can be
a discussion of the significant changes in ACI 562-16. There found at www.ncsea.com.Subscriptions that include both live and recorded GINEERS
EN
webinars are available for NCSEA members! A library of over 150 Recorded
will be an emphasis on the updated version of the guide which Webinars is now available online 24/7/365. Webinars provide 1.5 hours of
ASS

includes enhanced project examples based on ACI 562-16.

RAL

continuing education, approved for CE credit in all 50 states.

OCIATI
STRUCTU

Jay Paul, S.E., FACI

O NS

NATIONAL COUNCI L

STRUCTURE magazine 45 February 2017

 The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Registration Now Open
The Premiere Event for Structural Engineering
Come for the innovative solutions and cutting-edge knowledge,
leave with connections and resources to advance your career.
Register before February 15, 2017, to receive the best rates.
Be inspired by the extraordinary keynote speakers, network
with your colleagues, and earn PDHs.
Celebrate the Future of Structural Engineering at the
Special Friday Night Reception
Join us for a celebration of the future of structural engineer-
ing at the Denver Art Museum. Ashraf Habibullah, president
and CEO of Computers & Structures, Inc., will host a special
dinner reception on Friday, April 7, in conjunction with the
Structures Congress 2017. Join Ashraf for an evening of fun,
inspiration and fabulous prizes.
You will need to purchase a ticket to attend, with 100% of
ticket sales benefiting the SEI Futures Fund. Ticket includes
endlessly flowing champagne, live entertainment, full dinner,
hosted bar, and amazing raffle prizes. Regular tickets are $30,
Student tickets are $10, and will be available through March
31, 2017.
Structural Columns
ASCE Week Orlando Florida
Earn up to 42 PDHs in one week
Dont miss ASCE Week, March 26 31, 2017, at the Wyndham
Grand Orlando Resort Bonnet Creek. ASCE Week offers
ASCEs most popular face-to-face seminars in one location.
Structural seminars include Designing Nonbuilding Structures
Using ASCE/SEI 7-16; Earthquake-Induced Ground Motions;
Application of Soil-Structure Interaction to Buildings and Bridges;
Financial Management for the Professional Engineer; Investigation,
Analysis, and Remediation of Building Failures; Public-Private
Partnerships for Transportation Infrastructure; Seismic Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures (newly updated for ASCE 7-16).
In addition, there will be a special behind-the-scenes tour of
Disney. Register by March 3 for special discounts. Learn more
at www.asce.org/asceweek.
STRUCTURE magazine 46
Four Sessions Featuring ASCE 7-16
The Structures Congress offers 120 technical sessions on all
aspects of the profession. This year we are offering a series of
four integrated ASCE 7-16 sessions on Friday, April 7. Attendees
will receive a comprehensive overview of the new standard
including seismic, wind, and tsunami.
ASCE 7-16 Overview Whats New in the 2016 Edition
ASCE 7-16 Seismic: Learn from the Experts
ASCE 7-16 Wind: Learn from the Experts
ASCE 7-16 Tsunami: The New Resiliency Approach and
Design Provisions
We expect the convention hotel to sell out well in advance of
the official cutoff day, so book your room now.
Convention Hotel
Hyatt Regency Denver
650 15th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Visit the congress website at www.structurescongress.org for more
information, download the Preliminary Program, and to register.
Preliminary Vote on ICC
Adoption of ASCE 7-16
is Positive
Governmental members of the International Code Council
voted to adopt ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads and
Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures as an
International Code Council reference standard. It is impor-
tant to note that the voting results are preliminary. The ballot
must be certified by ICCs governing rules before it becomes
official. Thank you to all ASCE and SEI members who contacted
their ICC voting members in support of ASCE 7-16 adoption.
Read the full story at ASCE News at http://news.asce.org/
icc-vote-points-to-asce-7-16-adoption-as-reference-standard.
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our publications at
www.asce.org/SEI. Click on Publications on our menu, and
select Errata. If you have any errata that you would like to
submit, please email it to Jon Esslinger at jesslinger@asce.org.
February 2017

Diversity in Engineering Article
in Redshift
David Odeh, SEI past president, and Laura Champion,
SEI Director, were recently interviewed by Redshift for an
article on diversity in engineering. They and others discuss
some of the challenges in the profession and opportuni-
ties that encouraging diversity presents. Read the article at
https://redshift.autodesk.com/diversity-in-engineering.
SEI Local Activities
St Louis Chapter
The SEI St. Louis Chapter and Geo-Institute St. Louis Chapter
joined forces to host the first local interdisciplinary conference
on geotechnical and structural topics at the Geo-Structures
Confluence 2016. This event combined the chapters annual
Geo-Confluence and SEI Day events for this year. The November
4, 2016, event attracted 200 attendees, featured a joint morning
session and two afternoon breakout tracks with topics ranging
from case studies on the Wrigley Field project to code related
topics of extreme loads. Geotechnical and structural engineers
had the chance to mingle and squabble at a stunning Exhibitors
Hall and the star-studded panel discussion; Soil is Not a Spring;
Buildings are Not a Load. Panelists included SEIs past-presi-
dent, David Odeh, G-Is past-president Kord Wissmann, Terry
Holman (Turner Construction), Tom Cooling (AECOM),
and Ted Pruess (Independent Consultant). Visit the chapter
website at http://sections.asce.org/stlouis/SEI/Home.htm
for more information.
Mohawk Hudson Chapter
The SEI Mohawk-Hudson Chapter hosted their 6th annual
Structures Day. This conference featured technical seminars, an
award presentation, and swearing in new officers. Learn more on
the SEI News web page at www.asce.org/structural-engineering/
structural-engineering-news.
STRUCTURE magazine
Structural Columns
Webinar on SEI Benefits,
Opportunities, and Vision Initiatives
Listen to the November 29 webinar by SEI President Andy
Herrmann and SEI Young Professional Committee Chair Linda
Kaplan for a review of SEI member benefits and opportunities,
including special offerings for students and professionals to
make the most of membership in SEI/ASCE and an update on
SEI Vision for the Future of SE initiatives. View the webinar at
https://cc.readytalk.com/cc/playback/Playback.do?id=7vckhs.
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Metropolitan (NYC) Chapter
Welcome to the new SEI Metropolitan Chapter. The chapter
is planning to host four technical lectures from October 2016
through March 2017, and the Spring Seminar Series in May.
The 2017 Spring Seminar Series, to be held at the New York
Public Library at Lincoln Center, will consist of four evenings
of technical lectures and keynote presentations with dinner
provided. Participants will be able to earn up to 8 PDHs.
Get Involved in Local SEI Activities
Join your local SEI Chapter, Graduate Student Chapter
(GSC), or Structural Technical Groups (STG) to con-
nect with colleagues, take advantage of local opportunities
for lifelong learning, and advance structural engineering in
your area. If there is not a SEI Chapter, GSC, or STG in
your area, review the simple steps to form a SEI Chapter at
www.asce.org/structural-engineering/sei-local-groups.
Local Chapters serve member technical and professional needs.
SEI GSCs prepare students for a successful career transition.
SEI supports Chapters with opportunities to learn about new
initiatives and best practices, and network with other lead-
ers including annual funded SEI Local Leader Conference,
technical tour and training. SEI Chapters receive Chapter logo/
branding, complimentary webinar, and more.
47 February 2017
 CASE Risk Management Tools Available
Foundation 1: Culture Create a Culture of
Managing Risks & Preventing Claims
Structural engineering is a high-risk profession
All firms can have professional liability claims
Claims cost money, time, reputation, clients, and staff
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
Firms must commit to managing risks
Commitment must include management, staff, and
clients. All individuals must make a commitment
Quality must take high precedence
Legal environment is always changing
Tool 1-1 Create a Culture for Managing Risks and
Reducing Claims
The most comprehensive CASE tool that provides sample
templates and presentations that aid in creating a culture of
risk management throughout the firm.
Tool 1-2 Developing a Culture of Quality
This tool was developed to identify some ways to drive qual-
ity into a firms culture. It is recognized that every firm will
develop its own approach to developing a culture of quality but
following these 10 key areas offer a substantial starting point.
The tool includes a white paper and customizable PowerPoint
presentation to facilitate overall discussion.
Foundation 2: Prevention & Proactivity Act with
Preventative Techniques, Dont Just React.
Anticipate problems and situations that may occur
Identify potential risks and mitigate before they are a
problem
Develop processes to prevent errors, duplication, and
misunderstanding
Take positive actions at the beginning of projects and
dont procrastinate
Many conditions can be altered by positive actions
CASE in Point
Share Innovative Ideas!
Does your firm have an innovative idea or method of practice?
Looking to get more involved on short duration projects?
We are inviting you to share the wealth and submit a proposal
for a web seminar topic, publication, or education session you
would like to see CASE present at an upcoming conference.
Our forms are easy to use, and you may submit your informa-
tion via email. Go to www.acec.org/coalitions and click on
the icon for Idea Sharing to get started.
Questions? Contact us at 202-682-4332 or email Katie
Goodman at kgoodman@acec.org.
We look forward to helping you put your best ideas in front
of eager new faces!
STRUCTURE magazine 48
Tool 2-1 A Risk Evaluation Checklist
Dont overlook anything! A sample itemized list of things you
should look for when evaluating a prospective project.
Tool 2-2 Interview Guide
Getting the right people on the bus is one of the most impor-
tant things we can do to mitigate risk management and yet we
never learn about interviewing skills in school. It is the second
tool related to the Second Foundation of Risk Management,
Prevention and Proactivity. The tool will help your firm conduct
higher quality interviews and standardize the process among
all your staff.
Tool 2-3 Employee Evaluation Templates
This tool is intended to assist the structural engineering office in
the task of evaluating employee performance. The evaluations
provide a method to assess employee performance and serve as
an integral part of the companys risk management program.
Tool 2-4 Project Risk Management Plan
This plan will walk you through the methodology for managing
your project risks, along with a few common project risks and
templates on how to record and track them.
Tool 2-5 Insurance Management: Minimize Your
Professional Liability Premium
This tool is designed as a guide to help you provide critical
additional information to the underwriter to differentiate your
firm from the pack.
You can purchase these and the other Risk
Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.
Follow ACEC Coalitions on
Twitter @ACECCoalitions.
Donate to the CASE
Scholarship Fund!
The ACEC Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE)
is currently seeking contributions to help make the structural
engineering scholarship program a success. The CASE scholar-
ship, administered by the ACEC College of Fellows, is awarded
to a student seeking a Bachelors degree, at a minimum, in an
ABET-accredited engineering program. Since 2009, the CASE
Scholarship program has given $20,000 to help engineering stu-
dents pave their way to a bright future in structural engineering.
We have all witnessed the stiff competition from other disciplines
and professions eager to obtain the best and brightest young talent
from a dwindling pool of engineering graduates. One way to
enhance the ability of students in pursuing their dreams to become
professional engineers is to offer incentives in educational support.
Your monetary support is vital in helping CASE and ACEC
increase scholarships to those students who are the future of our
industry. All donations toward the program may be eligible for
tax deduction, and you do not have to be an ACEC member to
donate! Contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org to donate.
February 2017
 CASE in Point
CASE Risk Management
Convocation in Denver, CO
April 7, 2017
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in
conjunction with the Structures Congress at the Hyatt
Regency Denver and Colorado Convention Center in Denver,
CO April 6 8, 2017. For more information and updates go
to www.structurescongress.org.
The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to
take place on Friday, April 7:
8:00 am 9:30 am Contractual Risk Transfers for
Professionals: Mastering Indemnity,
Insurance and the Standard of Care
Moderator/Speaker: Ryan J. Kohler,
Collins, Collins, Muir + Stewart, LLP
10:00 am 11:30 am Construction Administration as a Risk
Management Tool
Moderator / Speaker: Daniel T.

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

Buelow, Willis Towers Watson
2:00 pm 3:30 pm Projects with the Largest Losses and
Claim Frequency
Moderator: Mr. Timothy J. Corbett,
SmartRisk
Speaker: Brian Stewart, Esq., Collins,
Collins, Muir + Stewart, LLP
4:00 pm 5:30 pm Tackling Todays Business Practice
Challenges A Structural
Engineering Roundtable
Moderator: David W. Mykins, P.E.,
Stroud Pence & Associates

Public-Private Partnerships and Design-Build:

Opportunities and Risks for Consulting Engineers
P3 and DB approaches on public infrastructure projects continue Readers will also find updated
to increase, leaving consulting engineers with more questions information on risk allocation and
than ever. That is why, to make conscientious and prudent professional liability issues specific
decisions about P3 and DB project opportunities and risks, to P3 and DB projects.
you need access to reliable expertise and the latest knowledge. Edited by David Hatem and
The second edition of Public-Private Partnerships and Design- Patricia Gary of Donovan Hatem
Build: Opportunities and Risks for Consulting Engineers presents new LLP along with the contribu-
industry information and experience on P3 and DB approaches tions of 14 subject matter experts
and offers timely recommendations about the rewards, challenges, Public-Private Partnerships and
and risk exposures for engineering firms looking to succeed in Design-Build: Opportunities and
todays still evolving P3 and DB project work environment. Risks for Consulting Engineers,
New to the Second Edition: Second Edition provides an objective, realistic and practical
DB opportunities, roles, risks, and contracting practices resource for you to make informed and balanced judgments
Dispute resolution processes in P3s and DB about pursuing P3 and DB projects.
Contractual availability and sound implementation of NCSEA members can contact Heather Talbert about obtaining
fair and appropriate dispute resolution processes in the this book at the ACEC Member Price of $99. Heather can be
assessment and management of P3 and DB projects emailed at htalbert@acec.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 49 February 2017

Structural Forum
ASCE 7-16 Controversy
A Long Overdue Wake-up Call
By Jim DeStefano, P.E., AIA, F.SEI
I
have been watching, with some interest
as the recent drama unfolded, the effort
to block the adoption of the American
Society of Civil Engineers ASCE 7-16
into the 2018 International Building Code
(IBC). I was particularly amused to see the
way that the structural engineering commu-
nity has rallied in defense of a standard that
they openly despise. If you get more than two
structural engineers in a room, it is only a
matter of time before they start complaining
about the latest edition of ASCE 7 and the
misery that it has brought to their practice.
Has ASCE 7 improved the practice of struc-
tural engineering or the lives of structural
engineers? The answer is easy and not par-
ticularly controversial. There have been many
editorials written about the misery that ASCE 7
has brought to the practice of structural engi-
neering, yet I do not recall ever seeing an
editorial extolling the virtues of the standard.
When I first started practicing forty years ago,
the building code section on structural load-
ing was somewhat brief and only filled a few
pages. Although the loading provisions were
easy to understand and interpret, they were not
sufficient. The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) Standard 58.1, first released
in 1972, was a huge improvement. It contained
all of the important stuff that had been missing
from previous building codes, such as snow
drift loads and a rational approach to wind
pressures, yet it was still easy to understand and
use. When ASCE 7-88 replaced ANSI 58.1-82,
the loading provisions became more complex
and less intuitive. It has been downhill ever
since. Today, structural engineers must spend
a disproportionate amount of their time deter-
mining the loading criteria for their projects
rather than designing the structures.
Has ASCE 7 improved the safety of struc-
tures? The justification for more complex
loading provisions has always been that better,
more accurate loading data results in safer
structures, but is that really true? There is not
much evidence to support that argument.
Building structures that were designed before
1988 do not seem to be collapsing. Those
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
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
buildings that do fail during extreme events,
such as hurricanes, blizzards, and earthquakes,
are mostly non-engineered and pre-engineered
structures with flawed designs.
Several years ago, the Structural Engineering
Institute/ Business and Professional Activities
Division (SEI-BPAD) committee embarked
on a trial design program. A group of experi-
enced structural engineers was asked to solve a
handful of routine design problems requiring
the application of ASCE 7. The results were
distressing. The answers were so scattered that
they did not fit into a bell curve and the com-
mittee members could not even agree on what
the correct answers were. The conclusion was
obvious. Overly complex loading provisions
have increased the risk that an engineer will
misinterpret the loading provisions and under
design a structure.
Do we need a cookbook for structural engi-
neering? There seems to be a belief, held by
many engineers that serve on standards com-
mittees, that building code adopted standards
should be written as cookbooks that prescribe
each step that an engineer takes in designing
a structure. This kind of thinking has had a
deleterious effect on the profession and tends to
stifle innovation and the application of sound
engineering principles. We should not need a
cookbook to tell us how to design a structure.
What we really need is stability in our
building codes! It is reasonable to expect
codes and standards to be improved, refined,
and to be made more understandable with
each new edition. Revisions must be made
to make confusing provisions easier to under-
stand and apply.
However, when each new edition of ASCE 7
unveils an entirely different way of calculating
wind loads, or maybe six different ways to
calculate wind loads, it only results in chaos
and instability. Can everything that we have
been doing up until now really be that wrong?
Do we really need to relearn how to calculate
loads every six years?
Should the structural engineering commu-
nity be a rubber stamp for new standards?
Every time a new edition of ASCE 7 is
50 February 2017
released, everybody complains and gripes.
Then they suck it up and buckle down to
try and learn the new provisions. Like good
sheep, we all go along.
Recently, other construction industry
groups like the National Association of
Home Builders (NAHB) and the National
Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA)
have taken a close look at some of the provi-
sions in ASCE 7-16 and found the standard
to be unreasonable and out of touch. Could
it be that they are right? The structural engi-
neering community reacted defensively. We
may feel that it is our profession that is
being attacked how dare these guys sug-
gest that a standard produced by ASCE not
be adopted into the IBC.
Where do we go from here? Maybe it is time
to take back our profession make struc-
tural engineering great again. Despite all the
grumbling, the ASCE 7 committee has not
gotten the message. We need a reasonable
and practical standard for calculating loading
criteria that does not keep changing.
I do not mean to belittle or demean the hard
work that has gone into writing the ASCE 7
standard. I have served on SEI standards
committees, and I know the effort that goes
into them. However, the standards committee
needs to be sensitive to all of the unnecessary
hard work and lost profits they have generated
for all of us that are trying to make a living
designing structures.
We cannot turn back the clock to 1982 and
go back to the ANSI 58.1 standard, but it
would not be so bad if we did.
Maybe those guys at NAHB and NRCA
have the right idea and are not really anar-
chists. If we want to take back our profession,
a grassroots movement is needed. Not just
at the ICC hearings, but at every state level.
If we, as structural engineers, start lobbying
to delete ASCE 7 from our local state build-
ing codes in favor of simple, understandable
loading provisions, maybe then our message
will be heard.
Jim DeStefano is the President of
DeStefano & Chamberlain, Inc. located
in Fairfield, CT. He is the past-past-
chairman of the STRUCTURE magazine
editorial board. Jim can be reached at
jimd@dcstructural.com.
 opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
ASCE 7 Controversy
A Rebuttal
By Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB, FSEI
J
im DeStefano raises many good points as
to the complexity of the building codes
in general and the ASCE 7 standard
in particular. I have made these same
arguments many times over the years, in this
same magazine and other venues. However,
the challenges to adoption of ASCE 7-16
had nothing to do with code complexity or
changes in design procedures. Rather, these
challenges were about two things: 1) sig-
nificantly increased values of wind pressure
coefficients at areas of discontinuities on roofs,
the principal concern of the roofing indus-
try; and 2) changes to site class coefficients
for long period structures on soft soil sites,
causing an increase in seismic design values
for some structures.
Countering these increases in design con-
servatism, the wind speed maps have been
revised based on the availability of long-term
wind data from hundreds of stations, allow-
ing substantial reductions in design wind
speeds and design wind loads across most
of the U.S. In fact, except in exposure D,
limited to a 600-foot wide strip along the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts, these speed reduc-
tions mostly counter the change in cladding
coefficients and allow substantial reductions
in the required strength of the main wind
force resisting system. Further reductions in
wind load can be obtained by accounting for
reduced air density at high elevation sites,
allowing substantial reductions in wind pres-
sures in places like Denver and Reno.
What else has changed? Well, the snow load-
ing Chapter has indeed become longer and
more complex. How? Instead of the so-called
case study zones on the maps in mountain-
ous regions, the Standard now provide tables
with specific ground snow load values for
most major communities in the affected areas.
Thicker document? Yes. Easier to use? Yes.
Other important changes include addition
of a chapter on tsunami-resistant design, an
Appendix on performance-based fire-effects
design, and a substantial update of the seismic
nonlinear response history procedures bring-
ing them in line with procedures commonly
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
Structural Forum
used in the Western U.S. The seismic isola-
tion and energy dissipation procedures have
been harmonized with those in ASCE 41,
which also has been updated to adopt the
new response history procedures. The rain
load procedures have been made substantially
clearer and easy to apply.
Another change engineers will likely find
useful is the availability of an electronic,
web-based version of the standard and a
companion tool that will enable determi-
nation of mapped values of snow, seismic,
and wind loading parameters from a single
source. This tool will also enable construc-
tion of transects to facilitate computation
of topography coefficients for wind pres-
sures. Engineers will be able to annotate
their personal copies and index them to find
frequently used criteria.
This aside, I agree that the Standard is far
larger, more complex and challenging to use
than the design criteria specified by build-
ing codes 40 years ago when Jim and I first
entered practice. The complexity has slowly
grown for several reasons, including, as Jim
suggests, a desire to over-prescribe the design
procedures rather than allowing engineers to
use basic knowledge and judgment to deter-
mine loads and other facets of design. At the
start of this cycle, I made a significant effort to
reverse this, simplify the procedures, and elim-
inate prescription. At one point I pushed for
a two-volume standard; one containing basic
procedures that would apply to the design of
most ordinary buildings, and the other con-
taining more complex procedures used only
a fraction of the time. The basic procedures
would have included criteria for dead and
live loads, snow loads for buildings of simple
geometry, the simplified wind procedure, and
the equivalent lateral force procedure for seis-
mic. All other procedures, used only a fraction
of the time, if ever, would have appeared in
the second volume. We felt most engineers
would use only the first volume, which they
would find short and user-friendly. Those
engineers who design more complex struc-
tures would go to the second volume, where
51 February 2017
the more elegant procedures would reside.
Ultimately this concept was discouraged by
ASCE staff as being confusing, since some
loads, such as wind and seismic, would have
chapters in multiple volumes. Perhaps we
will find a way to do this in future editions
As noted, there is little doubt the codes are
complex. In addition to the tendency to over-
prescribe calculation procedures, previously
discussed, there are other reasons for this
complexity. Most engineers state they want
the codes to be simple, reliable, and result in
economical construction. My opinion is that
you can satisfy only two of these at a time.
The codes of 40 years ago were simple, less
economical than todays requirements, and far
less reliable. Using todays standards, you can
still design simply and the design will be reli-
able. However, the resulting design likely will
not be economical. Our standards have been
developed assuming most engineers would
prefer to use more complex procedures that
are both economical and reliable.
In the end, complex evolving codes and stan-
dards do place a burden on engineers. We
cannot complacently leave school thinking
that we know everything that we will ever
have to know. Instead, we have to keep current
with developments in our field, learn new pro-
cedures, and yes, do more work. Of course, 40
years ago, the electronic slide-rule calculator
was just becoming a mainstay. Today we have
untold power at our fingertips in the form of
personal computers, with far more power than
the IBM and Sperry mainframes of 40 years
ago, to help us deal with the complexity. Do
we really want to go back to the world of the
1970s? I do not think so.
Ronald O. Hamburger is a Senior
Principal at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
in San Francisco. He has been active in
the development of seismic requirements
of building codes and standards since the
1980s. He presently chairs the ASCE 7
Committee. Ron can be reached at
rohamburger@sgh.com.