C N

on C
S
Se fer EA
ct en
®

io c

STRUCTURE A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

n e

September NCSEA
18 Annual Conference
th
2010
Jersey City, New Jersey
Construction Sept. 30 th – Oct. 2 nd
Typical Applications that Require Code
Compliant Anchors According to ICC: Powers Compliant
• Pipe Hanging (Water & Waste) • Windows & Doors Products Have
You Covered:
• Sprinkler Pipes • Glazing & Curtain Walls
• Ceiling Grids with Lighting • Beam Connections
or Fans • Shear & Stem Walls
• Air Handling Units • Sill Plate and Ledger
• HVAC Duct Work Attachments
• Electrical Wire Trays & Conduit • Concrete Form Work
• Fire Alarms, Exit Signs • Scaffolding, Cranes, Rails,
• Smoke Detection Devices Fall Protection

2009 IBC

2006 IBC

2003 IBC

For further clarity on this important change,

visit www.powers.com/icc.pdf in regards to
this topic, they make it crystal clear.

Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com

2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
Metal Wood Framer for Revit
 Hilti HIT
Adhesive Anchor
Systems

Every project is unique.

We get it. That is why Hilti now offers you the flexibility to meet the unique needs of your contractors with two
premium adhesive anchors. The new HIT-HY 150 MAX-SD is the only adhesive anchor available in the market with
ICC approval for all seismic design categories and cracked concrete that achieves a full-cure in just 30 minutes.
RE 500-SD is our slow-cure solution for jobs that require a longer working time to achieve maximum precision.
Your designs are unique, and our anchors are uniquely Hilti.

Hilti. Outperform. Outlast.

Hilti, Inc. (U.S.) 1-800-879-8000 www.us.hilti.com • en español 1-800-879-5000

Hilti (Canada) Corp. 1-800-363-4458 www.hilti.ca
 CONTENTS
FEATURES
26 Haiti
By Craig E. Barnes, P.E. SECB
Following the January 2010 Haiti earthquake, Haitian and U.S. consultants
were engaged to observe and report on the condition of certain damaged and 26
undamaged leased properties. Lack of pre-quake photos, as-built plans, and
construction consistency from building to building resulted in numerous obstacles
to a successful outcome.
30 NCSEA 2010 Conference Section
NCSEA’s Eighteenth Annual Conference will be held September 30 th to
October 2 nd in Jersey City, New Jersey. The program includes numerous premier
presentations, a strategic planning session, dinner at Times Square and more!
34 Vertical Structural Deformation
By Songtao Liao, Ph.D., P.E., Gabriel Klein, P.E., Yevgeny Mikhlin, Ph.D., P.E.
and Jacob S. Grossman, P.E., SECB
Located in New York City, the Museum for African Art is a new addition to the
Fifth Avenue Museum Mile. Estimation and control for this deformation-sensitive
building was a critical factor in the design process.
34

COLUMNS
7 Editorial 38 Structural Design
IN EVERY ISSUE
Corporate Social Responsibility Discussion on Structural Design of 8 Advertiser Index
By Avery Louise Bang Steel Pipe Support Structures 46 Resource Guide
By Kasi V. Bendapudi, P.E., S.E.
9 InFocus (Anchoring)
Artifacts and Functions 42 Structural Sustainability
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
50 NCSEA News
Reducing Embodied Energy in
10 Construction Issues Masonry Construction 52 SEI Structural Columns
By Vivian Volz and Eric Stovner, S.E.
Mitigation of Damage to Buildings 54 CASE in Point
Adjacent to Construction Sites in 49 InSights
Urban Environments The Dots Are Connected in Today’s
By Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E., Paul Digital BIM Workflow
C N
on C
S
Se fere EA
cti n
®

on ce
STRUCTURE

Kelley, P.E., Michael Brainerd, P.E. By Robert Middlebrooks, AIA

and Charles Russo, P.E. and Scott Hammond ON THE COVER
14 Historic Structures 57 Structural Forum Tower One of the
Evaluating Historic Structures for Are Young Engineers Unprepared? World Trade Center
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

Adaptive Re-Use By Eytan Solomon, P.E. rising at 32 floors

By Dominick R. Pilla, P.E., S.E. tall thus far, with
and Xiaoli Tong, P.E. the World Financial
18 Structural Forensics DEPARTMENTS September
2010
Construction Center in the
background. Don’t
NCSEA
18 th Annual Conference
Jersey City, New Jersey
Sept. 30 th – Oct. 2 nd

Building Façade Inspection

By Scott L. Weiland, P.E., Stephen L.
Morgan, E.I. and J. Trey Thomas, E.I.
20 Building Blocks
Structural Contributions to LEED ®
Chris Hofheins, S.E.
22 Structural Practices
A Rational Method to Design
Vehicular Barriers
By Mohammad Iqbal, D. Sc., P.E., S.E.
48 CASE Risk Management miss NCSEA’s 18 th Annual Conference, or
Training our New Engineers this view and a visit to Tower One, only five
and Making Sense of Risk minutes away from the Conference hotel.
Courtesy of Erik Madsen, P.E.
Management Information
By Stacy J. Bartoletti, S.E.
56 Spotlight
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in
122 Design Tips in 90 Minutes
By Joyce E. Copelan, P.E.,
STRUCTURE® magazine does not constitute endorsement
by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board.
and Craig A. Copelan, P.E. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole
responsibility for the content of their submissions.

STRUCTURE magazine 5 September 2010

 Editorial
Corporate Social Responsibility
By Avery Louise Bang, M.Sc.
Director of Operations, Bridges to Prosperity
Opening the May 2010 issue of STRUCTURE® magazine, I was
struck by the notion that the engineering profession is held captive to
society on both an intellectual and social level (The Social Captivity
of Engineering, May 2010). The genius of our profession (albeit
my biased opinion) is indisputable from a technical standpoint and,
perhaps just as relevant, from a social perspective as well. Ever greater
numbers of professionals are offering their time and resources to help
others, outside office hours and far beyond borders. Whether designing
a potable water project in Ghana, reconstructing a school in Haiti, or
designing a 70-meter cable pedestrian bridge in East Timor, engineers
are using their professional knowledge to make a positive impact in
rural communities around the world.
“Of all of the bridges that I have built
and will build, this will be the one I will
remember the most.”
– Travis Davis, Field Engineer, Flatiron Construction
Nearly half of the world’s population – over three billion people – live
on less than $2.50 per day.* A morning run to Starbucks would cover
an average Zambian’s daily food, education, housing and transportation
expenditures. Considering this daily budget, what is the likelihood that
development projects could be a local financial priority? Perhaps an
organization, supplementing the role of government, provides housing,
education or infrastructure, but rarely are financial or technical resources
available to provide all desired services. Partnering these communities
and organizations with professional expertise is a still developing, but
critical, keystone.
International non-profit organizations such as Bridges to Prosperity,
Engineers Without Borders and Engineering Missions International
recognize that engineers have much to offer and are actively engaging
For more information about Bridges to Prosperity, visit their website at: www.bridgestoprosperity.org
STRUCTURE magazine
professionals to work with communities who lack access to the most
basic amenities. As professional interest continues to increase, support
of volunteering from the corporate level is both useful and necessary.
There is no shortage of communities in need or technical experts willing
to contribute. Coupled with corporate programs designed to support
socially responsible employees, there is benefit for all.
Bridges to Prosperity relies on assistance from independent volunteers,
but contributions from an organization or company are most effectively
leveraged. When a group makes the commitment to fully develop a
technology over several design-build iterations, institutional memory is
sustained, providing opportunity for improvements and modifications
to suit varying local conditions. Furthermore, design efforts that have
been developed collectively are most likely to result in locally-appropriate
and innovative solutions, particularly given design challenges that
vary greatly from the parameters of an equivalent industry project.
Company support also allows our mission to be supported from the
home office. Parsons Brinckerhoff staff and employees assisted our
field staff by transferring designs into CAD files, usable by trainees for
design modifications.
McNary Bergeron & Associates, and Flatiron Construction, both of
Colorado, partnered with Bridges to Prosperity to develop a sustainable,
cost-effective solution for seasonal flooding in low-lying riverbeds.
This spring, nearly two dozen employees traveled to Guatemala and
Honduras to construct their innovative suspension cable bridge design.
Two prototype 40-meter span bridges were constructed using materials
transported via human power or by mules, including the limited
number of hand tools. Faced with the need to balance cost efficiency and
constructability in the absence of mechanical equipment, McNary led
the design effort and Flatiron acted as the contractor while developing
the construction plans. The product of the relationship is an economical
design solution that is able to be replicated throughout the region and,
eventually, throughout the world. Bridges to Prosperity will leverage
this contribution of time and knowledge through standardization and
the inclusion of the technology in our training programs.
Team building, leadership, employee recruitment and retention are
all stated benefits of this particular project, not to mention the life-
changing contribution to the villagers who now have year-round
access to school, markets and medical facilities. This is an excellent
example of how industry leaders can use their professional knowledge
to the benefit of rural communities worldwide. Changing lives, one
bridge at a time.▪
Avery Louise Bang, M.Sc. is the Director of Operations for Bridges to
Prosperity. She has worked on infrastructure development projects and
programs in nearly a dozen countries on four continents. Avery can be
reached at avery@bridgestoprosperity.org.
* Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, The Developing World is Poorer
than we Thought, but no Less Successful in the Fight Against Poverty.
World Bank, August 2008.
7 September 2010
 FYFE Co.
LLC Over 20 years ago we created the industry...
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Ty fo Fibr wrap Systems
® ®
today we set the standard
National Council of Structural
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Structural Strengthening
• FRP Installation Engineers Associations
• Seismic Upgrade Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
• Blast Mitigation Executive Director
• Concrete Retrofit 312-649-4600
• Specialty Gunite execdir@ncsea.com
• Underwater & Coastal Repairs
• Expansion & Seismic Joints Council of American Structural Engineers
Pipe Repair and Renewal
Heather Talbert
Coalitions Director
• Large and Small Diameter
202-682-4377
• PCCP, RCP, Steel Structural Repairs
htalbert@acec.org
• Carbon Fiber Structural Liners
Concrete Restoration
Structural Engineering Institute
• Epoxy Crack Injection John E. Durrant, P.E.
• Spall Repair Manager
STRUCTURAL

• Corrosion Protection ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE ASCE Engineering Programs
Advanced Fire Protection 703-295-6360
sei@STRUCTUREmag.org
8380 Miralani Drive, San Diego, CA 92126
IES-Structure-Sept-3rd-Pg-4C.pdf 1 8/4/2010 9:19:31 AM
NSF R
Tel: 858.642.0694  Fax: 858.444.2982

ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

Certified to NSF/ANSI 61 www.fyfeco.com

Interactive Sales Associates

Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

EDITORIAL STAFF
“The owner was very happy with the final product.
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE

C
It would not have been completed as quickly if execdir@ncsea.com
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
VisualAnalysis had not been used.” Keith Blackwell, P.E.
M

publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Y

Associate Editor Nikki Alger

CM
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
MY
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
CY
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

CMY
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
K

STRUCTURE® (Volume 17, Number 9). 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
Forida residence constructed of steel Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
framing and insulated panel cladding. of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is
$65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $125/yr foreign (including
Canada). For change of address or duplicate copies, contact
Create your next success story with VisualAnalysis! your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in
STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the
STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of

Advertiser Index Please support these advertisers

Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of the publisher.
AZZ ......................................................................................23 ITW Red Head .....................................................................39
Bentley Systems, Inc. .............................................................25 KPFF Consulting Engineers ..................................................48
Computers & Structures, Inc. ...............................................60 MKT Fastening, LLC ............................................................46 Published By:
CRSI .....................................................................................17 Monotube .............................................................................41
C3 Ink
CTP, Inc................................................................................35
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........................................43
Nat. Council of Examiners for Engin. and Surv. (NCEES)....27
Powers Fasteners, Inc. ..............................................................2
C3 Ink A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
Design Data ..........................................................................45 RISA Technologies ................................................................59 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
Earthbound ...........................................................................11 SidePlate Systems, Inc. ..........................................................29 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
Fabreeka International, Inc. ...................................................15 Simpson Strong-Tie......................................................13 & 21 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Fyfe Co. LLC ..........................................................................8 StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. .........................................................3
Hayward Baker, Inc. ................................................................6 Taylor Devices, Inc. ...............................................................37 Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
Hilti, Inc. ................................................................................4 USP Structural Connectors ...................................................47 Visit
Visit
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
magazine
magazine
on-line
online
www.structuremag.org at at
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc.......................................8 V&S Galvanizing LLC ..........................................................44 www.structuremag.org
www.STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 8 September 2010

 InFocus thoughts from a member of the Editorial Board

Artifacts and Functions

By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
In my last column (“Engineers Are from Aristotle,” July 2010), I
discussed Aristotle’s thesis that there are four causes (or explanations) of
any physical object: material, formal, efficient, and final. Note that the
fundamental difference between a natural thing and an artifact is that the
latter requires human intervention to determine its formal, efficient, and
final causes. The design, construction, and purpose of an artifact must be
imparted to it externally; they are not intrinsic to the item itself.
Focusing on this distinction, philosophers in the Netherlands initiated
a project over the last decade or so to investigate what they call the
dual nature of technical artifacts. Rather than retaining Aristotle’s four
causes, they characterized artifacts in terms of two types of descriptions:
physical/structural and functional/intentional. The physical description
includes tangible properties such as geometrical arrangement, chemical
composition, mass, color, and shape. The functional description
addresses the artifact’s purpose, how it is supposed to be used, and the
criteria and specifications that govern its design.
There is obviously a relationship between these two descriptions – in
fact, they constrain each other – but you cannot derive one from the
other. Knowing what an artifact looks like does not necessarily mean
that you know what it is for. Likewise, having a task in mind does not
necessarily mean that you know how to fashion an artifact that will
effectively and efficiently do the job. This is where engineers come in
– we translate the intentional requirements for a particular artifact into
YOUR
the corresponding structural requirements. In this sense, an artifact is a
creation of both mind and matter.
This presents a bit of a challenge for modern philosophy; in fact, it is
one aspect of the so-called “mind-body” problem that dates all the way
back to Descartes. How is it possible for an abstract idea in the mind of
a designer to become a concrete artifact that embodies that very idea?
If there is nothing inherent in the physical structure of an artifact that
determines its proper use, how can we say that it has one at all?
The notion of function is central here, and – much to the frustration
of philosophers who have tried to work with them – engineers have a
tendency to invoke this term in a variety of ways, typically showing little
concern about the resulting ambiguities. Pieter Vermaas, a researcher in
the Philosophy Department at Delft University of Technology, gave a
presentation about this at the 2010 Forum on Philosophy, Engineering
& Technology, noting that he is aware of at least eighteen different
accounts of “function” in the engineering literature. He proposed five
key concepts that cover the full spectrum from human intentions to
their physical realization:
1) Goals – what I want to accomplish
2) Actions – what I will do in order to achieve my goals
3) Functions – what role an artifact will have in my actions
4) Behavior – what the artifact will do in
order to carry out its functions
5) Structure – how the artifact must be
configured in order to produce its behavior
Besides the third step here, engineers also often refer to goals or
behavior as “functions.”
One outcome of the Dutch dual nature project was a more
(philosophically) precise theory of functions developed by Vermaas
and his colleague, Wybo Houkes. They call it the ICE-theory because
it combines ideas from previous accounts of functions that have been
classified as intentionalist, causal role, and evolutionist. According to
the ICE-theory, we ascribe a certain function to an artifact when we
have reason to believe that the artifact has the capacity to perform that
function if it is employed for an appropriate purpose in the manner
intended by its designers as communicated to its users.
Most engineers will initially find a definition like this to be needlessly
convoluted. An artifact’s function is simply what it does, right? The
challenge is that an engineer has to anticipate all of the functions that a
particular system or component could have, and preferably assign those
functions to it deliberately, instead of being caught by surprise when it
does something unexpected. Failure generally occurs when an artifact
attempts to perform a function that is beyond its capability, regardless
of whether its designers or users ever intended it to do so.
Because of this, I believe that there is great value in seeking some
philosophical clarity – not only for the language that we use to
describe engineering, but also for the very practice of engineering
itself, which is why I write about it so much in this space. Engaging in
thoughtful reflection on exactly what it is that we do on a daily basis
can help us to understand it more explicitly and, ultimately, go about
it more carefully and successfully.▪
Your What functions do we routinely design structural ele-
Turn ments to perform? What potential functions of structural
elements are easily overlooked? How can we be more
deliberate about assigning functions to structural elements? Please submit
your responses and see what others have had to say by clicking on the
“Your Turn” button at www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is an
associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City,
Missouri. He chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board and
the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee.

Editorial Board
Chair Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB Brian J. Leshko, P.E. Mike C. Mota, P.E. Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB CBI Consulting, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. CRSI KPFF Consulting Engineers
Burns & McDonnell Boston, MA Pittsburgh, PA Williamstown, NJ Seattle, WA
Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org Richard Hess, S.E., SECB John A. Mercer, P.E. Evans Mountzouris, P.E. Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Hess Engineering Inc. Mercer Engineering, PC The DiSalvo Ericson Group BergerABAM
Executive Editor Los Alamitos, CA Minot, ND Ridgefield, CT Vancouver, WA
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE Brian W. Miller Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E. John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
NCSEA
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc. AISC Dokken Engineering American Wood Council
Chicago, IL
Marietta, GA Davis, CA Folsom, CA Leesburg, VA
execdir@ncsea.com

STRUCTURE magazine 9 September 2010

 Mitigation of Damage to Buildings Adjacent to Construction
Sites in Urban Environments
By Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E., Paul Kelley, P.E., Michael Brainerd, P.E. and Charles Russo, P.E.

This paper is the third article in a three-part series on planning and managing building
response to adjacent construction. The first article, Monitoring Building Response to
Adjacent Construction, was published in the November 2008 issue of STRUCTURE®
magazine. The second article, Planning to Minimize Damage to Buildings Adjacent to
Construction Sites in Urban Environments, was published in February 2010.

Construction of buildings in congested construction, specific soil and foundation

urban settings often results in damage to
existing structures located on adjacent
sites. The underlying cause of damage
is typically lack of planning and proper
care before or during construction, or
unpredictability of existing conditions.
However, even the most careful planning
and implementation can result in dam-
age when adjacent existing buildings are
fragile structures that can be especially
susceptible to ground movement (due to
excavation and dewatering) or vibrations
(due to demolition, pile driving, and other
construction activities).
Once the damage occurs, it is in all par-
ties’ best interests to resolve claims quickly
and amicably. Some of the processes
associated with evaluation, immediate
ConstruCtion issues
conditions cannot be predicted with cer-
tainty. Also, lack of control or supervision
during operations is often likely to result
in undesired outcomes for adjacent build-
ings; improper excavation, dewatering, or
underpinning operations can be a cause of
significant building damage. On the design
side, poor predictive models of behavior,
as well as incorrect assumptions, will also
often result in damage. For example, if it
is assumed the adjacent building is supported
on steel piles bearing on rock, when in
fact it is supported on wood piles bearing
on a shallower, somewhat loose sand stra- A photo of a building with severe masonry
tum, vibrations associated with driving of distress due to settlement caused by adjacent
sheet piling can and likely will result in construction.
soil consolidation and settlement. Had
the right assumption been made, or if However, depending on timing of dam-

response, and long-term remediation of
damage are described in this article.
Managing Building
Response and Remedial
Actions (React)
Even though consultant involvement can
be a result of proactive thinking by the
adjacent building owner in the planning
or initial stages of construction, engineers
and attorneys are most often brought in
only after damage (real or perceived) has
occurred. The engineer is tasked with
discussion of construction issues and techniques
foundation conditions were verified by
limited exploration through test pits, a
different approach to the earth retention
system may have been selected with the
explicit intent to mitigate damage.
Engineering Field Investigation
When damage is alleged, typically the
first question to answer is whether damage
has in fact occurred. Buildings adjacent to
construction sites can respond to move-
ment, vibration, or lack of vertical or
lateral support; these events typically
result in some level of tenant discomfort,
age discovery, available clues pointing to
causation may be limited. For example, if
the building next door is already erected,
many clues related to excavation or un-
derpinning methods, and whether they
were adequate, are going to be concealed
and unavailable.
Once on site, the first task for the “de-
tective” engineer is to determine and
independently evaluate the visible signs of
damage. Building size, location, orientation,
type, and details will to a large extent
govern the amount and type of observable
damage. Also, construction methods, type,

determination of what if any damage
occurred, when it occurred, why it oc-
curred, and how to manage and repair it.
In most cases, damage to adjacent struc-
tures occurs due to change in support
conditions (vertical or lateral) for the
structure, due to excessive vibrations, or
due to physically inflicted distress, such
as impact (e.g. during demolition). How-
ever, depending on project specifics, level
of organization, and control, the actual
cause may be traced to many different
origins. Damage may occur even in well
organized projects; for example, when
unexpected field or subterranean condi-
tions are encountered. Regardless of the
number of soil borings taken prior to
which may or may not be related to dam-
age. Even if there is no damage, engineers
should evaluate available information and
determine whether construction processes
should be modified to accommodate relief
of tenant discomfort, or to avoid potential
for damage in the future.
If there is damage, the question to answer
is whether the damage is in fact due to
activities associated with adjacent con-
struction. A well-planned and executed
preconstruction survey can serve as the
first evaluation by simply comparing the
alleged damage with the documented
pre-existing conditions. If this comparison
is not available or insufficient, engineers
essentially start playing the role of detective.
and sequence will be associated with cer-
tain types of damage. A savvy engineer
would look for certain types of damage
common to specific construction types.
For example, buildings with bearing
masonry wall construction exhibit visible
stepped brick cracking when subjected
to differential settlement. Additionally, if
racked window and door frames, cracked
or displaced lintels and sills, or in some
cases visible sloping floor- and roof-lines
are observed, the likely culprit is differential
settlement. Other typical damage to look
for includes sloped and cracked slabs on
grade (due to consolidation or settlement
of soils below them), bowing exterior walls
or loss of bearing for joists in wall pockets

STRUCTURE magazine 10 September 2010


(due to vertical settlement or lack of lateral
support), impact damage, and damage to
waterproofing systems (e.g. if the adjacent
building sharing a party wall was demolished).
Discomfort and damage reported by owners
and tenants may not necessarily confirm that
the distress occurred due to adjacent construc-
tion, or how recently it occurred. Once the first
vibration or loud noise occurs, people tend
to start looking for damage and notice “new”
cracks and other distress, which in fact could
have been there for a long time. The engineer
should attempt to discern between a “fresh”
distress and one that has been around since the
last interior renovation. Unfortunately, not all
cracks can be read like an open book. But, the
engineer should be able to classify observed
damage based on the likelihood of it occurring
due to activities next door. Cracking from
settlement should be easily distinguishable from
cracking due to lintel corrosion or drying of
mortar, for example. On the other hand, some
vibration-induced damage may not be easily
classified or dated.
Immediate Shoring and Stabilization
Before establishing cause of damage, the
engineer often must provide immediate rec-
ommendations for stabilization and shoring in
case any component of the structure is unstable
or potentially unsafe. Stabilization efforts can
be comprehensive and may vary from pin-
ning back a dislodged individual ornamental
terra-cotta façade component, to providing
floor-to-floor shoring in a distressed masonry
bearing wall building. Floor shoring becomes
especially critical if floor-framing support
provided by the bearing masonry wall is com-
promised due to lateral wall movement (joists
are in danger of slipping out of the pockets).
In some situations, for example where lateral
stability of the party wall is further reduced
due to demolition of the building on one side
of it, the floor-to-floor shoring may need to
be supplemented with temporary lateral wall
support. This can be provided by a “raker and
waler” (or another) system from the construction
side, or with connection details that tie floor
framing to exterior walls, hence preventing
lateral movement in long-term. Available
exterior shoring options will typically vary
depending on the construction stage at the
adjacent site. In general, engineers have to be
extremely careful to identify all potential safety
issues; for example, if façade components are
visually assessed as potentially unstable, either
immediate up-close investigation should be
performed (followed by remediation as needed),
or pedestrian protection should be provided.
In extreme situations, buildings may have to
be evacuated.
STRUCTURE magazine
!
Engineering Evaluation
w
Once immediate safety concerns are addressed,
Ne
the cause of damage and potential for further
damage should be evaluated, followed by
development of a remedial work plan. Evalu-
ation of damage alone may not be sufficient
to determine cause and allocate responsibility
for it. It needs to be put in context. Differ-
ential settlement damage could be a result of
ChubbySmack.com
long-term soil consolidation, or it could be
a result of improper bracing for excavation
adjacent to the building in question, or both,
or something entirely different. To correlate
Increase Uplift Capacity
Optimize slab design thickness - Simplify anchor design - Specify with Confidence
damage to activities next door, the “detective”
engineer needs to understand the methods of
construction at the adjacent construction site,
the chronology and sequence of events, soil and
site constraints, etc.
Assuming access to the construction site is
provided, the engineer could observe activities,
construction process, and detailing at the
adjacent site. If access is not provided, or
if the structure is already out of the ground,
For more information call 1-800-944-5669
the engineer will have to rely on records. This
includes design documents, the geotechnical
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
report, shop drawings, underpinning and
excavation drawings, and photographs. In
general, accessing detailed information from
the developer may be difficult, and it will
depend on the level of cooperation or com-
munication between parties, as well as the
organizational structure of the project. There
are also situations where there is not a direct
line of communication, regardless of the rela-
tionships. One example is when the engineer
is working to determine damage causation
on behalf of the insurance company, after the
fact, when the offending party may not be
reachable or even known.
If construction documents are not readily
available, the building department records can
often be used to glean information regarding
general layout of the construction site and
location and depth of the adjacent structure,
even though they would typically not describe
the construction excavation methods. Photos
and verbal reports, often produced by tenants
of adjacent buildings, can also help identify the
type of activities at the adjacent construction site.
To further evaluate damage and likelihood
for further damage, all available monitoring
data, soil data, and site data should be consid-
ered and used to analyze the observed distress.
If monitoring data from the adjacent site are
not available or do not exist, a new monitoring
program may need to be established. Depend- ACI 318 Appendix D
ing on the situation, these additional programs Calculations available
ChubbyNut
at ChubbySmack.com
may include installation of extensometers to
™
monitor ground strains, installation of deflec-
tion monitoring points (DMPs) at various
locations on the building exterior and interior
Anchor-Plate Technology
U.S. and foreign patents pending.
11 September 2010
to measure vertical and horizontal deflections
and angular distortion, laser surveying, instal-
lation of tilt meters to measure verticality, and
seismographs to measure vibrations. Monitoring
building behavior in real time allows for timely
reaction and remediation, often before the
“real” damage has occurred. For example, if
vibration levels are quickly deemed sufficient
to cause building damage or soil subsidence,
the construction methodology can be promptly
altered to mitigate problems.
In addition to monitoring, a more-thorough
condition appraisal may be needed to under-
stand all the effects of adjacent construction.
This may include up-close access to the building
façade or localized removal of building finishes
in order to observe critical structural details
(for example where joists bear on masonry
walls). These investigative actions, as well as
monitoring, can be expensive; therefore, insur-
ance carriers should be promptly involved.
If monitoring information is not clearly
pointing to the underlying cause of damage,
other engineering tools and analytical models Exterior building wall is braced to prevent further lateral movement of the wall.
can be employed to help estimate the nature
and magnitude of the problem so that it can well as further monitoring, may be required. engineers are equipped to impartially determine
be addressed more effectively. For example, if a Slabs-on-grade and other foundation elements the extent and cause of the conditions of
tendency of soil to move laterally is analytically can be drilled and grout pumped to fill voids concern, as well as the means to repair it.
predicted due to a particular configuration of left by subsiding soils. For certain types of Unfortunately, lack of planning typically results
excavation, appropriate bracing can be provided. construction, jacking of columns may be a in reactive measures, and responsibility for
In situations where the effects of construction viable solution to negate some effects of ex- those, despite even the clearest engineering
activities cannot be easily assessed, it may cessive settlement. In other cases, leveling floors interpretations, usually does not get sorted out
be advisable to notify the developers to cease with insertion of a light-weight grout of variable easily or amicably. This is due, in part, to
operations until the investigation is completed. thickness can provide a viable solution. If ambiguity of building codes and common laws
Advising the building department of an the lateral-load-resisting system or any other regarding allocation of responsibility, to de-
ongoing situation should be used if all other structural system of the building is rendered velopers and their contractors who undertake
forms of communication fail. inadequate or was compromised by adjacent construction without proper regard to their
construction, retrofit may be needed. An neighbors, and to uninformed building owners.
Remediation example of this situation is when one of the As a result, adjacent-building owners can be
buildings sharing a party wall is demolished, misled into believing that problems are not
Permanent repairs for damage incurred at
the building on the other side of the party wall real or will go away, are not compensated fairly
the adjacent property are typically handled
may be left inadequate to resist lateral loads for incurred damage, or are forced into litiga-
at the end of the construction process. Most
on its own. The solution in that case could tion or costly repairs they cannot afford. In
damage can be repaired in a reasonable and
involve installation of moment frames or braced the meantime, the building stock irreversibly
conventional fashion. Some building responses,
frames within the building interior or on the accumulates damage.▪
however, can result in irreparable damage,
exterior to enhance lateral stability.
at least from a cost standpoint. A good example Paul L. Kelley, P.E. is a Senior Principal
Other repairs may be required by the building
is sloping floors. In most older buildings, some at Simpson Gumpertz and Heger’s office in
code. For example, in some municipalities, if
differential settlement is likely. Even if the Boston and a head of East Coast Structural
a structure on one side of the masonry bearing
amount of new settlement due to construction Engineering operations.
party wall is removed, the developer is obliged
activities next door is distinctly discernable
to provide permanent attachment of the re- Charles Russo, P.E. is a Senior Principal
from pre-existing damage, jacking up framing
maining wall to the floor framing on the other with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. and
to level floors is impractical, cost-prohibitive,
side. Also, any visible and obvious damage to is Head of Structural Engineering Practice in
and in some cases can cause more damage
the waterproofing system, roofing, or façade, their Washington, DC office.
than good.
may need to be repaired by the construction
Other damage can be repaired. Cracked or Michael Brainerd, P.E. is a Senior Principal
project owner to protect the adjacent building.
otherwise distressed brick walls should be with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. and is
Enforcement of the repairs mandated by the
stitched, partially rebuilt, or repointed. Gen- their National Practice Leader for Structural
code, however, may be difficult.
erally, distressed structures can be permanently Repair and Rehabilitation.
stabilized and strengthened with bracing,
shoring, and re-attachment. In cases where Conclusions Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E. is a Senior
further movement and damage is probable, Principal with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Interpretation of construction-related damage
underpinning, re-underpinning, or other soil Inc. and is Head of Structural Engineering
to buildings in congested urban environments
stabilization techniques (e.g. jet grouting), as Practice in their New York office.
is often in the eye of the beholder. Some

STRUCTURE magazine 12 September 2010

 Cracked-Concrete Solutions Cracked &
Uncracked IBC
®

CONCRETE 2006

ICC-ES
Listed

Anchors that crack the code.

Since the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) has been adopted
by the majority of the states, choosing concrete anchors has become
more complicated. Some applications now require anchors to perform
in cracked concrete, while others may not. Look to Simpson Strong-Tie
for the products that meet both types of anchoring challenges. Our
Titen HD® screw anchor, Strong-Bolt™ wedge anchor and SET-XP™
anchoring adhesive are all ICC-ES code listed for use in cracked and
uncracked-concrete applications. And we still offer a full line of traditional
wedge, sleeve and drop-in anchors for almost any anchoring project.
When you have questions, look to us for answers. For more information
visit www.simpsonanchors.com/cc or call (800) 999-5099.

Titen HD® Strong-Bolt™ SET-XP™

ICC-ES ESR-2713 ICC-ES ESR-1771 ICC-ES ESR-2508 IN THE SPECS
ON THE JOB
AT YOUR SERVICE™
© 2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. THDSBSETXP10-S
 Evaluating Historic Structures for Adaptive Re-Use
By Dominick R. Pilla, P.E., C.E., S.E., R.A. and Xiaoli Tong, P.E.
The H. Lawrence & Sons Rope Works
complex, located at 221 McKibbin Street
at the western edge of North Brooklyn’s
Industrial Business Zone, has been in
continuous use for industrial purposes
for more than 160 years. The Green-
point Manufacturing and Design Center
(GMDC), a nonprofit industrial developer
of sustainable and viable manufacturing
sectors in urban neighborhoods, purchased
the property in 2007 and started renovation
of the complex utilizing New Markets
and Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits
(Figure 1).
GMDC selected the team of Oaklander
Coogan & Vitto, Architects (OCV Archi-
tects) and structural engineer, Dominick
R. Pilla Associates (DRPilla), to preserve
the historic building and adapt it for
modern uses.
Project Description
Built on poor soils with an adjacent
subway, the existing nine-building complex
was in need of structural remediation
and renovation. The oldest three-story
building’s structure consists of 16-inch
thick exterior brick walls, a roof truss
Historic structures
system, two timber joist floor systems
supported by cast-iron columns/walls,
and a slab-on-grade ground floor, with
a footprint of approximate 247 by 41
feet and a maximum height of 34 feet.
Adjacent on the eastern façade is a two-
story brick wall building, which consists
of 12-inch thick exterior load-bearing
walls, a flat roof, a timber joist floor
supported by wide flange steel girders and
columns, and slab-on-grade ground floor
with a footprint of approximately 43.5 by
significant structures of the past
Figure 2: Lacking construction documents, visual inspection and detail field measurement were the
primary means used to assess the buildings.
STRUCTURE magazine
64 feet and a maximum height of 26 feet
3 inches. The remaining seven buildings
on the site are all one-story flat roof
buildings, including a 2,100 square foot
new addition. The total building area is
approximately 72,000 square feet. The
scope of the renovation work consisted of
the evaluation of the existing structures,
the retrofit of structural deficiencies, and
specific upgrades to isolated portions of the
buildings to meet the loading requirements
for various occupancies ranging from
multiple light industrial to artisanal use.
The main challenge facing the structural
engineer (DRPilla) was developing a sys-
tematic method to evaluate the patchwork
of structural elements throughout the
complex and evaluating the structural
integrity of each for proposed new uses.
Condition Assessment
Lacking construction documents, visual
inspection and detailed field measurements
were the primary means used to assess
the buildings (Figure 2). The buildings
were examined, and areas of spalling and
cracking were noted.
In addition to the anticipated dete-
rioration due to time, large settlement
cracks were observed on most of the
one-story building exterior walls and at
the south-west corner of the three-story
building. Test pits and in-situ dynamic
cone penetration tests were conducted
adjacent to the existing wall footing.
The testing revealed the bearing soil
layer was mainly fill comprising sand
with gravels, crushed concrete, etc. The
sample fill had a low bearing capacity of
less than 1.0 tsf.
14 September 2010
Figure 1: This former rope manufacturing
complex now provides 72,000-square feet of
light manufacturing and artisan workspace.
Courtesy of Mireille Moga.
Since the building had been bearing on
the soil for at least 60 years, the 1.0 tsf
capacity was not as much of a concern for
soil below the footings as was whether the
back-fill was fully and uniformly com-
pacted during construction. Differential
settlement from non-uniform bearing soil
was likely the primary cause of the settle-
ment cracks and leaning interior columns
observed throughout. Excavation of the
column footings proved the footings were
dimensionally adequate. However the
footings were rotating at the corners, a
condition indicative of improper in-filling
and soil compaction when the building
complex was initially built.
Most roof purlins presented varying
degrees of deformation. Further exploration
of the roof profile revealed multiple layers
of roof finish material, which resulted
from installations completed over time.
The significant additional load of mul-
tiple roofing layers, as well as long-term
exposure to moisture, were determined to
be the main cause of the purlins’ deforma-
tion. The deformations were so large that
some purlins were considered to be failures
in serviceability according to the current
building code.
Building Code Compliance
In order to develop a reasonable structural
renovation plan, DRPilla conducted a
comparison between historic NYC build-
ing codes and the current code.
 web members and the top/bottom chord. At
an average spacing of 20 feet, the roof truss
analysis results showed gravity loads prevailed
in design and all vertical chords (the tension-
only rods) would not be in compression, even
under the combinations of unbalanced snow
load and wind load. The modified double
howe roof trusses are capable and stable when
compromised chords were repaired.

Floor System
The floors on every level of the main building
were evaluated. Similar to the layers of roofing
material, layers of flooring material needed to
be removed in order to properly evaluate the
condition and strength of the over 100-year
old timber floors. Removal of the flooring mate-
rial revealed rotted and fire-damaged areas.
Existing timber girders and joists were analyzed
in accordance with the current analysis method.
In the absence of the timber specie, typical “old
growth” Douglas Fir was assumed, and values
of the allowable stresses were obtained from the
National Lumber Manufactures Association
Figure 3: Retrofitted cast-iron column top plate connection. (now the American Wood Council). The re-
sults showed the floor structural members were
The first NYC comprehensive building code Roof System adequate to resist the design floor load of 120
was enacted in 1850, when construction for psf in total after renovation. Joists and girders
Multiple layers of a variety of roofing materi-
the complex began. Complete revisions were with severe deterioration and large deformation
als were removed in order to reduce the roof
performed in 1938 and 1968 respectively. The were replaced by new timber joists and steel
dead load and quantify the loading capacity
current NYC building code is the 1968 NYC beams respectively.
of the roof. The roof purlins/joists with large
Building Code, with up-to-date supplements
deformations were replaced by sawn timbers
and local laws (Note: the latest is 2008 con- Columns
of various sizes, depending on the spans.
struction code which is effective July 2008).
The existing roof truss is a 41-foot-span Columns with severe corrosion and large
The comparison shows that minimum design
timber double howe-type, with all vertical incline were replaced by new steel columns.
loads are slightly reduced in the current code
web members made of steel rods (tension ties). Corresponding concrete footings larger than
for a light factory. For example, the floor live
The atypical use of steel rods, instead of solid original ones were designed to accommodate
load was reduced from 120 psf to 100 psf in
wood members, simplified the construction the poor bearing fill.
the current code; the roof live load was reduced
at the connections between vertical/diagonal continued on next page
from 40 psf (3:12 rise or less) to 30 psf in the
current code.
Wind loads were generally not considered
for a building under 100 feet high until 1968, Products and Solutions for
when at least 20 psf pressure was specified. The Bridges, Buildings & Construction
fact that the building has persevered through

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

the ages is proof of its resilience to loads im-
posed by wind, snow and gravity. However, all
structural members and connections needed to
be examined and verified. Based on the gov-
erning seismic code, local law 17/95, the new
enlargement was comparatively small and seismic
analysis was exempted for the alteration of the • Preformed Fabric Bearing Pads
existing complex. Only the new addition was • Random Oriented Fiber Bearing Pads
required to be designed for seismic resistance. • Structural Expansion Bearings
In all, the existing building structural system • Teflon® Surface for Expansion
was deemed adequate with the decrease of • Lamp Post Pads
• Drain Trough for Bridges
design live loads as well as the roof dead load
• FE Analysis for Building Design Since 1936
by removal of existing multiple roof material.
The structural members and connections were www.fabreeka.com
analyzed and retrofitted in accordance with Canada United Kingdom Germany Taiwan
www.fabreeka.ca www.fabreeka.co.uk www.fabreeka.de www.fabreeka.com.cn
the applicable design code references.

STRUCTURE magazine 15 September 2010

 Some of the existing girders were discovered
to be coped with half depth to overlap each
other. This connection detail provided for
more uniform stress bearing on the top plate
because the end reaction forces vary largely
due to widely varying adjacent spans.
While this top plate connection detail benefit-
ted the columns by reducing the possibility of
eccentric loading at their tops, it impaired the
coped girder because of a decrease to its shear
capacity. An analysis showed the existing shear
resistance at the coped section was only 70% of
the required shear force. The existing top plate
detail was replaced by a new design (Figure 3,
page 15), which provided adequate bearing
length from the cope line for the coped girder.
Foundation system
The existing spread footings were deter-
mined to be adequate. However, helical
piles incorporated with grade beams were
designed to strengthen the wall footing at
the cracking south-west corner of the three-
story building (Figure 4).The advantage of
helical piles is mainly its minor disturbance
to the existing building and the subway
structure adjacent to the building during
installation. The piles prevent further crack-
ing of the existing wall and increased the
building’s integrity.
Figure 4: Helical Pile Grade Beam Support.
STRUCTURE magazine
Masonry Walls
To retain as much of the existing structure as
possible, portions of walls with compromised
masonry were disassembled. These sections
were re-built and tied back to the stable por-
tions of the walls. Close coordination between
the architect and engineer was crucial during
this phase.
The previous NYC building code gener-
ally specified the minimum wall thickness
for varying building height. This design idea
is adopted as an empirical provision in the
current NYC building code. For a 3-story
building, 16-inch thick walls at the lower
2 floors and 12-inch thick walls at the top
floor were required in 1920s, while only 12-
inch thick walls are required for all three floors
by the current code. The area of openings is
less than 25% of the gross area on every load
bearing wall. Therefore, the existing brick wall
construction complies with the empirical pro-
vision in the current code. The stability and
integrity of walls were not comprised when
repaired and repointed.
Sustainable and Viable Historic
Preservation Goal Achieved
Renovation of the 221 McKibbin Street
complex was completed in 2009. The new
16 September 2010
Figure 5: 221 McKibbin Street Industrial Center
was recognized with an Historic Preservation Award
in 2009.
complex contains 20 units accommodating
various tenant space requirements, ranging
from 1,200 to 7,200 square feet of affordable
small light manufacturing and artisan work-
space. The facility will house more than 100
full-time jobs when fully leased, preserving
the industrial heritage of Brooklyn for a new
generation of workers. Moreover, an economic
analysis on investment and operation shows
that the renovated complex is anticipated to
create $181 million in total economic impact,
and $19.7 million in federal and state fiscal
impact. One hundred and one jobs were creat-
ed during construction and an estimated 136
jobs will be created and maintained during the
first 10 years of operation.
The Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce rec-
ognized 221 Mckibbin Street Industrial Center
with its Historic Preservation Award at the 2009
Building Brooklyn Awards Ceremony held
in the Brooklyn Navy Yard on July 15, 2009
(Figure 5). DRPilla’s structural evaluation and
remediation helped developer Greenpoint
Manufacturing and Design Center achieve
their vision of developing a new sustainable
and viable manufacturing facility in an urban
neighborhood. As a recipient of the Historic
Rehabilitation tax credit, 221 McKibbin Street
will be placed on the National Register of
Historic Places.▪
Dominick R. Pilla, P.E., C.E., S.E., R.A. is
the Principal of Dominick R. Pilla Associates,
P.C. in Nyack, New York. He is also an
Associate Professor at the Bernard and Anne
Spitzer School of Architecture at The City
College of the City University of New York. He
can be reached at dominick@drpilla.com.
Xiaoli Tong, P.E. is a structural engineer
with Dominick R. Pilla Associates, PC in
Nyack, New York. He can be reached at
xiaolit@drpilla.com.
 CRSI’s nationwide Region Manager network
focuses on local marketing, technical and
membership support.

VISIT US AT BOOTH #N2837 DURING

WORLD OF CONCRETE 2011!

The NEW “Must Have” Design Resource

The CRSI Design Handbook has been the reference book for cast-in-place reinforced concrete
design since 1952. The 10th edition provides the necessary information needed for common
reinforced concrete structural members such as columns, beams, footings, pile caps, retaining
walls, and floor systems. The entire Handbook is updated to include the Unified Design
concepts presented in ACI 318-08, Section 10.3 and load factors in Section 9.2.

Industry Standards for Reinforced Concrete Construction NOW

The 28th edition of the Manual of Standard Practice contains information on recommended ON
industry practices for estimating, detailing, fabricating, and placing reinforcing steel for reinforced CD-ROM!
concrete construction. New material includes a list of specific information on structural drawings
that is required by the ACI 318 Building Code and updated illustrations of the markings on Grade
60 and Grade 75 reinforcing bars.

The Complete Source

Reinforcing Bars: Anchorages and Splices (5th edition) contains complete information on develop-
ment and splicing of reinforcing bars. Features technical data on mechanical splices including load
tests for Type 1 and Type 2 splices. Includes extensive tables of development and lap splice lengths for
uncoated and epoxy-coated reinforcing bars. Also includes expanded information on headed bars.
Based on ACI 318-08 and AASHTO bridge specifications.

A Definitive Resource
CRSI’s unique and popular Placing Reinforcing Bars presents the best accepted current field practices in
placing reinforcing bars. It is written for apprentices, journeymen ironworkers and inspectors. Definitive
resource for preparing provisions in project specifications. Eighteen heavily illustrated chapters cover
topics such as materials, handling bars at the jobsite, general principles for bar placing, splicing, and
tying; placing bars in footings, walls, columns, floors, roofs, pavements and highway structures; and
epoxy-coated reinforcing bars.

The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) is the authoritative resource for all items related to concrete
Visit construction using reinforcing steel. CRSI serves architects, engineers, contractors and other construction
www.crsi.org professionals through our design manuals, technical publications, educational seminars and membership
opportunities. Since 1924, CRSI has worked to increase the use of reinforcing steel in concrete construc-
or call tion projects from residential and commercial buildings to highways and bridges.
847-517-1200 CRSI membership consists of two classifications. Corporate Members are industry-affiliated businesses in-
for membership cluding concrete contractors, fabricators, producers and placers. Professional Members are architects, en-
gineers and other professions closely related to the industry. Together, they form a complete network of
information vital industry information and support related to steel reinforced concrete construction.
and our The reinforcing steel industry is a specialized division of concrete construction. Through involvement in
entire CRSI, our members:
• Enjoy priority access to technical support and industry resources
selection • Are supported through targeted marketing promotions of reinforced concrete at a
National, Regional and Local level
of popular • Participate in valuable forecasting, peer discussions and business development events
publications. • Receive timely industry and market reports and substantial discounts on all CRSI publications
and software
 Building Façade Inspection
Part 1: Considerations
By Scott L. Weiland, P.E., Stephen L. Morgan, E.I. and J. Trey Thomas, E.I.
Structural engineers with varied experi-
Structural ForenSicS
ence in the areas of design, forensics, water
and damp proofing, and construction are
the best qualified professionals to conduct
façade inspections. They have knowledge
of how materials behave when subjected to
imposed loads and movements. Determin-
ing the root cause of a deficiency can be
very challenging, though not impossible
if you understand how façades and building
superstructures are constructed, how they
behave when subjected to movement and
load, and the possible failure mechanisms
involved. This article discusses some of
the important considerations that motivate
building façade inspections; a subsequent
one will describe the actual inspection and
investigating structures and their components
documentation process.
Background
A building’s façade serves three roles:
• Structural resistance to wind,
seismic, and gravity loads.
• Environmental protection from
the elements, including moisture
and temperature.
• Architectural appearance and
aesthetics.
Façades are either load-bearing or cur-
tain wall type and can also be a part of a
solid or cavity wall. A solid wall is likely
load-bearing and only has one moisture
STRUCTURE magazine
barrier. A cavity wall has the additional
benefit of two moisture barriers separated
by an air space.
With age, façades may experience deg-
radation as a result of normal wear and
tear and chemical exposure. Moisture,
either penetrating the exterior or escaping
the interior of a building, can cause rust
and deteriorate supports. Water vapor
pressure trapped within the veneer, along
with freeze/thaw action, can result in
cracks and spalls. Building movement in
the form of shortening, caused by creep
and shrinkage, and foundation settlement
can cause cracks, spalls, and buckling of
the façade. Differential expansion and
contraction, caused by temperature and
moisture changes, can also lead to similar
failures. As one can imagine, northern
climates experience more severe façade
degradation compared to southern climates
due to the colder temperatures, signifi-
cant snowfall, extended periods of below
freezing temperatures, and larger seasonal
temperature changes.
Thirty or more years ago, not much
was known about the effects of moisture
changes and building movements on fa-
çades. Consequently, buildings constructed
in this era lack modern detailing, including
expansion and contraction joints and
flexible connections, which address these ef-
fects. It is estimated that a piece of masonry
18 September 2010
Engineer conducting façade inspection via
industrial rope access. Eight story hospital in
San Francisco, CA.
falls off of a building in the United
States once every three weeks. Unfortu-
nately, it has taken front page news of
personal injuries, deaths, and property
damage to prompt governmental authori-
ties and large private property owners to
impose restrictions.
In 1976, Chicago instituted a façade
ordinance to protect citizens and property
from falling façade debris. Since then,
major cities such as Boston, Columbus,
Detroit, Milwaukee, New York, Pittsburgh,
Philadelphia and St Louis have also ad-
opted façade ordinances. The variability of
these laws, ranging from visual inspec-
tion only to both visual inspection and
close-up physical examination, led to the
development of ASTM E 2270, Standard
Practice for Periodic Inspection of Building
Façades for Unsafe Conditions. This stan-
dard is intended for adoption by model
building codes and local municipalities,
as well as owners of multiple buildings.
The adopting authority has only to define
which buildings within their jurisdiction
require inspection based on height, age,
and occupancy.
Movement of Materials
While façades can degrade locally through
environmental exposure to chemicals and
moisture pressure and freezing, most
deterioration can be traced to differential
movements within the façade and supporting
structure. Using multiple materials in combi-
nation often leads to such movement. If not
accommodated by frequent horizontal and
vertical expansion joints and flexible intercon-
nections parallel to the plane of the façade,
internal stresses can develop, resulting in façade
cracks, spalls, and deformation. The following
movements are known to occur.
Thermal
All materials expand and contract with changes
in temperature. Fired clay, such as brick and
terra cotta, and some stone products, such as
granite and limestone, have thermal expansion
coefficients similar to that of concrete masonry
(CMU). Marble and steel have coefficients
higher than that of CMU. Aluminum, often
used in window and curtain wall framing,
has a thermal expansion coefficient approxi-
mately three times that of CMU. Exterior cavi-
ty walls have the insulating value of an air space
and thus will experience a larger temperature
differential between the interior wythe, which
is exposed to conditioned air, and the exterior
wythe, which is exposed to the atmosphere,
than a solid un-insulated wall. This can be
greatest on a dark–colored, south-facing wall,
where surface temperatures can be as much as
40°F above ambient. An insulated 4-inch ve-
neer will have an average temperature roughly
equal to the exterior surface temperature. A
solid, uninsulated wall will have a lower mean
temperature than the exterior surface due to the
competing interior and exterior temperatures.
Moisture
With the exception of metal, most materials
will expand and contract with changes in
moisture content. However, fired clay products
will not contract by drying; they are the small-
est size when they cool after leaving the kiln
and will continue to absorb moisture from that
point, with most of the expansion occurring in
the first few weeks followed by a much slower
rate of expansion for several years. This ex-
pansion is partially offset by drying shrinkage
in the mortar joints. Moisture absorption of
concrete masonry, like cast-in-place concrete,
is the largest after casting. Both shrink as they
cure, but expand when exposed to moisture.
The combined movements typically result in
a net shrinkage.
Wood will shrink as it seasons until the moisture
content is in equilibrium with the environ-
ment. Wood will continue to shrink and swell
with changes in moisture content. Wood prop-
erties are anisotropic, so shrinkage and swell
is greatest tangentially (parallel to the growth
rings), half as much radially (perpendicular to
the growth rings), and much less parallel to
STRUCTURE magazine
the grain in the long direction of lumber. A
four story wood frame building may shrink as
much as ¾ of an inch or more as the wood
dries out. It is important to isolate different
materials so that the shrinkage and swelling of
one material does not impart stresses onto an
adjacent material.
Elastic Deformation
Building materials will deform elastically with
changes in stress. This deformation is reversible
and is a function of the stress level within the
material. All forces applied to a building must
be considered, including gravity and lateral
loads. In curtain wall construction, the exterior
veneer is exposed primarily to lateral loads
such as wind and seismic; the only gravity load
should be the weight of the façade material
above, which can be reduced by horizontal
relief angles with integral expansion joints,
often installed at floor levels. The supporting
building structure will be subjected to all of Cracked corner brick resulting from a lack of
the gravity and lateral loads, and will deform expansion joints in the brick veneer.
accordingly. Therefore, it is important to use
expansion joints and flexible connections to use of corrosion-accelerating chlorides in con-
accommodate these movements and ensure crete and mortar be minimized, and water be
that structure loads are not shared by the ve- diverted away from concrete and masonry.
neer. Solid composite exterior walls are often
load-bearing, and the materials that make up Unstable Soils
the wall will deform together. It is important Unstable or expansive soil can result in differ-
that the component materials of a solid wall ential settlement of foundations that support
either have similar properties or incorporate building façades and their superstructure backup.
detailing to offset the difference in material It is important to design foundations for uni-
properties or minimize their impact. form settlement to avoid the consequences of
differential movement.
Creep
Creep is the long term deformation of ma- Conclusion
terials subjected to loads or stress. Creep in
cast-in-place concrete, concrete masonry, and Façade inspection is as much of an art as a
mortar is irreversible, starts immediately upon science and forces structural engineers to think
the application of load, and continues at a outside the box. No matter how unique and
decreasing rate. In high-rise buildings, combined challenging a deficiency seems to be, experience
elastic, inelastic creep, and shrinkage shortening and persistence will lead to the root cause. With
of columns and walls may be as much as 1 inch roughly only 15,000 buildings subject to façade
in 80 feet of height. Creep in lumber can range ordinances in nine cities across the nation,
from 0.5 to 1 times the dead load deflection, with there are a lot of other possible time bombs out
half of the creep deflection being irreversible. there requiring inspection and remedial action.
Hopefully, other municipalities will adopt
Corrosion ASTM E 2270 before the harmful effects of not
Steel embedded in masonry and concrete in- doing so are felt.▪
cludes reinforcing bars, joint reinforcing, ties,
anchor bolts, shelf angles, and lintels. Rusted Scott L. Weiland, P.E., is a Principal with
steel embeds that have lost 25% or more of Innovative Engineering Inc. and can be reached
their cross sectional area are typically consid- at sweiland@ieiusa.com.
ered to be no longer structurally effective.
Stephen L. Morgan E.I., is an Associate with
Additionally, rust requires up to six times more Innovative Engineering Inc. and can be reached
volume than that of the steel from which it at smorgan@ieiusa.com.
was formed. This increased volume results in
internal pressures that lead to cracks and spalls J. Trey Thomas E.I., is an Associate with
Innovative Engineering Inc. and can be reached
in the concrete or masonry in which it is
at tthomas@ieiusa.com.
embedded. It is important that steel embeds
be coated with a material to prevent rust, the
19 September 2010
 Structural Contributions to LEED ®
Chris Hofheins, S.E., MBA, LEED AP

As owners and developers become more

energy and environmentally conscious,
design teams are required to carefully
implement sustainable design principles.
The building’s structure has a significant
impact on the building’s embodied energy
and the ability to achieve LEED® points.
Embodied energy is defined as the available
energy used in the work of constructing
a building. A knowledgeable LEED AP
structural engineer on your project can
assist with sound sustainable design prin-
ciples that can significantly reduce the
building’s embodied energy.
The four most common structural ma-
terials are steel, concrete, masonry and
wood. Each material has a unique set of
attributes and properties. Structural engi-
neers should be careful when specifying
the structural components of a building
in order to capture all of the available
LEED points and minimize the building’s
embodied energy. Here are a few ways
the structural engineer can help achieve
LEED points.
Steel
• Materials and Resources credit
BUILDING BLOCKS
Concrete
• Credit MR 1 – Existing concrete
buildings are often reinforced
and reused.
• Credit MR 2 – Concrete can be
crushed and reused as fill material.
Steel rebar can be recycled.
• Credit MR 4.1 and MR4.2 –
Rebar is made with recycled steel.
Cement increases CO2 emissions.
Pozzolans such as fly ash (High
Volume Fly Ash Concrete – HVFA)
and ground granulated blast
furnace slag can reduce the cement Wood
content by more than 50%.
• Credit MR 2 – Wood is easily
• Credit MR 5 – Locally
recyclable and reused.
manufactured and extracted
• Credit MR 5 – Locally manufactured
materials are commonly available.
and extracted materials can be
available for some projects.
Masonry • Credit MR 6 – Wood is an entirely
• Sustainable Sites credit 6 and 7 (SS renewable material.
6 and SS 7) – Permeable concrete • Credit MR 7 – Sustainable material
or masonry pavements, or open cell suppliers with FSC-certified wood

1 (MR 1) – Existing steel frame
structures are easily reinforced so the
original structure can be reused.
• Credit MR 2 and MR 3 – Steel
is the most recycled material in
the world. Virtually any steel on a
construction site can be recycled or
re-fabricated and reused.
updates and information on structural materials
concrete masonry pavers, can improve
stormwater management and reduce
non-roof heat island effects.
• Credit MR 1 – Existing masonry
buildings are often reinforced
and reused.
• Credit MR 2 – Masonry can be
crushed and reused as fill material.
products are readily available.
• Indoor Environmental Quality
credit 4 (EQ 4) – Specify adhesives
used in composite wood, engineered
lumber, and agrifiber to comply
with South Coast Rule #1168 and
Green Seal GS-36. Also specify the
material to not contain added urea-

• Credit MR 4.1 and MR4.2 – Most
structural steel shapes are made from
97% recycled material. Recycled
content in steel plate is about 65%.
HSS sections are typically not made
with recycled steel and should be
avoided on LEED projects. The
Steel Recycling Institute reports the
post-consumer recycled content
is about 64% and post-industrial
recycled content is about 30%.
• Credit MR 5 – Steel is usually
manufactured locally but locally,
extracted materials are not
always available.
Steel rebar can be recycled.
• Credit MR 4.1 and MR 4.2 –
Rebar is made with recycled steel.
Concrete masonry units and grout
can be made with HVFA. Clay
brick is often made with recycled
brick, ground and used as grog. The
grog can qualify as post-consumer
recycled content. Other common
recycled content in masonry is
bottom ash, fly ash, sludge, and
even contaminated soil.
• Credit MR 5 – Locally
manufactured and extracted
materials are commonly available.
formaldehyde resins.
The building’s structure has a significant
impact on the building’s embodied energy
and the ability to achieve LEED points.
An astute LEED AP structural engineer
is a valuable design team member to help
implement sustainable design principles.▪
Chris Hofheins, S.E., MBA, LEED
AP, is a Structural Principal Engineer
at BHB Consulting Engineers of Salt
Lake City, Utah. He may be reached at
chris.hofheins@bhbengineers.com.

STRUCTURE magazine 20 September 2010

 Don’t let your plans
go sideways.

Strong Frame™ ordinary moment frames

Wood and Steel Strong-Wall® shearwalls Anchor Tiedown System

Whether you’re designing a custom home or a light-frame multi-story building, Simpson Strong-Tie has
the lateral-force resisting system to fit your project and help hold it together during a wind or seismic event.
Our code-listed Wood and Steel Strong-Wall ® shearwalls allow for narrow wall sections while providing
high loads. Our Anchor Tiedown Systems are restrained (tied off) at each floor level to provide the necessary
load capacity and overturning resistance for mid-rise buildings. And our new Strong Frame™ ordinary
moment frames are engineered in 368 configurations to save you time and create larger wall openings.

Learn how our entire line of Lateral Systems can keep your projects standing tall and strong.
Visit www.strongtie.com/lateralsystems or call (800) 999-5099.

©2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. LATSYTM09-S

 A Rational Method to Design Vehicular Barriers
By Mohammad Iqbal, D. Sc., P.E., S.E., Esq.
In an earlier STRUCTURE magazine
article (October 2008), the author pre-
sented an algorithm to determine design
force on a barrier during a vehicular im-
pact. The algorithm, based on energy
principle and empirical car crash data,
showed that the impact force depends on
four factors: mass, speed and crush char-
acteristics of the vehicle, and the barrier
stiffness. The article concluded that the
impact force on a barrier during a head-on
collision can be significantly larger than
the code-specified force of 6,000 lbs.
A vehicular barrier is defined as an el-
ement or a system that, when placed in
the path of a moving vehicle, would stop
the vehicle after it collides with the barrier
(Figure 1). The barrier may be active or
passive, located at grade or at an elevated
level. In general, vehicular barriers are
used to protect life, limbs and property
from intruding vehicles. In a parking
structure, barriers are used at floor edges
to prevent the vehicles from plunging to
street below. In other structures, barriers
are installed outside a building to keep
vehicles from slamming into the building.
Structural PracticeS
Generally, the barriers are passive type,
such as concrete walls, upturn beams,
spandrel beams, steel guardrails, bollards
and prestressed cables. If a vehicle can
plow through or go over an obstacle, the
obstacle is not considered an effective
barrier. A barrier that either fails during
an impact with a colliding vehicle (Fig-
ure 2) or flexes so much that the vehicle
breaches it without stopping, is not an
effective barrier. Recent fatal incidents
involving failure of the barriers in parking
structures during vehicular impacts and
the use of vehicles to slam into buildings
have put the barriers under focus and
their design adequacy has become more
important than ever.
practical knowledge beyond the textbook
A vehicle crashing into a barrier presents
a complex analytical problem. In order to
calculate the impact force F on a barrier,
one needs to know the weight, speed and
crashing characteristics of the vehicle, as
well the stiffness properties of the barrier.
In this respect, the International Building
Council’s (IBC) approach to design barriers
to use a single force of 6,000 lbs. appears
arbitrary and unreasonable.
Historical Background
Designing a vehicular impact barrier is not
a straight-forward task. Modern passenger
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 1: Barrier impact force and its arm above floor.
vehicles are made of various materials, in-
cluding metals, alloys and fiber-reinforced
polymer composites. The impact lasts
fraction of a second and then the vehicle
retreats or rebounds away from the barrier.
During a collision with a barrier, metals in
the vehicle body fold and collapse like an
accordion causing polymer fibers to break
away or de-bond from polymer matrix.
An analytical model that incorporates
these effects and accurately predicts how
a car crushes in a crash is useful in the
barrier design. The finite-element crash
and crush analyses procedures have been
used abundantly in automotive industry;
however, the analyses require specialized
software and large models consisting of
several hundred thousands, if not millions,
finite elements. Though the method is
appealing, it may be cost-prohibitive for
use in building projects.
In contrast to the above approach that
relies on sophisticated analysis, the U.S.
military has used field testing to design
barriers used to protect its bases against
enemy vehicles. The testing method
presumably requires building a test bar-
rier, subjecting it to a moving vehicle at
a specified speed and then standardizing
Figure 2: A concrete barrier failed prematurely
at impact.
22 September 2010
it on a scale of 0 to 10. For example,
according to the Military Field Manual,
steel pipes embedded in 4 foot deep foot-
ings (Figure 3) have been approved for
4,500-pound vehicles travelling at 30
mph. The protection rating of this system
is poor – 1.0 on a scale of 0 to 10. Another
standardized system is a reinforced concrete
retaining wall shown in Figure 4 (page
24). The wall is 21 inches thick and has
been approved for 15,000-pound vehicles
travelling at 30 mph, with a protection
rating of 3.6. Recently, ASTM F-2656-
07, Standard Test Method for Vehicle Crash
Testing of Perimeter Barriers, has been
developed to standardize testing of barriers.
The method requires building a test bar-
rier and subjecting it to a moving vehicle
at the design speed. The barriers tested
are then classified. The experimental
procedure is definitive, but expensive.
Proposed Design Method
In contrast, the author’s approach has
been to seek synergy by integrating the
well-known energy principle with the
available vehicular crash data to determine
impact force for all types of barriers, and
not limit the design to a few standardized
barrier types. As explained in the previous
article, the impact force on a vehicle barrier
can be determined by the equation:
F= mv 2 Equation 1
2(δc + δb)
Where m = the vehicle mass [= W ]
g
v = the vehicle speed at the impact
δc = vehicle crush
δb = barrier deflection under impact
Equation 1 does not capture the peak
force a barrier experiences. Rather, it
provides an average force during the crush
and rebound duration that lasts a fraction
of a second. The four parameters noted
in Equation 1 are discussed below, with a
focus on the effects of barrier stiffness on
the impact force F.
Mass
Barrier Deflection
It was concluded in the previous article that 4' - 0" MAX. CONCRETE
FILLED During an impact, a part of vehicle’s kinetic
a vehicular weight of 6,000 pounds should be
energy is transferred to the barrier. One barrier
used in barrier design in parking structures. 8" DIA. system may absorb energy as elastic strain

3' - 0"
In case the clear floor height exceeds 7 feet, a 1/2" THICK
STEEL PIPE while another system may rely on local yield
taller and heavier vehicle should be considered 0"
2' -
mechanisms. The amount of energy absorbed
in designing the barrier.
and accompanying deformation depends on
Vehicular Speed the barrier type. For barriers exhibiting linear
behavior, the deflection can be represented as:
The most significant parameter affecting the

4' - 0"
4' - 0"
impact force is the vehicle collision speed; δb = F Equation 3
the impact force increases with the square of kb
the vehicular speed. The anticipated speed where kb is the barrier stiffness. Substituting
depends on the distance and slope available for the value of δ b and δc in Equation 1, and after
a vehicle to accelerate before slamming into Figure 3: Steel Bollards used as Barriers for 4,500 some algebra, the impact force, F, can be
the barrier. Further, in a parking structure, lbs. vehicle travelling at 30 mph. computed using the following equation:
a vehicle may roll down the ramp without ‒
[
F = 0.5kb – √v + 2mv + v
2
any aid from its engine and gain considerable
speed, as its potential energy is converted into Administration (NHTSA) vehicle crash- 3.63 kb 13.2 ]
Equation 4

kinetic energy. A formula to compute the
speed at bottom of the ramp was presented in
the 2008 article.
Vehicle Crush
When a vehicle hits a barrier, parts of the
vehicle deforms, bends or crushes, and the
vehicle length decreases. The decrease in vehicle
length after an impact is termed “car crush”
and is denoted as δc in Equation 1. Based
on the National Highway Traffic Safety
worthiness tests, the car crush distance δc can
be approximated by the following equation:
‒
δc = √v (ft) Equation 2
3 weight. For example, Figure 5 (page 24) shows
where v is the car speed in miles per hour
(mph).
Since vehicles are manufactured by many au-
tomakers in many models with changes made
every year, the vehicle crush characteristics may
change as the technology progresses. As such, the
car crush data need to be updated accordingly.
where m, kb and v are in ft-lb. units.
Equation 4 can be used to plot the impact
force-speed relation for a given vehicular
the relationship for a 6,000 pound car impact-
ing against a barrier of stiffness kb. Figure 5 (page
24) shows that the impact force decreases as
the barrier stiffness is reduced (i.e. its flexibility
increases). However, barrier rigidity cannot
be reduced ad infinitum because, after cer-
tain reduction in stiffness, a barrier ceases

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

at all AZZ locations

There’s only one way to ensure it.

Galvanize.
There’s nothing greener than galvanized steel. 100% recyclable zinc
and steel help us protect the environment. Strengthen your
commitment to long-term sustainability. Learn more at azzgalvanizing.com.
AZZ provides a free GalvanizeIt seminar for continuing education credit.
The seminar highlights the benefits of using sustainable products in design and engineering.
For more information, please contact Dale Williams at (817) 810-0095 or dalewilliams@azzgalv.com. We Protect More Than Steel.

AZZ-36291 Structure Ad_V1.indd 1 7/28/10 3:25 PM

STRUCTURE magazine 23 September 2010
COLORS JOB# FILE NAME
to be effective. Concrete barriers,
such as cantilever walls, upturned
beams and precast spandrel beams
are nearly rigid. Such barriers ex-
hibit negligible δb and, unless
they fail prematurely (e.g. Figure
2, page 22), they experience the
severest impact force. The steel
guardrails show some flexibility
and the multi-strand steel cables
Assuming a rigid wall, fixed base
and impact load spread over 30
1'- 9" 9" inches long line, the wall capacity
1'-6" #5 BAR STIRRUPS appears to be adequate at ϕFn =
@ 6" O.C. 254 kips. In addition, since the
wall footing is narrow, it is ex-
(11) #7 BARS
@ 5" O.C. pected to rotate under impact
to absorb energy. The analysis
IMPACT FORCE #5 BARS @ 6" O.C. shows that the wall will be able
to stop the truck speeding at 30

undergo large deformations under
impact loading. However, the
determination of impact force
and associated deflection is not
a straightforward task for a non-
rigid barrier, as it may require
consideration of the P-∆ effects.
For example, the prestressed cable
barrier system is a non-linear
3'- 0"
10 #4 BARS mph; however, it will experience
GROUND SURFACE (TIES) @ 6" O.C. severe cracking and its base will
undergo noticeable rotation. The
1 1/2" CONCRETE COVER
(3 SIDES) Military’s protection rating for
the wall barrier is a low 3.6 on
the scale of 0 to 10. The com-
parison of tests results with the
proposed design method shows
that the proposed method is reli-

2'- 9"
BACKFILL
system that requires an iterative able in predicting the impact force.
process to determine F and δ b. 2" x 10 1/2" KEY
Summary and

1/2"
Comparison between Guidelines
Test Results and 3" CONCRETE
A frontal vehicular impact in-

1'- 4 1/2"
Proposed Design (8) #7 BARS COVER
volves an enormous amount of
(3 SIDES)
Method energy. The magnitude of impact
energy imparted to the barrier
Two barriers tested by the U.S. #5 BAR
STIRRUPS
depends upon vehicular mass,
Military are analyzed to determine 3'- 3"
@ 6" O.C. speed and crush characteristics as
if the proposed method can rea-
well as on barrier characteristics.
sonably predict the barrier design Figure 4: Concrete retaining wall used as barrier for 15,000 lb. vehicle traveling
Both IBC and ASCE-7 prescribe
force. Since all necessary test data is at 30 mph.
a minimum design force that per-
not available, some assumptions
stiffness kb = = 10 lbs./in. Using Equation
3EI 6 tains to the vehicular speed of approximately 5
are made in the comparison. l 3 The pipe starts yielding at Fy
5, F = 68 kips. mph (Figure 5); they do not provide a rational
Pipe Barrier = 49 kips when its deflection is 0.042 inch. basis to design a vehicular barrier. It is suggested
The pipe becomes fully plastic when F reaches that the building codes should require the use
As shown in Figure 3 (page 22), a series of 56.7 kips. The contribution of concrete in of energy principles in vehicular barrier design
pipes cantilevering from a nearly-rigid base resisting impact is minimal, if at all, and so it to protect public safety, and that design pro-
form a barrier to a moving vehicle. The pipes is neglected. As the pipe continues to deflect fessionals use the following guidelines:
are spaced 4 feet apart. Each pipe is 8 inches in in plastic mode under load, it keeps absorbing 1) Select vehicular speed based on distance
diameter and is filled with concrete. The pipes energy. When the pipe’s deflection (at the point and slope available for acceleration, but
are extra strong ASTM A501, Fy = 36 ksi. From of impact) δ = 6.8 inches, the vehicle would not less than 10 mph in parking stalls.
b
the American Institute of Steel Constuction’s stop and rebound, leaving behind a bent pipe 2) Select vehicular weight based on
(AISC) handbook, the pipe section I =106 leaning 13.6 inches at the top. Accordingly, the ceiling height available, but not
in4, S =24.5 in3 and plastic modulus Z = 33 the load factor for the pipe is 0.83 – less than less than 6,000 pounds in facilities
in3. The colliding car weighing 4,500 pounds unity, which is unsatisfactory. Similarly, the with ceiling heights of less than 8
(m=139.75 ft-sec.2/lb.) impacts a single pipe Military’s protection rating for the pipe barrier feet. When complying with ADA
barrier at 30 mph (44 ft./sec.). Its bumper is very poor – 1 on the scale of 0 to 10. requirements, the vehicular weight
height is assumed to be 18 inches. The pipe’s should be increased accordingly.
150
Wall Barrier 3) Incorporate barrier deformation
Rigid Barrier characteristics and load flow to avoid
The vehicle used in testing the bar-
K = 100 Kips/ft. 125 a progressive collapse.▪
K = 10 Kips/ft.
rier (Figure 4) weighed 15,000 pounds
IMPACT FORCE (kips)

100 (m = 466 ft-sec.2/lb.). It is assumed

IBC-2009
75 to be a commercial truck, such as
Ford F-450 with a bumper height of Mohammad Iqbal is a licensed P.E., S.E.
50 21 inches. For a rigid barrier, the impact and a licensed attorney. He serves on
25 force F = 248 kips. The test wall was several ACI and ASCE committees and is
reinforced each way, each face and was a member of the American Bar Association
0 Construction Forum. Mohammad can be
thus capable of developing yield-lines
0 10 20 30 40 reached at mi@iqbalgroup.us.
IMPACT SPEED (mph) on both faces and in both directions.
Figure 5: Vehicular Speed – Impact Force plot for a 6,000 lb.
vehicle and barrier stiffness, k.

STRUCTURE magazine 24 September 2010

Intelligent
Structural Design

With RAM™, STAAD® and

Model, Analyze, Design, Document Documentation Center, Bentley
offers proven applications for:
and Deliver…in an Integrated Workflow l Steel/Steel Composite
l Reinforced Concrete
Having all the applications you need for the tasks at hand, along with the ability
l Wood and Wood Products
to easily synchronize your work with the rest of the project information, helps
you get your job done right, fast and profitably. And when the structural project l Foundation Design
workflow can be integrated, the whole team benefits. l Post-Tensioned Design
l Steel Connections
Bentley’s new Passport Subscriptions for structural engineers provide access to l Structural Drawings and Details
the full range of structural software (including upgrades) and training documents
and information that most projects require. These options are available as an … all easily coordinated with the
affordable alternative to traditional licensing. Architect and other team members and
their design applications – such as
Contact us to learn more. AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation® and more.

www.Bentley.com/Structural
© 2010 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley, the “B” Bentley logo, MicroStation, RAM, and STAAD are either registered or unregistered trademarks
or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated or one of its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries. Other brands and product names are
trademarks of their respective owners.
Haiti
The Country That Time Has Left Behind
By Craig E. Barnes, P.E. SECB
F
ollowing the January 12, 2010, earthquake,
Management Sciences for Health (MSH)
engaged Haitian consultants to observe and
report on the condition of MSH leased proper-
ties in Haiti. MSH subsequently approached CBI
Consulting Inc. (CBI) to review and comment on
reports prepared by these Haitian consultants, with
the expectation that CBI would be able to use them
to conduct an engineering review of various leased
properties, damaged and undamaged, and determine
whether the buildings were safe for habitation.
The first report revealed numerous obstacles. There Residential Area.
were no plans for the buildings, descriptions of the construction,
engineering calculations, or overall pre-quake photographs enabling a
reviewer to determine whether it was a one story or taller building. The
reports contained no assessment for habitability and any recommen-
dations for repair were extremely modest, such as simply patching of
cracks in masonry construction with mortar. Telephone conversations
with the consultants, from over a thousand miles away, revealed that the
information CBI needed would not be forthcoming. That resulted in a
contract between CBI and MSH to send the author to Haiti to review
the situation firsthand.
At CBI’s urging, and before the author departed for Haiti, the client
engaged a geotechnical engineer to approximate the location of the
building sites with respect to the seismic epicenter and the soils profiles
that might be encountered at the various sites. Of the thirteen sites
that were evaluated, the closest was approximately seven miles from the
epicenter and the most distant was approximately 17.5 miles away. The
soil bearing characteristics ranged from alluvium soil to ledge.
Observations on Arrival
On arrival in Port-au-Prince, it was obvious from the chaos that this
would be an unusual undertaking. The ride from the airport to the
headquarters office of the client was along streets lined with damaged
Mixing Concrete.
STRUCTURE magazine
buildings and individuals selling fruits, vegetables, roadside prepared
foods, and a variety of retail items. Without the order, it was somewhat
like walking down a poorly kept aisle of a retail/grocery store with
broken shelves. The first meeting with the client revealed that there
was a very poor understanding of earthquake issues and the work of
structural engineers.
The client’s expectations were the same as had been discussed before the
author arrived in Haiti: to provide comfort and assurance to residents
and employee occupants of various buildings that it was safe to return.
Initially, the client did not understand that the request was an impossible
order given the limited information available; that an engineer could not
simply view a structure and determine the structural sufficiency, let alone
how it would perform in an undefined future earthquake.
To prepare a way to manage expectations and outline a reasonable
objective, the first full day in Haiti was spent simply touring and
photographing as many of the structures as possible. That day revealed a
range of buildings with conditions from total collapse to no observable
damage. Although the scope had clearly been revised in the mind of the
author, the client was not yet on board. The second day on site would
not be the appropriate time to attempt explaining the realities to the
client. The process had to be one of gradual education.
Building Inventory
The subject structures were from one to five stories in height and had
plan areas between 1,500 and 10,000 square feet. With few exceptions,
buildings had reinforced concrete columns infilled with unreinforced
masonry supporting cast-in-place concrete floors/roofs. One exception
was a building of one level that had unreinforced masonry bearing walls
with no concrete columns, supporting a roof of open web steel joists
and plywood. Another exception was a three-story warehouse building
with a roof structure of open web steel joists that formed a seven-foot-
deep hip roof and supported a metal deck. All buildings were presumed
to have concrete spread footings under columns, and strip footings
under walls. Slabs on grade are reinforced or unreinforced concrete.
Commercial versus Residential Construction
Following a review of the structures with which CBI would be involved,
and viewing other construction operations observed in the immediate
vicinity, it was obvious that there were two types of construction,
commercial and residential. Commercial construction includes those
26 September 2010
buildings that utilized carpenter-built concrete forms, ironworker-
placed column reinforcing steel, and apparently increased attentiveness
on the part of concrete placing crews. Projects of residential character
appear to have been constructed more haphazardly, with much less
concern for placement of reinforcement, construction of concrete
forms, and concrete placement techniques. With the exception of a large
warehouse facility and a medical clinic, all the buildings that the author
observed were currently or formerly residences. Many of the structures
were built in the colonial period, and had been occupied by command
or military personnel or upper echelon government individuals. In
recent years, many of these buildings were simply renamed as either
an office building or warehouse. One warehouse facility started as an
upscale residence of four stories, with setbacks at two floors where
additional light frame construction was infilled. The infill work was
poorly constructed and may have been done in anticipation of the
marketplace that required warehousing.
It was apparent that ground movement from site to site, as well as
the response of structures to ground movement, had not been the
same. Similarly constructed buildings in close proximity responded
differently to the seismic disturbance. The fact that buildings on the
same foundation material behaved differently during the earthquake
suggested that construction sufficiency was an important element Pouring a Concrete Column Between CMU Walls.
of performance. The fact that buildings with similar construction
deficiencies behaved differently during the earthquake suggested a Cracks in finished wall surfaces – for example, 1½-inch cementitious
difference in the ground movement itself. stucco and plaster applied to the concrete and CMU frame – were
Some of the grander residential structures had open areas at the first evidence of deficiencies in the construction and/or lack of reinforcement.
floor. Upper floors were enclosed in masonry and concrete construc- The author did not meet and talk with engineers that were experienced
tion. The vulnerability of soft stories was clearly demonstrated in these in commercial construction, but at the residential level there seems
cases. In general, discontinuity in load path, absence of reinforcement to be very little engineering that takes place in the average structure.
in concrete masonry walls, and poor construction practice were frequent Haitian architects and engineers seem to do what has worked well in the
contributors to distress. past and has been passed down through the years. The individual with

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

STRUCTURE magazine 27 September 2010

Rare Example of Slope Instability.
whom the author interfaced primarily was a graduate of the University
of Haiti where he had taken courses in engineering and architecture.
Although having graduated, there was no degree conferred and there
was no registration process at a governmental level to attest to his area
of expertise.
This architect/engineer would prepare contract documents using
traditional spans, heights and member cross sections, and then rely
on the contractor to provide the reinforcement. There are no codes
mandated in Haiti, and as a result, no specification of gravity or
lateral loads for design. Even in the warehouse projects, there was no
understanding on the part of the lessee regarding the capacities of the
floor systems. It appeared that those elevated structures were not loaded
beyond 60 to 70 pounds per square foot, which was consistent with the
author’s estimate of capacity.
Education
Given the governmental instability of Haiti, it appears as though, in
the near term and perhaps in the long term for that matter, repairs to
existing facilities and new construction will be the product of the Haitian
engineers and architects, and local contractors. Would it be a major
step ahead to employ outside design, engineering and construction
expertise? Absolutely, but the bureaucracy is not currently structured
to accept such assistance. If there were a way to move the bureaucratic
bottleneck (local government) aside, then major strides could be made
quickly. However, working within the current system to introduce
education and expertise from outside the country would improve the
situation. When one observes, in the rebuilding effort, repetition of
the same deficiencies that exacerbated the distress to structures being
repeated, it is obvious that there is a major disconnect. Poor design
begets poor design, poor construction begets poor construction, and
in this process the quality bar for both trades is lowered without those
trades themselves understanding the rut into which they have fallen.
Construction
In one telling conversation with a local contractor experienced in both
residential and commercial construction, the author came to understand
the frustration. This contractor had participated over a period of more
than five years in some rather sophisticated wastewater treatment
construction in Florida, and then moved his operation to Haiti when it
appeared several years ago that political stability had returned and new
markets were opening. However, none of that growth took place, and
the contractor needed to make his living competing with local Haitian
construction activities. That competition, unfortunately, led him to
take shortcuts and rely on local labor and materials that resulted in a
product that he knew was not even close to the quality that would have
STRUCTURE magazine
Typical Rib/Beam Slab Before Concrete Placement.
been required in Florida. He freely admitted that it took approximately
five years for his company to reduce the quality that they wanted to put
into a project, to the level that it is today.
When concrete is mixed on the ground from a cleared area with
laborers using estimates of quantities, and when concrete is transported
in five gallon buckets to literally pour a column, it is easy to see that
the construction process can be significantly improved. When designers
and contractors understand the benefit of placing reinforcement
through joints and from the foundation through the vertical height
of a building, and those designers and contractors have pride through
the quality control process to affect the quality of construction, then
the process will improve. Port-au-Prince and the surrounding hills are
loaded with similarly deficient construction just waiting to collapse
with the next major earthquake. Short of complete demolition and
reconstruction, many of these structures would be made more robust
using techniques that are readily available throughout the developed
world but are not currently available in Haiti.
Epilogue
Haiti suffers decay brought on by years of government mismanage-
ment and corruption. As one contractor paraphrased very succinctly,
regarding government, contracting entities, and business entities, “Every-
body is looking, looking, looking.” In other words, with those three words
the contractor was saying that the three major groups that could be
instrumental in rejuvenating Haiti are looking at each other to see how
they can line their pockets with the aid money that has been pledged for
the reconstruction. This is both tragic and shocking, but as one looks
about the country, the results can be observed everywhere. Bad behavior at
the governmental level will not be changed overnight, but perhaps there
is a way to marginalize that segment so that design professionals and
contractors can work cooperatively. It has become apparent that neither
side is happy with the status quo. They know that they can do better,
and many of them want to do better. Grassroots efforts, professional
organizations, and contractor organizations are low-cost ways to begin
changing the process.
Hopefully, former President Clinton’s recent efforts to remind donor
nations of their pledges for reconstruction will begin to change the
dynamics. How can professionals assist in that effort? Your comments
will be appreciated.▪
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB is principal and founder of CBI
Consulting Inc. Craig currently serves on the Editorial Board for
STRUCTURE magazine. Mr. Barnes can be reached via email at
cbarnes@cbiconsultinginc.com.
28 September 2010
NCSEA Eighteenth Annual Conference
Hyatt Regency on the Hudson, Jersey City, New Jersey
September 30-October 2, 2010 www.ncsea.com

Wednesday Meetings Thursday Committee Meetings

9:00 am – 5:00 pm NCSEA Board of Directors 8:00 am – 5:00 pm Structural Engineer Emergency
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm Code Advisory Committee (CAC) Response Committee
Special Inspection/Quality Assurance 8:00 am – 12:00 pm CAC Steering Subcommittee
Subcommittee 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm CAC Existing Buildings Subcommittee
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm Basic Education Committee 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm CAC General Engineering Subcommittee
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm CAC Seismic Subcommittee
1:00 pm – 5:00 pm Licensing Committee
2:00 pm – 6:00 pm Advocacy Committee
7:00 pm – 9:00 pm CAC Wind Engineering Subcommittee

Thursday Conference Program

7:00 am Registration and Breakfast
8:00 am Welcome and Opening Remarks
8:15 am Keynote Address: The Future of New York City Building and Construction Learn details about the NYC building department, including their
goals and initiatives.
Robert D. LiMandri, Commissioner, NYC DOB
9:00 am World’s Largest Shake Table Test of Mixed-Use Steel/Wood An overview of the NEESWood Capstone project, the largest
building ever tested on a shake table, in Miki City, Japan. Learn
Light-Frame Structure how this significant project was developed, how the test was done
and what has been learned so far.
Steve Pryor, Simpson Strong-Tie
10:00 am Break
10:30 am High Strength Concrete - Lessons Learned at the World Trade Center The strength of concrete in everyday use has increased significantly
in recent years. A concrete with a strength of 12,000 psi is in
Caz Bognacki, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey common use in NYC, and concrete with a modulus of elasticity of
7 million is being required on more projects. The presentation will
11:45 am Lunch and Presentation by Cives Steel: The Need for Stiffeners and the discuss actual field data and laboratory test data from the WTC
reconstruction effort.
Effect of Lap Eccentricity in Extended Tabs and Double Coped Beams;
A New Shear Lag Model for Longitudinally-Welded Tension Members
Pat Fortney Two proposals for recommendations on design procedures are
currently being considered by the AISC Specification and Manual
1:00 pm SE Emergency Response after 9/11 – Looking Backward, Moving Forward committees. One proposal provides guidance for determining the
need for stiffeners in extended tab connections and double coped
Vicki Arbitrio, Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek beams. The other proposal recommends a generalized approach,
which accounts for bi-planar effects, for determining the shear lag
2:00 pm Break factor in longitudinally-welded tension members.

2:45 pm Fire Performance of Structures in Tall Buildings

David Scott, Arup, and Ramon Gilsanz, Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek
3:45 pm Lake Champlain Bridge Projects
Ted Zoli, HNTB
6:00 pm Welcome Reception for Exhibitors and Attendees

Exhibit Hours on Thursday: 2:00 pm – 8:00 pm

STRUCTURE magazine 30 September 2010

Friday Conference Program
7:00 am Registration and Breakfast Presentation by Girder-Slab: Structural Steel and This presentation will describe the engineering, detailing, fabrication
and erection of a unique steel beam which allows hollow core precast
Hollow Core Precast Concrete for Multi Story Residential, Dan Fisher concrete slabs to erect on the top of the bottom flange. This design
allows low floor to floor height construction similar to flat plate
8:00 am Opening Remarks and Announcements concrete and is applicable for multi story residential buildings. The
presentation is recognized by the Practicing Institute of Engineering,
Troy, New York for 1 PDH.
8:15 am Roll Call and Introduction of Candidates for NCSEA Board of Directors
8:30 am Protecting People and Neighboring Property During Excavations Discussion of new research methods used by the New York City
Department of Buildings: “reverse engineering” of aging existing
Tim Lynch, NYC DOB buildings, creating layers of the historic development of the site,
schematically drafting framing plans prior to applying engineering
9:15 am Break principals to the buildings, and more. Also discussed will be the
Department of Buildings processes for the evaluation and audits of
construction documents, especially as they relate to the excavation of
9:45 am Harmonization of Masonry Design Requirements Between ASD and SD the site and associated work for the new building foundations.
Ed Huston, Smith & Huston
Extensive efforts have been made in the 2008 and 2011 cycles of the
10:45 am How the Chilean Earthquake Will Change Engineering in America Masonry Design Standard to begin to harmonize the results of the
Allowable Stress Design Method and the Strength Design Method.
Ramon Gilsanz, Gilsanz, Murray, Steficek and Ron Hamburger, In the past, the ASD section would have more reinforcement and so
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger the stress due to a given load in a given reinforcement bar would be
lower for that method. Nonetheless, the results should not be widely
12:00 pm Lunch and Presentation by the Steel Institute of New York: divergent. This presentation will illustrate the harmonization efforts
and show some of the results with design examples.
Constructability is the Common Thread
David Ruby, Ruby + Associates
1:15 pm New York Underground; East Side Access Project Currently, there are three major rail infrastructure projects under
construction beneath the streets of New York City. The challenge
Colin Barratt, Parsons Brinckerhoff is to develop a linear construction process where one activity leads
seamlessly into the next. Parameters, such as site access, ventilation,
2:15 pm Break restricted operating space and limited staging areas are just a few
to consider. Employing Accelerated Construction Techniques
3:00 pm AISC Seismic Design Provisions: Past, Present and Future underground has its attractions; however, it requires significantly
greater pre-engineering than conventional techniques.
James Malley, Degenkolb Engineers
4:00 pm The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum Restoration: Structural The exterior concrete walls of New York City’s iconic Solomon R.
Guggenheim Museum were distressed and a comprehensive restoration
Investigation and Repairs was undertaken. The investigation used state-of-the-art technologies,
including laser scanning, non-destructive evaluation, and structural
Nancy Hudson, Robert Silman Associates monitoring. A finite element model that represents as-built geometry
of the concrete structure was developed. The challenge to reinforce
6:00 pm Board buses and be transported to dinner at Carmine’s – New York City’s sub-standard elements without altering the appearance – inside or
legendary family-style Italian restaurant in Times Square. outside – was met by several structural repair solutions that included
carbon fiber fabric and viscous dampers.

Exhibit Hours on Friday: 7:00 am – 3:00 pm

Saturday Conference Program

Spouse program
7:00 am Breakfast and Presentation by International Code Council
Contact Gabi DiBlasi, Coordinator
8:00 am Roll Call and MO Reports
(gabster@hotmail.com) for information
on shopping, excursions, dining, sports, 9:00 am Code Advisory Committee Report, Ronald Hamburger, Chair
theatre, transportation tips, and costs. 9:30 am Advocacy Committee Report, Sarah McClendon, Co-Chair
9:45 am Basic Education Report, Craig Barnes, Chair
10:00 am Continuing Education Report, Mike Tylk and Carrie Johnson, Co-Chairs
Register online at
www.ncsea.com 10:15 am Break
10:30 am Licensing Committee Report, Susan Jorgensen, Chair
Conference Hotel 11:15 am Publications Committee Report, Tim Mays, Chair
11:30 am Structural Engineers Emergency Response Committee Report,
Hyatt Regency Scott Nacheman, Chair
on the Hudson, 11:45 am Treasurer’s Report, Ben Nelson, Treasurer
Jersey City, NJ 11:55 am Certification Report, Ronald Hamburger, Chair, SECB
http://jerseycity.hyatt.com/hyatt/hotels/ 12:00 pm Lunch and Sponsor Presentation
Use Group Code G-NCSE
for special $199 rate 1:30 pm Introduction of the NCSEA 2011-2015 Strategic Plan
Strategic Plan Breakout sessions – Goals 1-5
Airline with Discount 2:45 pm Break
www.AA.com 3:00 pm Breakout sessions continued
Use Group Code Regroup for Discussion of Goal 6: Enhance Financial Security
4790AD for discount
when flying to the area (Newark is the 4:30 pm Adjourn
closest airport) 4:35 pm NCSEA Board of Directors Meeting
6:00 pm Reception and Awards Banquet – Formal attire requested

STRUCTURE magazine 31 September 2010

 Simpson
Strong-Tie

Wheeling Steel Cast Quake

Corrugating Connections Wrap

NCSEA Eighteenth
RedBuilt, LLC
Annual Conference Hilti
AZZ
Fenner
CSC, Inc. Galvanizing
& Esler
Professional
Services
Sponsors & Exhibitors Grace ConXtech
Vector
Corrosion
Liability

Construction Tech.
Products
Bar Snacks
AISC

Buffet Table
Powers
Platinum Sponsor Fasteners
Exhibit Hall RISA Fabreeka
CMC
Steel
Products
The Steel Institute of New York
www.siny.org Singer
The Steel Institute of New York is a non-profit association Nelson Design SidePlate
created in 1972 to advance the interests of the structural steel Chalmers Data Systems USP
industry in New York City and adjacent Nassau, Suffolk and Valmont Structural
Westchester counties. It sponsors programs to aid architects, Lindapter Connectors
Industries
engineers, and builders in selecting structural systems for
optimum building performance. V&S
Construction
Galvanizing Hardy
Tie
Products Frames TurnaSure
Gold Sponsors
American Council of Engineering Companies
Fyfe Co.
of New York (ACEC New York) ITW Red Head
www.acecny.org
ACEC New York is the voice of New York’s Consulting
Engineering community. Through its programs and services, International Tekla, Inc.
ACEC New York makes a positive difference in the success Code Council
of its member businesses. We provide support in advocacy,
networking, business development, as well as business,
management and technical education.
Hallway Registration

Langan Engineering and Environmental TBD TBD

Services, Inc.
www.langan.com
Langan Engineering & Environmental Services provides site
development engineering and environmental consulting for
private developers, public agencies, property owners, and
institutional clients around the world. Founded in 1970,
Langan employs more than 500 professionals in its 12
regional offices and 3 international offices.
Robert Silman Associates
www.silman.com
Robert Silman Associates is a structural engineering firm
with offices in New York City, Washington D.C. and Boston,
and has grown to over 125 employees. Recognized as one of
the leading structural engineering firms in the country, RSA
will continue to spend the next 50 years creating, renewing,
preserving and sustaining.
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
www.SGH.com
SGH is a national engineering design and consulting firm
providing creative and efficient solutions for challenging
assignments. Our staff of 425 employees in five offices around
the U.S. includes engineers, architects, and scientists led by
principals and project managers with an average of twenty
years of employment with SGH.
Thornton Tomasetti, Inc.
www.ThorntonTomasetti.com
Thornton Tomasetti is a leader in engineering design,
investigation and analysis, with practices in building structure,
building skin, building performance, construction support
services and property loss consulting, and more. Thornton
Tomasetti is a 550-person organization of engineers and
architects collaborating from offices across the US and in Asia,
Europe and the Middle East.
Silver Sponsors
Newforma, Inc.
www.newforma.com
Newforma serves architecture, engineering and construction
firms worldwide by providing project information management
(PIM) solutions. Newforma® Project Center software has been
designed to improve responsiveness to clients, help mitigate risk,
streamline project execution work processes, facilitate integrated
project delivery (IPD), and make best practices repeatable.
Urban Foundation Engineering, LLC
Heavy Construction/Excavations/Foundations; Underpinning/
Shoring/Mini Piles; Caissons/Tiebacks/Moving Structures
Simpson Strong-Tie
www.strongtie.com
For over 50 years, Simpson Strong-Tie®
has led the industry in product solutions
that increase the structural integrity of homes and buildings.
Products include Wood and Steel Strong-Wall® shearwalls,
Anchor Tiedown Systems, Strong Frame® ordinary moment
frames, products for Cold-Formed Steel, and Simpson Strong-
Tie Anchor Systems® for concrete and masonry construction.
USP Structural Connectors
www.uspconnectors.com
USP Structural Connectors is a leading
manufacturer of structural connector,
epoxy, and mechanical anchoring products serving the
residential and commercial building industries throughout
the US and Canada. Customers are supported by an in-house
engineering staff, technical sales representatives in the field, and
a customer service call center.
Breakfast Sponsors
Girder-Slab Technologies, LLC
www.girder-slab.com
Girder-Slab is a low floor to floor height structural steel
system. Architecturally, only the D-Beam bottom flange is
exposed. The owner’s structural engineer designs the system
along with conventional structural steel. The Girder-Slab
System is competitively bid by steel contractors and hollow
core precast manufacturers.
International Code Council
www.iccsafe.org
The International Code Council (ICC) is a membership
association dedicated to building safety and fire prevention. ICC
develops the codes and standards used to construct residential
and commercial buildings, including homes and schools.
Lunch Sponsors
Cives Steel Company
www.cives.com
Cives Steel Company is one of the largest Structural
Steel and Plate fabricators in North America. Our six (6)
AISC fabrication facilities are leaders in developing and
implementing cutting edge technology in the detailing and
modeling segment of the construction process, including using
the latest in Building Information Modeling (BIM) as well as
Integrated Project Management (IPM) concepts.
The Steel Institute of New York
(see Platinum Sponsor)

STRUCTURE magazine 32 September 2010

Exhibitors
American Institute of Steel Construction
www.aisc.org
The AISC Steel Solutions Center (SSC) is the one-stop shop
for the structural steel industry. The SSC answers technical
questions and provides COMPLIMENTARY conceptual
studies in structural steel for buildings and bridges. The
SSC facilitates a file sharing and networking site (www.
steelTOOLS.org) for the design and construction community.
AZZ Galvanizing Services
www.azzgalvanizing.com
AZZ Galvanizing Services owns and
operates 33 hot dip galvanizing plants
strategically located across the US. AZZ operates kettles
ranging in size from 25 to 62 feet in length. They are able to
accommodate the largest projects with customized turnaround
time at a competitive price. The company serves the after-
fabrication steel market with corrosion protection.
CMC Steel Products
www.cmcsteelproducts.com
CMC Steel Products manufactures the cellular and castellated
SMARTBEAM® – an innovative, economical and sustainable
alternative for floor and roof framing systems. Manufactured
from recycled materials, the beams are lightweight, have
superior deflection properties, and can integrate MEP
systems through the web openings.
Construction Tie Products, Inc.
www.ctpanchors.com
Specializes in the developement and nation wide supply
of anchors and fasteners for the repair and restoration of
masonry and stone façades. CTP offers Stainless Steel helical
anchors; mechanical repair anchors for re-attaching brick
and dimensional stone panels; anchoring systems that anchor
existing veneers from the interior of the structure.
ConXtech, Inc.
www.conxtech.com
A truly bi-axial structural steel moment frame/space frame
building system utilizing a standardized set of innovative
connection components, enables the design of cost efficient,
seismically sound, blast and progressive collapse resistant
structures free of braces or shear walls. ConX ® is ideal for
healthcare, military, commercial, educational, industrial and
high-density residential applications.
CSC Inc
www.cscworld.com
CSC supplies US structural engineers with steelwork building
design software and engineering calculation software. We
update our TEDDS and Fastrak packages regularly, giving you
the latest technology. Choose CSC for quality software and
excellent training, consultancy and support from our expert
technical teams.
Design Data
www.sds2.com
Design Data produces innovative software for the steel
industry’s fabrication, detailing and engineering sectors. Since
1981, Design Data has been responsible for many firsts in the
steel detailing industry, including automatic connection design;
framing and connection intelligence; the first exchange of data,
such as CNC information and analysis models.
Fabreeka International, Inc
www.fabreeka.com
Fabreeka’s experience in vibration
control includes the dynamic response of steel fabrications
and support structures. Services include measuring building
floor vibration, displacement response of floors/mezzanines
and modeling of structures to predict performance, and
NASTRAN and finite element analysis programs to analyze
the static and dynamic conditions of vibration problems.
Fenner & Esler Professional Liability
www.fenner-esler.com
With 17 different PL carriers, F&E has helped Structural
Engineers throughout the United States manage the overhead
associated with their Professional Liability, insurance and risk
management programs.
FYFE Co. LLC FYFE Co.
LLC
Ty fo Fibr wrap Systems
® ®
www.fyfeco.com
FYFE Company is the manufacturer of TYCO products and
FIBRWRAP Strengthening Systems and is an ISO 9001:2008
registered firm. The FYFE Group are global leaders in the use
of externally bonded Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) systems
for the strengthening, repair and restoration of masonry,
concrete, steel and wooden structures.
STRUCTURE magazine
Grace Construction Products
www.graceconstruction.com
Grace Construction Products offers a wide range of innovative
specialty construction chemicals and materials that include:
concrete admixtures and fibers, liquid pigments for colored
concrete, cement processing additives, concrete masonry
products, air and vapor barriers, roofing underlayments,
self-adhered window, door and deck flashings, structural
waterproofing systems and fire protection products.
HARDY FRAMES, INC
www.hardyframe.com
Hardy Frames manufactures and markets the revolutionary
Hardy Frame shear wall system and has been the leader in the
pre-fabricated shear wall industry. The Hardy Frame system
allows Building Design Professionals to economically and
safely minimize wall space and maximize wall openings while
resisting high wind and earthquake loads.
Hilti, Inc.
www.us.hilti.com
Hilti provides leading-edge technology to the global
construction industry. Hilti products, systems and services
offer the construction professional innovative solutions with
outstanding added value. Almost 20,000 employees, in more
than 120 countries around the world, enthuse their customers
and build a better future.
International Code Council
(see Breakfast Sponsor)
ITW Red Head
www.itwredhead.com
ITW Red Head is America’s largest designer and manufacturer
of fastening products used in concrete and steel construction.
Since the invention of the original “self-drill” anchor in 1910
and the first “powder-actuated tool” in 1947, Red Head has led
the industry with time saving, high performance products.
LNA Solutions
www.LNASolutions.com
LNA Solutions provides Structural steel connections as an
alternative to drilling and welding. Girder Clamp connections
provided a fast and unique method of connecting steel while
saving on field costs. Blind Bolts provide a method of connecting
steel when you cannot access the backside of your connection.
Powers Fasteners
www.powers.com
Powers Fasteners is a privately held
company specializing in global
marketing of quality anchoring and fastening products for
concrete, masonry and steel. Powers has been providing
innovative fastening solutions for more than 85 years. Powers
can provide answers to all of your construction fastening needs.
QuakeWrap, Inc.
www.QuakeWrap.com
QuakeWrap’s award-winning technology provides solutions
for repair and strengthening of structures using Fiber
Reinforced Polymers (FRP) at a fraction of the time and cost
of conventional methods. Within one integrated process,
our highly-skilled engineers and construction crew create
innovative solutions specially tailored to clients. Visit our
website for more information.
RedBuilt, LLC
www.redbuilt.com
RedBuilt™ is a leader in the design, manufacture and
support of patented engineered structural wood products
for commercial applications. RedBuilt™ products include
custom Open-Web trusses, Red-I™ joists, RedLam™ LVL
and all of the complementary components, as well as product
engineering and technical on-site support.
RISA Technologies
www.risatech.com
Structural engineering software should
be powerful, accurate, and user-friendly.
RISA develops intuitive analysis and design software used by
24 of the Top 25 ENR Design Firms in the US, and in over
70 countries worldwide. The complete, seamless integration
of our programs creates a powerful, versatile and intuitive
structural design environment.
Register online at
www.ncsea.com
33 September 2010
SidePlate Systems, Inc.
www.sideplate.com
SidePlate Systems creates steel frame solutions for structures in
all design environments without CJP welds. With the advent
of SidePlate FRAME™ connection technology, superior
performance now comes with the least cost, saving time and
money on virtually any project, regardless of whether wind,
seismic or blast/progressive collapse governs.
Simpson Strong-Tie
(see Silver Sponsor)
Singer Nelson Charlmers
www.singernelson.com
Singer Nelson Charlmers is the number one insurance broker
for Engineers in the NY/NJ Metropolitan area. Through our
national affiliation with PLAN, we offer exclusive programs for
Professional Liability and Worker’s compensation. For Group
Health Insurance, The HealthPlan Optimizer guarantees the
best benefits at the lowest possible cost.
Steel Cast Connections LLC
www.SteelCastConnections.com
Steel Cast Connections presents the Kaiser Frame system, a new
cost – effective alternative to the traditional steel frame. The
Kaiser Frame is an ordinary moment frame and smaller version
of our Kaiser Bolted Bracket (our prequalified SMRF), and uses
bolting technology with standard structural steel sections.
The Steel Institute of New York
(see Platinum Sponsor)
Tekla, Inc.
www.tekla.com
Tekla Structures, the most advanced BIM software on the
market, provides an accurate, dynamic, and data-rich 3D
environment, easily shared by the project team. Centralizing
model and non-model based data into the model translates into
increased productivity, elimination of waste, and an enhanced
value for structural modeling.
TurnaSure, LLC
www.TurnaSure.com
TurnaSure LLC is the manufacturer of a comprehensive range
of Direct Tension Indicators, a simple solution for properly
tensioning bolts. TurnaSure LLC has manufactured DTIs to
ASTM F959 since 1985 and continues to be the world leader
in production and supply of DTIs.
USP Structural Connectors
(see Silver Sponsor)
V & S Galvanizing
www.hotdipgalvanizing.com
V & S Galvanizing is a worldwide
company with six galvanizing plants in the
U.S. We are ISO 9001-2000 as well as being the only Galvanizer
to be ISO 1461 certified. V & S offers two different lunch and
learn seminars, one of which provides AIA SD credits.
Valmont Tubing
www.valmont.com
Valmont’s innovative HSS SuperStruct structural steel tubing
product allows designs up to 50 inches square! Valmont Tubing
has the unique capability of fabricating custom HSS squares
and rectangles, ranging from 12 to 50 inches square with wall
thicknesses up to 1 inch thick and 55 feet long. Challenge us
with your next tubing design!
Vector Corrosion Technologies
www.vector-corrosion.com
Innovative solutions for concrete corrosion repair and
protection include electrochemical chloride extraction,
cathodic protection, and an array of galvanic protection
systems, including embedded galvanic anodes, galvanic
jackets, and activated arc-spray zinc metalizing. Vector
also provides evaluation, repair and mitigation services for
post-tension corrosion and temperature resistant composite
strengthening systems.
Wheeling Corrugating
www.wheelingcorrugating.com
Wheeling Corrugating has the distinction of being our nation’s
most experienced decking manufacturer, with over 120 years
of quality and performance and a future focused on innovation
and customer service. Wheeling Corrugating has facilities
nationwide, strategically located throughout the country. We
specialize in complex and high rise structures.

L
ocated on Fifth Avenue at East 110th Street in New York City,
the Museum for African Art is a new addition to the Fifth
Avenue Museum Mile. Its L-shaped plan cradles a plaza facing
west at the north-east corner of Central Park (Figure 1). The Museum
occupies the four lower levels (one below the ground floor) of a 19-floor
reinforced concrete flat-slab residential tower, and includes a lobby 75
feet tall, a 245-seat staged theater, over 15,000 square feet of exhibition
galleries and a third floor year-round roof garden. To accommodate
the architectural space requirements for the museum, a portion of the
16 residential floors is picked up by one-story-high cantilever concrete
beams at the 4th floor. The cantilevered beams are supported by sloping
concrete columns which define the museum lobby space. The west
and north exterior walls of the museum are steel space frames with a
maximum plan length of 100 feet and a maximum height of 75 feet
(Figure 1). The building façade system is a combination of story-high
nonstructural precast concrete panels and glass windows, which are
partially supported by the reinforced concrete structure and partially by
the steel frames enclosing the museum space. Due to the different time-
dependent properties of the two supporting structures and deformation
sensitivity of the building façade system, sophisticated control of the
vertical time-dependent relative movement between the two structures
is needed to ensure the building serviceability performance. The size of
the soft joint at the 4th floor precast panels and the cantilever concrete
beams camber are challenging tasks for the design firm of this project.
Factors Affecting Vertical Relative
Movements between the Two Structures
While the cantilever beam camber depends on the total concrete beam
downward deflections (short-term and long-term), the precast panel soft
joint size at the 4th floor is controlled by the future relative movements
between the concrete structure and the steel frames after the panels are
installed. The main factors affecting the relative movements between the
two different panel-supporting structures are: (1) temperature-induced
expansion/contraction of the steel frames; (2) differential foundation
STRUCTURE magazine
Vertical Structural Deformation
Estimation and Control for a
Deformation-Sensitive Building
By Songtao Liao, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE,
Gabriel Klein, P.E., Yevgeny Mikhlin, Ph.D., P.E.
and Jacob S. Grossman, MSCE, FACI, P.E., SECB
Figure 1: The building plan at museum level. Note that the steel façade
1-4 are only guided laterally by the concrete structure.
settlements; (3) effect of lateral loading; (4) short- and long-term
concrete column axial deformation; (5) tilting of cantilever beams due
to differential concrete column short- and long-term axial shortening;
and (6) short- and long-term concrete beam bending deflections. All
the above effects were tackled in the design process in order to preserve
the integrity of the steel supported façade system which required lateral
bracings from the concrete structure.
Temperature effect
The steel frames at the exterior walls are subjected to temperature
fluctuations and member elongation/contraction can result. The
reinforced concrete structure is inside the building envelope and no
significant temperature variations are expected during the building
service life. Based on engineering experience in New York City area, a
temperature fluctuation range of ±50F° for the steel mullion is assumed,
and the corresponding temperature-induced horizontal and vertical
relative movements between steel mullion and concrete structure can
be obtained accordingly.
Differential Foundation Settlement
The sub soil condition for the building is of low bearing capacity to
depths of over 100 feet and differential foundation settlement must
be kept to an acceptable level. The steel frames are sitting on 15-foot
34 September 2010
tall foundation walls with spread footings, and tower columns are
supported by steel pipe friction pile foundation (14-inch diameter),
which are driven 90 feet into the lower glacial till bearing stratum.
Proportioning of the foundations was carried out to limit the differential
foundation settlements between columns to a minimum. Regular
survey monitoring during the construction by a third party indicated
that the differential foundation settlements between the two supporting
structures described above have been appropriately accommodated for
by the design team.

Lateral loading effect

Interaction between the steel frames and the concrete structure is
expected when the building is under wind or seismic excitation. A finite
element model was developed with the ETABS software to estimate the
relative movements of the two structures under service wind or seismic
loading. In the FEM structural model, the shear walls at the lower floors
were assumed cracked based on tension stress level and an equivalent
beam model for flat-slab structure, considering the magnitude of lateral
loading, was used.

Column axial shortening and associated beam tilting

As indicated in Figure 2, a portion of the 16 residential floors above
is picked up by concrete beams with varying cantilever spans at the
4th floor. As a result, the compressive stresses in the rear columns/walls
supporting the cantilever beams are less than those in the front sloping
columns. The difference of the compressive stresses tends to yield
different column axial shortening, which will be gradually enlarged
at a slow rate by creep and shrinkage over long periods of time. The
effects of column axial shortening are twofold in this project: one is
the downward translational movements of the beams that equal to Figure 2: Sloping columns and cantilever beams under construction (prior to the
installation of exterior steel frames and the façade system).

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

Restoration Team Experience Since 1978

Masonry Façade Re-Anchoring Solutions

SAVE THE WALL! Don’t Tear it Down or Cover it with Insulation and Stucco
Strengthen and stabilize masonry façades while adding veneer stiffness for added decades of protection and comfort.
CTP has engineered anchor performance solutions for claddings of brick and stone. A selection of corrosion resistant
products are available to re-anchor brick to wood, concrete, steel, block, brick, metal stud, or tile back-ups.
CTP Stitch-Tie CTP Grip-Max CTP CT-16 Construction Tie Products, Inc.
Helical Wall Tie System for Stabilizing Mechanical Anchors for Stabilizing Stone Panel Veneers For Brick Additions or Replacement; and for is committed to supplying the highest quality
Veneers and Crack Repair Brick Veneer Stud Cavity Wall Construction. masonry tie and construction systems
Veneer Anchoring System That Keeps the in North America and satisfying
Air Barrier Intact and the Veneer in Place. all stringent national codes and standards
for today's building structures.
CTP, Inc. promises to be a reliable product
source along with on-time business integrity
for all demanding builders.

Shown
ANOTHER
CTP Here With:
ORIGINAL!
CTP Wall Tie
NEW! a Multifunctional Triangle Wall Tie That
CTP GRIP-MAX* Can be Used in Standard or Seismic 7974 W. Orchard Drive
Veneer Anchoring Applications
* Patent Pending
Michigan City, Indiana
CTP Grip-Tie Contact our 46360-9390 • USA
Mechanical Repair Anchors for Stabilizing Veneers Technical Services Team with Phone: (219) 878-1427
your repair application needs Contact: Steve Getz, BSCE
for a cost effective and www.ctpanchors.com
performance targeted
Engineered Anchoring Solutions Provider
veneer stabilizing solution.
Proudly Made In the USA!

STRUCTURE magazine 35 September 2010

the smaller accumulated axial shortening of two supporting columns;
the other is the tilting of the cantilever beams resulted from column
differential axial shortening.
The ACI 209R-92 model for creep and shrinkage was used for column
long-term axial shortening estimation due to its widespread popularity
among design engineers. The concrete mixture proportion was provided
by the concrete supply contractor of this project for creep and shrinkage
estimate inputs. Annual average ambient relative humidity for New
York City area is taken as 70% based on PCI Design Handbook; loading
schemes were initially assumed considering common construction
cycle and modified later according to the actual construction sequence.
The dead loads on a particular column are applied floor-by-floor as
construction progresses; the live load and most of the superimposed
dead load will not be applied until the entire building is occupied. To
obtain the sequential gravity loads for each column involved below the
4th floor, construction sequential analysis was carried out with the FEM
structural model. The axial shortening of one column is the summation
of the effects of each individual floor load on the column based on the
linear superposition assumption in creep and shrinkage prediction. For
serviceability limit states involving creep and shrinkage-induced long-
term effect, ASCE-7 suggests a service load combination as D + 0.5L,
in which D is the service dead load, and L the design live load. The
load combination was used to predict the long-term deformation of the
concrete columns and beams.
Beam bending deflection
The traditional procedure specified in ACI-318 was followed for the
estimates of the cantilever beam bending deflections. The curve of
long-term deflection multiplier varying with load duration shown in
the figure R9.5.2.5 in ACI-318 (2005) was used to estimate the time-
dependent beam bending deflections after the installation of precast
panels at the steel mullion.
Deflection and Relative Movement Control
The cambers of the cantilever concrete beams at the 4th floor are the
summation of the time-dependent total cantilevered beam bending
deflections and the downward movement due to cantilevered beam
tilting as a result of column different axial shortening. The picked-up
floor super elevation is set the same as the beam camber specified at the
4th floor to maintain the designed story height, and the floors above are
built to compensate for the stepped downward deflection to level off
0.7 Front Sloping Column
Rear Column
Accumulated Column Axial Shortening at 4th Floor(in)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720
Concrete Age at 4th Floor (days)
Figure 3: Variation of column axial shortening estimates for one concrete
cantilevered girder at the 4th floor.
STRUCTURE magazine
Survey Data
Regression Curve
1.2
1.0
Beam Total Deflection (in)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Concrete Age at 4th Floor (days)
Figure 4: Measured total deflection at the tip of one concrete cantilevered
girder and the regression curve.
the floors in the long run. Although the maximum deflections vary with
cantilever beam spans, the maximum camber was set as 0.5 inches at the
tip of all the cantilever beams for construction practicalities. To ensure
that concrete strength reaches the design value, temporary shoring of
the cantilever beams at the 4th floor was not removed until 40 days after
the concrete placement at the 4th floor.
The precast panel soft-joint size at the 4th floor is governed by
summation of the relative movements between the two panel-
supporting structures after the panel installation. In order to reduce
the size of the panel soft joints, the installation of the precast concrete
panels at the steel mullion was arranged to a later construction stage
so that larger portions of the long-term downward deflection of the
cantilevered concrete beams occurred before the panel installation at
the steel supported facade. The actual concrete panel installation at the
steel mullion was carried out six months after the concrete roof was
placed, when the concrete age at the 4th floor reached 9 months. To
show the effectiveness of the construction arrangement, the estimates of
accumulated axial column shortening at the 4th floor for the supporting
concrete columns of one cantilever concrete beam are shown in Figure
3. The variation of the accumulated axial shortening with concrete age
indicates that most of the column axial shortening occurs within the
first 6 months, and the additional long-term accumulated concrete
column axial shortening estimates after the precast panel installation
at the steel mullion (the concrete age at the 4th floor is about 270
days) are much smaller: 1/12 inch for the front sloping column and
1/25 inches for the rear column. It is well known that there are large
inherent uncertainties in concrete long-term deformation predictions,
and the coefficients of variation can be up to 30% and more. To
account for uncertainties, two standard derivations (with assumed 30%
coefficient of variation) were added to the estimated additional long-
term deformation values in the determination of panel soft-joint size.
Combining all the associated effects (temperature variance, foundation
differential settlement, additional creep and shrinkage of the concrete
members and construction inaccuracy), the soft-joint size at the 4th
floor was therefore set as 2.0 inches. This dimension can accommodate
a maximum future relative movement of 1.0 inch.
The steel mullion of the façade is laterally supported by the concrete
structure. In order to allow relative movements between the façade steel
frame mullion members and the concrete structure supports, special
“sleeve” connections with neoprene bearing pads were designed to
allow free relative vertical movement and provide supports for the steel
mullion in the horizontal directions.
36 September 2010
 Survey monitoring was carried out for this project with emphasis on
differential foundation settlements and the cantilevered survey beam Songtao Liao, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE, is a Project Engineer at
deflections at the 4th floor. Figure 4 shows the measured beam total Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers. He may be reached at
deflection at the 4th floor and the associated regression curve for the stevenl@rgce.com.
same cantilever beam in Figure 3. Although additional deflections at
Gabriel Klein, P.E., is a Senior Associate with Rosenwasser/Grossman
the cantilever beam are expected, the survey data indicate that the long-
Consulting Engineers. He was the project manager of this project. He
term deflections will be relatively small. This gradual stabilization of the
may be reached at gabe@rgce.com.
long-term deflection nine months after concrete placement indicates
the appropriateness of the soft joint at the 4th floor to accommodate the Yevgeny Mikhlin, Ph.D., P.E., is a Project Engineer with Rosenwasser/
future relative movements between two panel-supporting structures. Grossman Consulting. He may be reached at eugene@rgce.com.
The survey data also indicate that the actual elevation at the 4th floor Jacob S. Grossman, MSCE, FACI, P.E, SECB, is the President and
cantilever beams nine months after the concrete placement is generally CEO of Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C. He is an
close to the original floor design elevation. The elevation difference is Honorary Member of ACI. He may be reached at jacob@rgce.com.
within ±0.32 inches, which are in acceptable engineering TAY24253 BraceYrslfStrctrMag.qxd 9/3/09 10:09 AM Page 1
range consid-
ering the uncertainties in short- and long-term
deformation estimation, possible construction
error and survey error.
Y O U B U I L D I T.
Summary W E ’ L L P R O T E C T I T.
In this deformation-sensitive project, there
are several main factors affecting the relative
movements between the steel frames and
SEISMIC PROTECTION
the adjacent concrete structure: temperature- FROM TAYLOR DEVICES
induced elongation/contraction, movements Stand firm. Don’t settle for less than the seismic protection
due to wind/seismic loading, differential foun- of Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers. As a world leader in
dation settlements, differential column axial the science of shock isolation, we are the team you
shortening and associated cantilever beam tilting, want between your structure and the undeniable forces
beam bending deflection, construction inaccu- of nature. Others agree. Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers
racy, etc. All the effects are considered in the
are currently providing earthquake, wind, and motion
design process in order to specify reasonable
protection on more than 240 buildings and bridges.
beam cambers and precast panel soft-joint size
From the historic Los Angeles City Hall to Mexico’s
at the 4th floor. The precast panels supported

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

Torre Mayor and the new Shin-Yokohama High-speed
by the steel faced mullions below the 4th floor
were intentionally installed at a later construction Train Station in Japan, owners, architects, engineers,
stage to reduce the long-term concrete beam and contractors trust the proven
downward relative movements after the panel technology of Taylor Devices’
installation. The special “sleeve” connections Fluid Viscous Dampers.
with neoprene pads were designed to allow the
relative vertical movements between the steel
frames and concrete structures.
Due to the inherent uncertainties of deforma-
tion estimation and possible construction error,
survey monitoring during the construction
period was carried out for this deformation-
sensitive building to ensure serviceability
performance. As shown, with prediction based
on ACI 209R-92 model and actual survey data,
most of the long-term deformation occurred
within the first 6 months. The survey data
indicate that the proposed cantilever camber
successfully leveled off the beam and the picked- Taylor Devices’ Fluid Viscous Dampers give you the seismic protection
up floors above, and that the proposed soft joint you need and the architectural freedom you want.
of the precast panels at the 4th floor can appropri-
ately accommodate the relative future movements
of the two structures.▪ w w w. t a y l o r d e v i c e s . c o m

The online version of this article

contains references. Please visit North Tonawanda, NY 14120 - 0748
www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Phone: 716.694 .0800 • Fax: 716.695 .6015

STRUCTURE magazine
TAY24253 Brace September
37 Yourself 2010
Ad Structure Magazine October 2009 Half-Page Island 5" x 7.5"
 Discussion on Structural Design of
Steel Pipe Support Structures
By Kasi V. Bendapudi, P.E., S.E.
Numerical Example:
This is the second of a 2 part article on the design of pipe support structures. Part 1 of this
article (February 2010 issue) discussed the effects of atmospheric temperature changes, Assume:
expansion joint requirements and the introduction to design loads. This article concludes Bay spacing = 20 ft. (~ 6m), Bay
with the continuation of design loads, structural instability concepts and detailing for width = 16 ft. (~ 5m). See Figure 3
stability requirements. (Equation and figure numbers in this part are a sequential (Part 1).
continuation from Part 1.) Atmospheric temperature variation =
80° F
Elongation per bay (∆ℓ) = E t ℓ =
Interaction between Pipes by the supporting structure. Assuming
(0.00065 x 80° F x 20 ft. x 12 in.)/100°
the flexural stiffness in the longitudinal
and the Support Structure direction of each bent of pipe rack (ref. F = 0.125 in.
In practice, pipes are not attached to Figure 3, Part 1), the total force restrained Change in unit stress (σ) = E € t =
each and every pipe support in order by the pipe rack bents (Ff) is given by: (29,000,000.0 x 0.00065 x 80° F)/100°
to restrain the forces caused by thermal F = 15.08 ksi.
expansion or contraction. Under these Ff = ∑ k∆ Equation 6 Force imparted by restraining this ex-
conditions, at the onset of expansion/ where, ∆ is the horizontal displacement pansion/contraction, P = A E € t = A x
contraction, friction forces may develop of the pipe support bent and k is the 15.08 ksi.
between the pipes and the structural steel stiffness of the frame about its weak axis. (Where, A is the cross sectional area of
support. This frictional force is applied to In this case, the pipe anchor force is also the pipe.)
the top flange generally creating an eccen- equal to the force restrained by the pipe Given, a 6 in. (150 mm) diameter
tric load, or torsion, on the supporting bents prior to slip. Therefore, each pipe Schedule 40 Std. pipe the cross sectional
wide-flange shape. The force generated by support bent restrains a share of the area, A= 5.58 in2 Weight of the pipe
friction (F) can be expressed as: frictional force prior to slip, regardless if with water = 12.5 lb/ft., for 20 ft. length
the pipe is fastened to the pipe support or (tributary length on the pipe rack.) the
F=±μN Equation 5
is free to move longitudinally. However, weight = 230 lb
where μ is the coefficient of static friction, at the onset of the frictional slip the force Friction force between the pipe and the
approximated to be 0.3 for most steel-to- at the pipe anchor point, which is located structural steel support, F = μ N
steel contact surfaces, and N the normal by the piping engineer, would be equal to F = 0.3 x 230 lb. = 69 lb.
force at the contact surface. force P (as given in Equation 4, Part 1) P is the force imparted by the pipe due
If a thermal differential between the pipe and Ff given in Equation 6. to expansion and contraction.
Structural DeSign

and the supporting structure occurs, fric- Although friction may develop at the
tional forces would initially be restrained contact surface from the resistance to
movement of the pipe under thermal dif-
A B ferentials, eventually there becomes no
(~ 5 m)
16’ - 0 correlation between the maximum fric-
A
(~ 5 m)
B
tion force (F) and the force exerted by
16’ - 0 the thermal expansion or contraction
DENOTES BEAM
(P) of the pipe. The maximum friction
TO COLUMN force (F) depends upon variables such
(APPROX 16 m)
P = 5.58 in2 x 15.08 ksi. = 84,146 lb.
Consequently, the friction force is ex-
tremely small compared to the force
imparted by thermal expansion and con-
traction. Additionally, the increase in
magnitude of the assumed friction force
is gradual while the occurrence of slip
overcoming friction is sudden. Thus, the
maximum frictional force and eventual

DENOTES BEAM
MOMENT as temperature
TO COLUMN differential and contact slip occur at or near the onset of expansion
(APPROX 16 m)
50’ - 0

CONNECTION and contraction of the pipe. Typically,

surface conditions. The magnitude of the
MOMENT
50’ - 0

CONNECTION
thermal expansion force (P) is extremely
high compared to the friction force F as
assumed. This is demonstrated in the
following numerical example:
design issues for structural engineers
multiple pipes are supported at any given
tier of the pipe rack. If anchor points are
staggered for each pipe, it would compli-
cate the estimation of friction forces since

these forces oppose each other; however,

these would further reduce their impact
SECTION SECTION on the supporting structure. In general,
frictional forces on the pipe racks may be
W12x26 (TYP) W12x26 (TYP)
neglected, but local affects, if any, due to
B B
the friction force (F) on the supporting
member, should be considered.
(~ 5 m)
16’ - 0
(~ 5 m)
16’ - 0

In the event that the pipes are fastened

at each pipe support location and restrain-
A ing forces due to expansion/contraction
A
(~ 6 m) (~ 6 m) (~ 6 m) (~ 6 m) of the pipes develop, the purpose of provid-
(~ 6 m) (~ 6 m) 20’ - 0 (~ 6 m)20’ - 0 (~ 620’
m)- 0 20’ - 0
20’ - 0
120’ - 0 2 20’ - 0
3 20’ - 0
4 5 ing any pipe anchor would be defeated.
2 3 4 5
Figure 5. PLAN
PLAN
STRUCTURE magazine 38 September 2010
This is primarily due to the fact that each pipe
support bent is providing a restraint for the
pipe against its expansion/contraction force
equal to its tributary length of the pipe support.
In addition, pipe restraint against expansion and
contraction defeats the purpose of providing
the expansion loops, U-shaped attachments
intended to flex with pipe expansion/contrac-
tion, and the pipe anchorages for thermal affects.
Such a system is not only impractical, but is
also not economical.
As illustrated in the numerical example, the
friction forces are very small in comparison to
the forces imparted due to the expansion and
contraction of the pipe material. The general
practice of not fastening the pipes against the
forces of expansion/contraction of the pipes is
the most practical approach.
Detailing for Stability
Oversized and slotted holes should be avoid-
ed. Expansion joints are not required in any
pipe rack of less than 500 feet long. However,
at intersecting pipe racks an additional frame
could be located at the intersection if the in-
tersecting pipe rack is a long stretch (Figure 4,
Part 1).
The spacing of these adjoining frames at the
expansion joint need not be greater than the
required spacing for the installation of anchor
bolts and the connections of the structural steel.
Typically, a two foot gap between the columns/
frames is adequate. This would allow both the
columns at the expansion joints to be placed
on one common foundation. Alternatively,
depending upon the length of the intersecting
pipe rack, longitudinal beams could be con-
nected directly to the intersecting pipe rack
with oversized or slotted holes. For short runs
of intersecting pipe racks, no slotted or over-
sized holes for the bolts would be required. In
all cases, only the longitudinal exterior beams of
the pipe racks should be connected to the inter-
secting pipe rack columns. Ideally, if the vertical
bracings and the centers of thermal stiffness are
in the proximity of the intersecting pipe racks,
they could be directly connected with the
standard bolted connections.
continued on next page

Stability
Stability of the frames is essential in the design
of pipe support structures. Frame instability
occurs due to initial eccentricities, fabrication
and erection tolerances, dead loads, and the
elastic deformations. In addition to the bracing
required for the applied loads, frame stability
bracing should be provided as shown:
where:
Ab = Area of brace required for stiffness and
frame stability (in2),
2 3/2

Ab =
[ ( )]
2 1+ LB
LC
∑P
Equation 7

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

( )
LB 2
LC E

P = Actual axial load in column (kips),

∑P = Axial loads in all columns braced by the
brace being designed (kips),
LB = Bay spacing or the distance between the
columns (inches),
LC = Unbraced length of the column (inches),
and
E = Modulus of Elasticity (ksi).
The minimum area of brace, Ab, is required
for frame stability without consideration of
any applied lateral loads. Structures will be
subjected to instability without this minimum
brace in addition to the brace required for
applied loads. Therefore, the total brace area
Ab(total) required would be Ab plus the brace
area required for the applied lateral loads. This
total area of the brace should be provided at or
near the center of thermal stiffness as shown in
Figure 3 (Part 1).
The number of braced bays should also be
symmetric with respect to the center of thermal
stiffness. In any symmetrical and uniform
structure, the center of thermal stiffness
could be assumed to coincide with the cen-
troid of the structure.

STRUCTURE magazine 39 September 2010

 Columns are generally oriented with their
strong axis along the length of the pipe rack COMPRESSION
without transverse bracing. If transverse bracing
is provided, as shown in Figure 5, column ori-
entation with its strong axis along the transverse
direction provides a more economical design.

Bracing for Stability

Primary bracing systems include:
1) Transverse braces (Figure 5) in the plane
of the bents, TENSION
2) Longitudinal braces (Figures 3 and 4;
Part 1) along the length of the pipe
rack, and MOMENT SHEAR
3) Horizontal bracing or plan bracing, as Figure 7: Stress Distribution in Wide Flange Shapes.
shown in Figure 4 (Part 1).
material. Plan bracing would also function Therefore, in order to provide an elastic, mo-
Plan bracing, as shown in Figure 4 (Part 1), is
as a collector element and would provide a ment resisting connection, the flanges should
not always necessary but should be considered
horizontal diaphragm to transmit the loads. be fastened as shown in Figure 6. The base
for pipe racks located in regions of high seismic
This would also permit the transverse bents to plate connection with 4 anchor bolts is similar
risk with weak or soft story pipe rack frames.
share the lateral loads as described in Part 1 to an end plate connection and there would be
The purpose of plan bracing is primarily to
of this article. For long spans, such as at the a rotational slip depending upon the stiffness
transmit horizontal applied loads resulting
roadway crossings of pipe bridges, plan brac- of the base plate and the rotational restraint
from pipe anchorages or guides. Guides are
ing is essential to prevent torsional instability. offered by the foundations. T-support bases
restraints attached to the support bents to pre-
Transverse frames and the fastening system with two bolts along the strong axis of a
vent lateral displacements of the pipes. Plan
(attachments) of the pipes should be designed column (Figure 6) are structurally unstable
bracing may be provided in heavy seismic areas
to resist the wind loads without any plan brac- without the bolt cages connecting to the column
if the contentsC of the pipes carry hazardous
L ing. Therefore, plan bracing is not necessary to flanges in combination with the longitudinal
CL
resist the wind forces, particularly if the pipe bracing with struts. For W shape T-support
rack heights do not exceed approximately 50 columns, the flanges should be restrained in
feet (15 meters). All interior hanger or trapeze order to provide for a moment-resisting con-
type pipe supports should be braced in both nection. Such non-seismic connections are
orthogonal directions for seismic loads. shown in the suggested details of column base
TYP. All T supports, as shown in Figure 6, require plates in part 4 of the American Institute of
TYP.
stability in both the longitudinal and transverse Steel Construction’s (AISC) Manual of Steel
directions. In the longitudinal direction, vertical Construction. OSHA requirements necessitate
bracing with struts should be provided. In the a minimum of 4 bolts be placed at all the
CL A.B.
lateral
C
or transverse direction of the T support, column bases.
CL theL A.B.
stability of the system depends upon the All column bases should be finished and
base fixity of the T support; that is, the transla- field-welded to restrain the horizontal shear
tion and the rotation of the T support at the at the column bases. Full penetration welds at
FINISH STIFFENER

connection of its base must be restrained. In the column bases are uneconomical and need
FINISH STIFFENER

structural steel W shapes, the flanges can ide- not be used just to resist the horizontal shears
ally be assumed to resist the flexural demand at the column bases. In practice, two C-shaped
FINISH COLUMN

TYP. NUT column

of the & WASHERand the web may be assumed to fillet welds (between the inside of the column
FINISH COLUMN

NUT & WASHER

resist the shear force. The stress distribution in flanges and along the web) would be adequate.
GROUT 2”

TYP (NF & FF)

W shapes isTYP
shown in Figure 7. The transfer of horizontal shear could be
GROUT 2”

(NF & FF)

achieved by providing a shear lug at the base-
1”
1”

CL A.B. plate. Structural shapes are not economical or

practical to be used as shear lugs. Flat plates
SHEAR LUG AS REQUIRED are very effective as shear lugs and the welds
SHEAR
CONC. LUG AS REQUIRED
FOUND. should be balanced to account for reversal of
FINISH STIFFENER

CL A.B. CL A.B. CONC. FOUND. stresses and eccentricities.▪

CL A.B. CL A.B.

HOLES FOR A.B. Kasi V. Bendapudi, P.E., S.E. is the Chief

FINISH COLUMN

NUT & WASHER

HOLES FOR A.B. Civil, Structural, and Architectural Engineer
with BE&K Inc., at Houston, Texas. He can
GROUT 2”

TYP (NF & FF)

be reached at kasib46@yahoo.com.
1”

TYP (NF & FF)

TYP (NF & FF) The online version of this article
NOTE: BRACE COLUMN IN ITS WEAK AXIS contains references. Please visit
Figure 6: T-Support Column.
NOTE: BRACE COLUMN IN ITSSHEAR
WEAK LUG
AXISAS REQUIRED www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
CONC. FOUND.
CL A.B. CL A.B.
STRUCTURE magazine 40 September 2010
Put infrastructure spending
on a solid foundation.
Monotube® Piles. Solid Economics
In the infrastructure space across America, it’s
estimated that more than 8,600 projects are shovel-
ready and simply awaiting funding to get under-
way. Coincidentally, polls show we Americans are
strongly in favor of major investment in our aging
infrastructure. However, concurrent with this favor-
able opinion is a strong demand for accountability
and measurable efficiencies in how our tax dollars
are going to be spent. We as corporate citizens,
whether manufacturer, designer, engineer or
contractor, have a serious interest in this.
Monotube tapered steel foundation piles have
consistently delivered capital-saving measurability
for more than 80 years.
P.O. Box 7339 • Canton, OH 44705-0339 / Ph. 330.454.6111 • Fax 330.454.1572
Executive Office: 5002 Second Avenue • Brooklyn, NY 11232
Email: monotube@neo.rr.com / www.monotube.com.
Using conventional equipment, a Monotube
requires a shorter driven length to achieve
design load capacity, fewer man-hours and less
energy to install than competing products. We
have numerable test site data proving
Monotube pile’s superior performance and it’s
yours free for the asking.
America is about to embark on a historic
expenditure of taxpayer dollars. We at
Monotube Pile Corporation know we can
help you keep costs in check. Give us a call
today because, as always, we’re ready to
deliver solid economics.
Request our
Free Catalog
 Reducing Embodied Energy in
Masonry Construction
Part 2: Evaluating New Masonry Materials
By Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP and Eric Stovner, S.E., LEED AP
Although environmental criteria are gain-
ing importance to design teams, they
cannot be the only criteria used to evalu-
ate new systems. If “green” products do
not perform as required for the project,
they cannot be used as substitutes for
their customary counterparts.
It is the engineer’s responsibility to evalu-
ate new materials under consideration for
a project. Not only should the structural
performance be explored, but also other
design criteria, such as aesthetic differences,
environmental impact, and interfaces with
other materials.
The first part of this series explored the
growing importance of embodied energy
and carbon footprint in masonry design,
Structural SuStainability
along with new products that reduce these
impacts (STRUCTURE®, May 2010). In
this article, a low-impact product, fly ash
brick, will be evaluated in comparison
with its traditional counterpart, fired clay
brick, demonstrating criteria and meth-
ods that can be adapted to an individual
project’s needs.
Methodology
When designers begin to evaluate a new
product, they should ask:
• What are the salient characteristics
sustainability and preservation as they pertain to structural engineering
of the product?
• Is it similar to an existing product?
• Are there existing standards?
• Do the standards make sense for
evaluating the new product?
Selecting new masonry materials can
be challenging, but familiarity with ap-
plicable performance standards can help.
Environmental performance information
is becoming more available, both from
manufacturers themselves and from data-
bases like www.greenformat.com.
For this demonstration, the authors
selected fired clay brick as the traditional
material. It meets the standards of ASTM
C 216, Standard Specification for Facing
Brick (Solid Masonry Units Made from
Clay or Shale), Type FBX, Grade SW,
commonly used in commercial projects.
The fly ash brick is then evaluated by
comparing its properties to those of the
fired clay brick.
At least two US companies are develop-
ing fly ash brick, and one is already in
production. Its fly ash brick consists
STRUCTURE magazine
primarily of Class C fly ash,
aggregate, and water. Class
C fly ash is a fine powder,
captured from the coal com-
bustion process, that reacts
with water as a pozzolan.
The fly ash binds the mixture as bricks
are cured with modest heat and humid-
ity. American fly ash brick is engineered
to perform like commercial-quality fired
clay brick. It is quite different from the fly
ash brick in India and China, where these
units are more or less concrete bricks with
some fly ash included. For this article,
only domestic fly ash brick is considered.
Performance Criteria
Standards development can never keep
pace with innovation of materials, but
existing standards are good reference
points for evaluating new products. For
face brick, ASTM C 216 is the accepted
standard defining the performance of clay
brick; ASTM C1634 Standard Specification
for Concrete Facing Brick applies to con-
crete brick. The overlap in performance
criteria between these two standards is
significant, which is not surprising as they
meet the needs of a common application.
Since fly ash brick is not made of clay
or concrete, it cannot be said to meet
ASTM C 216 or ASTM C1634, which
include requirements for both materials
Testing compressive strength of Fly Ash Brick.
When evaluating new materials, tests from
existing standards can be used.
42 September 2010
Environmental performance cannot be the only
criteria used to evaluate new products. Since
standards development cannot keep pace with
innovation of materials, existing standards are
good reference points for evaluating new products.
and manufacturing methods. However,
it can be tested to the same performance
criteria. Manufacturers of new materials
should be willing to provide test data for
their products according to tests that are
standard for their traditional counter-
parts. For this article, a US fly ash brick
manufacturer provided such reports from
accredited independent testing agencies.
Design professionals should select materi-
als that perform similarly to their traditional
counterparts, or better, for all the perfor-
mance criteria that matter to the project.
In this example, relevant criteria would
include compressive strength, freeze-thaw
resistance, initial rate of absorption, di-
mensional tolerance, efflorescence, color
stability, and fire resistance. Fly ash brick
meets or exceeds industry requirements
for fired clay brick. (A more detailed dis-
cussion of these points of comparison is
available in the online version of this article.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.)
Environmental Performance
Considerations
When incorporating a new masonry
material into a structure, it is important
to verify that the project’s necessary
environmental performance criteria are
maintained, or even improved, by the
use of the new material. Many of the
performance characteristics recognized in
LEED and other rating systems also lead
to reduced embodied energy. Though
these principles may not be as familiar to
structural engineers as structural criteria,
they might be required for the project
and should be evaluated or tested when
considering a new material.
 Weathering Change
All surfaces, masonry and otherwise, are subject to weathering, which can change the color
and texture of the surfaces. Clay brick assemblies are subject to staining and erosion, while
remaining attractive and serviceable; fly ash brick assemblies are likely to weather in the same
way. These weathering effects communicate the graceful aging of a structure, and may be
considered part of a building’s character. Moshe Mostafavi and David Leatherbarrow, in
their book On Weathering: The Life of Buildings in Time, urge designers to view weathering
as the continuous metamorphosis of a building: “Finishing ends construction, weathering
constructs finishes.”

Embodied Energy Thermal Performance

The embodied energy of a product consists of
the combined energy used to produce, trans-
port, and install the product. Fly ash brick and
fired clay brick require the same energy to as-
semble on site. However, they differ dramatically
in their production energy; fly ash brick is
produced using only 15% of the energy required
for a typical fired clay brick.
Saving transportation embodied energy is
one goal of LEED Credit MR 5, “Regional
Materials”. This credit counts materials pro-
Microscopic view of fly ash.
Masonry can provide great operational energy
performance advantages because of its mass.
ASHRAE 90.1 standards and state energy
codes provide thermal performance calcula-
tions for massive materials, including brick.
Using these calculations can, in turn, assist the
design team in meeting LEED energy credits
or other high-performance building goals.
Thermal performance depends heavily on the
shape, weight, and configuration of the con-
struction. When designing a massive assembly

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

duced within 500 miles of the project site,
whose raw materials are also extracted within
that radius. This credit acts, in part, as a sur-
rogate for calculating the actual transportation
energy required for a product. The fly ash brick
factory in southeast Wisconsin is within 500
miles of such places as Chicago, Memphis,
Pittsburgh, Omaha, Minneapolis, and Toronto.
It obtains its materials locally, so projects within
500 miles of this factory may count its brick
toward the LEED Credit.
Recycled Content
A good way to reduce embodied energy is to
make use of recycled materials. Reclaiming ma-
terials from the waste stream saves the energy
of extracting and refining virgin materials.
Fly ash brick has one of the highest recycled
contents among masonry units, consisting of
nearly 40 percent fly ash. Fly ash is considered a
post-industrial recycled material, so 18.60% re-
cycled content can be applied to LEED Credit
MR 4. By contrast, most fired clay brick typically
has less than 1% recycled content.
For this project, Fly Ash Pavers helped meet
requirements for recycled content and reduced
environmental footprint.
as a thermal heat sink, it is helpful to compare
the specific heat of the new product with the
standard product’s specific heat. In veneer ap-
plications, fly ash brick has a higher insulation
value than fired clay brick. Published design
R-values, expressed in hr*ft2*F°/BTU, for
modular brick are 0.4 for fired clay face brick
and 0.92 for fly ash brick.
LEED and Other Rating Systems
If a green building rating system such as LEED
applies to the project, part of the evaluation of
a new product involves checking it against
the targeted goals in the rating system. Some
credits depend on a single characteristic of a
material, such as recycled content. Other credits
may rely on the performance of a complete
system, such as heat transmission of a wall,
in which the new material may play only one
part. Testing the material or assembly may be
required as part of the documentation for the
rating system.
Masonry assemblies share many characteristics
– whether they are made of fly ash brick or
fired clay brick – which allow them to con-
tribute to LEED goals. Here are a few of the
characteristics and their related LEED credits:
• Durability: Canada LEED Credit MR 8,
Durable Building
• Low Sound Transmission: LEED for
Schools Credit IEQ 9, Enhanced
Acoustical Performance
• No VOC Emissions: LEED Credits IEQ
4.1, 4.2, and 4.6, Low-Emitting Materials
• Breathable Assemblies: LEED for Schools
Credit IEQ 10, Mold Prevention
continued on next page

STRUCTURE magazine 43 September 2010

 Other Environmental Concerns
Occasionally, new products make the main-
stream news over environmental concerns,
whether or not these concerns are founded.
When considering a new product, it is wise to
understand how the layperson might respond
to the product’s use. These concerns are worth
discussing with the manufacturer in order to
understand how they are responding to the
issues. A responsible manufacturer will com-
mission independent testing to address the
concerns and will make the results available to
the design team.
For instance, fly ash has been in the news
recently because the EPA is considering new
rules that might designate fly ash as a special
waste when disposed of in impoundments
and landfills, to ensure that effective disposal
practices in use in some states are applied
nationally, and to encourage higher levels of
responsible recycling. Beneficial uses such
as fly ash brick will remain exempt from
regulation under any such ruling, and the EPA
has been clear and consistent in its support of
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
such applications. Moreover, fly ash brick is
considered an “encapsulated” use because trace
heavy metals that might exist in fly ash, similar
to the amounts found in other construction
materials, are bound within the fly ash matrix
that forms as the brick is cured. Neither
leaching nor breakage, nor even skin contact,
pose health concerns, so both whole fly ash
bricks and scrap brick may be handled in the
same manner as fired clay brick. When cutting
any masonry material, ordinary precautions
such as respiratory protection, eye protection,
and dust control should be taken.
Compatibility with
Related Materials
When evaluating a new masonry material,
systems that are in contact with the new material
should be carefully considered for compatibil-
ity challenges. Predicting potential problems
requires a combination of careful analysis and
strategic testing.
Standards typically do not address compat-
ibility. Even traditional materials with long
histories should be tested in combination with
materials applied onto or into the system. It
is never sufficient to assume that any product
that meets the standard for its type is acceptable
for the project, because standards often do not
fully address all of the selection criteria.
Systems that interface with masonry assem-
blies should be analyzed and tested with the
masonry materials. Considerations such as
corrosion or galvanic reaction with metals,
etching of glass, and cleaning methods should
be part of the analysis. Pull-out strength and
STRUCTURE magazine 44 September 2010
lateral stability should be tested with the in-
tended fasteners. Surface adhesion with sealants
and coatings may be another criterion to con-
sider. The more critical the interface is to the
integrity of the structure, the more important
testing becomes. For instance, both fired clay
brick and fly ash brick, along with their mortar,
should be tested for compatibility with the
following, as they apply to the project:
• Elastomeric sealants
• Waterproofing and flashing materials
• Water repellents and graffiti-resistant
coatings
• Cleaning and maintenance materials
New materials, of course, have a shorter history
and fewer examples of successful combinations
of materials in the field. A responsible man-
ufacturer will have construction trials with
common materials and will be willing to share
their findings with the design professional. As
with any material, it is also important to obtain
documentation from the manufacturer or re-
quire testing with unusual combinations.
Conclusion
Even when new materials are proposed for
sound environmental reasons, such as reducing
embodied energy, they must be carefully eval-
uated. Existing standards may not fully apply
to the new materials, but they are useful and
necessary to establish performance requirements.
When the performance criteria are established
independently by the design team, it is within
the standard of care to rely upon the manufac-
turer’s literature and testing data to determine
whether the new material meets those criteria.
However, for critical performance characteristics,
the engineer may require supplemental tests
or mockups.
With a clear understanding of the project
requirements and their effect on material se-
lection, the structural engineer can play an
important role in reducing the embodied energy
impact of masonry construction.▪
Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP
is an architectural specifier in private
practice in California and a consultant to
Chusid Associates. She can be reached at
vivian@chusid.com.
Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP is President of
Critical Structures, Anaheim, CA. He can be
reached at estovner@critical-structures.com.
The online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
 BUILDING INTELLIGENT CONNECTIONS.

Why settle for this?

When your software can do this?

SDS/2 is the only BIM software that designs connections intelligently. This means it recognizes — and resolves — erectability
issues and framing conditions while automatically designing connections.

SDS/2 takes the work out of completing your BIM model. With SDS/2’s power to engineer joints and superior connections to
project partners, viewing the as-built model enables you to get the job done better, faster and smarter.

Visit sds2.com or call 800.443.0782 to learn how you can start building intelligent connections in your projects today.

www.sds2.com 800.443.0782 402.441.4000 e-mail: info@sds2.com

Copyright © 2009 Design Data, Inc. All rights reserved.

 Gen. Hardware &Ties

Geotechnical Anchors
2010 Anchoring guide

Reinforcing Anchors
Masonry Anchors
Concrete Anchors

Façade Anchors

Post-Tensioning

Utility Anchors
Anchor Bolts
Company Product
Bentley Systems
Phone: 800-236-8539 RAM Connection V8i and STAAD.foundation V8i X
Email: structural@bentley.com
Web: www.bentley.com
CHANCE-Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. CHANCE® Helical piles X X
Phone: 573-682-8414
Email: civilconstruction@hps.hubbell.com
Web: www.abchance.com ATLAS Resistance® piers X

Earthbound Corporation
Phone: 800-944-5669 Cast in place Anchors and Chair X X X X
Email: rob@chubbysmack.com
Web: www.chubbysmack.com
Foresight Products, LLC
Phone: 800-325-5360
Email: sales@earthanchor.com
Manta Ray® and Stingray® X X X
Web: www.earthanchor.com
Halfen Anchoring Systems
Phone: 210-658-4671
Halfen Concrete Anchors X
Email: vyakin@meadowburke.com
Web: www.HalfenUSA.com Halfen Façade Anchors X
Hilti, Inc. HDA, HSL-3 and Kwik Bolt-TZ Mechanical Anchors x x x x X x
Phone: 800-879-8000
Email: custserv@us.hilti.com
Web: www.us.hilti.com
HIT HY 150 MAX-SD and RE 500-SD x X X X X
Hohmann & Barnard, Inc.
Phone: 631-234-0600
Email: path@h-b.com
X-Seal Veneer Anchor and BL-407 Veneer Anchor X
Web: www.h-b.com

ITW Red Head Adhesives, Trubolt, LDT, LDT X, Multi-Set II,

Boa Coil, Prima, Dynabolt X
Phone: 630-694-4780
Email: Erin.Haberman@itw-redhead.com
Web: www.itwredhead.com Adhesives, Prima, Dynabolt, Redi-Drive, Tapcon, Poly-Set X

ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTURE.org

STRUCTURE magazine 46 September 2010

 Gen. Hardware &Ties

Geotechnical Anchors

Reinforcing Anchors
Not listed? Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org/guides.aspx and submit

Masonry Anchors
Concrete Anchors

Façade Anchors

Post-Tensioning
your information for upcoming guides! Listings are provided as a courtesy.

Utility Anchors
Anchor Bolts
STRUCTURE magazine is not responsible for errors.

Company Product
MKT Fastening, LLC
Phone: 800-336-1640 Sup-R-Stud TZ Anchor and SZ High Load Anchor X
Email: bert@mktfastening.com
Web: www.mktfastening.com

Powers Fasteners, Inc.

Phone: 985-807-6666 Power-Stud SD1, Power-Stud SD2
and PE1000+ AC100+Gold X X X X X X X
Email: jzenor@powers.com
Web: www.powers.com
SAS Stressteel, Inc.
Phone: 973-244-5995
Email: info@stressteeltbs.com
Hot-rolled fully threaded steel bars for building construction x X
Web: www.stressteel.com
Schnabel Foundation Company
Phone: 703-742-0020
Email: rich@schnabel.com
Rock and Soil Anchors and Soil Nails X
Web: www.schnabel.com

Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems Torq-Cut™ Self-Undercutting Anchor X X X X

Phone: 800-999-5099
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.simpsonanchors.com EDOT ™ Epoxy-Tie® Adhesive for Transportation Projects X X X X
The Dyson Corporation
Phone: 440-946-3500
Email: mhiggins@dysoncorp.com
Dyson threaded bar and rod assemblies X X
Web: www.dysoncorp.com

USP Structural Connectors

Phone: 952-328-5934 DUC Ductile Undercut Anchor and
Anchor Adhesive CIA-GEL 7000 X X
Email: info@uspconnectors.com
Web: www.uspconnectors.com
Williams Form Engineering Corp.
Phone: 616-866-0815
Email: williams@williamsform.com
Anchor Systems X X X X X X X
Web: www.williamsform.com

ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTURE.org

STRUCTURE magazine 47 September 2010

 CASE RISK MANAGEMENT
risk management topics for structural engineers
Training our New Engineers and Making
Sense of Risk Management Information
By Stacy J. Bartoletti, S.E.
The Council of American Structural Engineers
(CASE) Took Kit Committee continues to
work hard at developing tools that are useful
for the structural engineering profession and
related to risk management. Two new tools
have recently been released. Tool Number
5-2, Milestone Checklist for Young Engineers,
provides a method for evaluating the develop-
ment of the engineering and leadership skills of
our newest engineers. Tool Number 3-3, Website
Resource Tool, provides a simple and concise sum-
mary of some of the valuable information
available on the web related to risk management.
In our firm, we are seeing a much greater
demand from the younger generation for a
structured program to assure they are receiving
a wide range of experience and feedback on
their progress. They are looking not only for
technical experience but also leadership op-
portunities. I suspect that we are not alone and
Consolidated Rental Car Facility
SeaTac Airport, WA
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
other firms are seeing similar demands. The
new CASE Tool 5-2 provides a starting point
to develop such a program and track individual
progress. Our firm is currently developing a
program specific to our needs, and we started
with CASE Tool 5-2. The Tool provides a
comprehensive list of engineering experience
broken down by material type, analysis, soft-
ware, and construction administration. It also
includes leadership activities related to market-
ing and business development, organizational
development, and project management. Train-
ing, evaluating, and providing feedback to our
young engineers who will become our future
firm leaders is an important part of our risk
management program.
Do you need to get your license in another
state and need contact information and li-
censing requirements? Do you know where
you can find the CASE standard contracts?
48 September 2010
Do you understand design professional lien
laws in the states where you practice? Do you
understand the stamping and sealing require-
ments for all of the states where you practice?
As engineers and project managers, we are often
confronted with these questions. The web has
become a huge source for the information,
but sometimes it can be hard to find. Tool 3-3
provides a concise summary of key informa-
tion available on several web sites related to risk
management. This simple tool will direct you to
valuable information that will quickly help you
answer these types of questions and many more.
Descriptions of all of the CASE tools can be
found on the CASE website, www.acec.org/
CASE. If you would like to evaluate a tool at no
cost, email Corey Matsuoka, chairman of the
Toolkit Committee, at cmatsuoka@ssfm.com
for more information. All tools are free of charge
to CASE members. If you have any ideas for risk
management tools that you feel will improve the
risk management efforts of the structural engi-
neering community or if you have any suggested
enhancements to the tools that have already
been released, please contact the CASE Toolkit
Committee at the same e-mail address.▪
Stacy Bartoletti, S.E. is the President and
COO of Degenkolb Engineers headquartered
in San Francisco, California. Stacy has been
a member of the CASE Tool Kit Committee
for several years. He may be reached at
sbartoletti@degenkolb.com.
Read it online
www.STRUCTUREmag.org
The Dots Are Connected in Today’s Digital BIM Workflow
By Robert Middlebrooks, AIA and Scott Hammond
The process of design through the cre-
ation of 3D models is a concept and practice
well known to structural engineers today.
Less familiar may be a fuller perspective
on the current state of Building Informa-
tion Modeling (BIM) and the enormous
progress in digital workflow over the past
few years. BIM is an integrated process
for exploring a project’s key physical and
functional characteristics digitally – before
it is built. The resulting information helps
architects, engineers, contractors, and
owners to see, prior to construction, what
the design will look like and, more impor-
tantly, how it will perform. This visibility
enables all members of the project team
to contribute to its success through better
coordination, improved accuracy, and the
ability to make better decisions earlier in
the process.
At present, BIM can be characterized by
a level of integration that only a few years
ago would have been considered amazing,
if not impossible. Five to ten years ago, a
structural engineer typically operated in
a “silo,” carrying out independent analysis
by either creating stand-alone models
or loading limited geometrical data from
the software used to document the struc-
ture into an entirely separate application.
This tedious, error-prone and costly way
of exchanging data did not produce a view
embracing all optimal solutions or possibili-
ties. The “dots” in this scenario were not
connected. What is efficient is to bring
engineering analysis and design under the
umbrella of integrated models that are
based on decisions made through analysis.
Today we find ourselves in a world where
BIM is characterized by an integrated,
collaborative effort that occurs through-
out a project’s timeline. Structural engineers
perform discrete tasks such as analysis,
design alternative comparison, visualiza-
tion, clash detection, 4D, and so forth.
These activities are now connected to,
and more fully integrated with, the BIM
process and software used by the entire
design team. Thanks to huge efforts in
the software community to integrate design
and analysis, structural engineers operating
within a BIM environment can now iterate,
refine, and optimize based on not only
structural criteria, but also related factors
such as cost, sustainability, and construc-
tability. There are no dead ends in BIM,
as every step adds value to the project.
STRUCTURE magazine
Through the contributions of
engineers directly involved in BIM,
various structural forms and sce-
narios can easily be evaluated.
Engineers can enjoy near-real-time
comparisons among options, exam-
ine quantity takeoffs, and consider
life-cycle issues. The ability to evalu-
ate alternative designs at any stage
in the workflow can help facilitate
fully informed decisions that go
well beyond the simple “lowest
cost” approach.
Structural engineers can now work with,
and dynamically contribute to, a 3D
intelligent model created in BIM applica-
tions and become more involved earlier in
the project. The model enables them to
develop conceptual designs and quickly
respond to an architect’s changes. With
current analysis software operating in a
BIM environment, engineers take a com-
plex 3D structure and evaluate various
structural configurations to produce an
optimal design based on analysis at the
preliminary stage.
To illustrate further the value of BIM,
consider the vast improvements when it
comes to bringing the results of structural
analysis into construction documents. In
the past, the structural engineer would
go through a separate step to modify and
coordinate construction documents. This
disjointed process required re-inserting
data to correct original drawings. BIM
now allows an efficient, linear, all-digital
workflow that puts structural analysis closer
to design and documentation. Engineers
can make decisions based on the core
BIM model that, in turn, generates con-
struction drawings directly.
BIM also enables a much closer inte-
gration between the structural engineer
and fabrication. The close integration
of analytical and detailing software in a
BIM environment means that structural
engineers can investigate extending their
models to communicate engineering design
intent more clearly and easily to various
construction stakeholders. This oppor-
tunity, in turn, provides the structural
engineer with an expanded range of
marketable services.
While great strides continue to be made
for structural engineering offices’ internal
processes with BIM, there is still work
to be done across the industry. According
49 September 2010
InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
to a 2009 McGraw Hill SmartMarket
Report, The Business Value of BIM, the
most limiting aspect of BIM is the lack
of interoperability between software ap-
plications. Nearly 80% of BIM users say
there is significant need for improvement
in this area. Some of the challenges lie in the
numerous unique interoperability standards
for different construction materials. For
steel, there are two such standards, SDNF
and CIS/2. The precast concrete industry
chose the upcoming IFC 2x4, and ACI
is in the process of investigating how to
ensure that there is complete interoper-
ability for all things concrete. The different
methods and file formats used in struc-
tural engineering do not necessarily reflect
a lack of communication and willingness to
work together, but are more representative
of the complexity of the field. While
interoperability will continue to be a great
challenge for all parties involved in BIM,
industry groups and software vendors
continue to work together to close the
gap and meet the needs of all parties.
Structural engineers have a long history
of 3D model-based analysis and design,
and are now joining other professionals
in adopting BIM. As the benefits become
more refined, this will bring about entire
ecosystems in which all project stake-
holders, including structural engineers, will
ultimately become involved with full virtual
design and construction.▪
Robert Middlebrooks, AIA, is Industry
Strategy and Relations Manager
for Autodesk’s AEC solutions
division. Robert can be reached at
robert.middlebrooks@autodesk.com.
Scott Hammond is an Industry
Segment Manager at Autodesk,
providing worldwide technical
leadership. Scott can be reached at
scott.hammond@autodesk.com.
 DWYSYWD (Do What You Say You Will Do)!
President’s Report
By William D. Bast, P.E., S.E., SECB
The 2nd biggest problem in the United States today is the prolif-
eration of a lack of accountability – people not doing what they
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
say they will do (the biggest problem in the U.S. is the destruction
of the family unit through divorce and estrangement).
In the world of engineering as in other industries, we love
acronyms! The acronym DWYSYWD is also a palindrome, and
stands for “Do What You Say You Will Do”. It is one of the basic
rules for succeeding in business, and seems like a “no-brainer”
– doesn’t everyone practice that simple principle for conducting
business? Shouldn’t that be expected as a minimum? (ref. John
Paul Galles)
In Scripture, it is written to “Let your ‘Yes’ be yes, and your ‘No’,
no” (James 5:12). It means to employ the plainness of speech
– that there is no need for grandiose, ego-stroking oaths – just
keep your words simple, and simply keep your words.
What happens when people don’t keep their word? The
result is that everyone around them suffers – disappointment,
injustice, insecurity, loss, injury, and even death. “You cannot
escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” (ref.
Abraham Lincoln)
How has NCSEA and its Board kept their words and met their
responsibilities in the past year?
Well, as the President of NCSEA, having begun my term
in October 2009, I set two goals for the council – 1) initiate
efforts leading to structural engineering licensing in up to 10
states, and 2) increase the participation and effectiveness of
our committees. I am pleased to report that NCSEA has made
significant headway towards both of these goals.
As reported by our Licensing Committee Chair, Susie Jor-
gensen, currently there are seven states actively moving forward
in one manner or another toward separate licensing – Florida,
California, Texas, Nebraska, Ohio, Alaska and Georgia. In addition,
the committee has been contacted by a number of other states
requesting information or asking a member of the committee
to come speak to a group in the state – including Minnesota,
Idaho, South Carolina, Michigan, New York, Tennessee, Alabama,
Arkansas and Arizona. This is very exciting news – we are definitely
moving toward uniform structural engineering licensing across
the country, and in every state, with NCEES’ Model Law Struc-
tural Engineer, a new 16-hour Structural Exam being offered in
NCSEA News
April 2011, and State licensing boards seeking agreement on the
education, experience, and examination requirements in order
to obtain licensing in structural engineering.
Further to this goal, I worked with our Executive Director,
Jeanne Vogelzang, and our Committee Chair, Susie Jorgensen, in
developing a proposal to the Structural Engineering Certification
Board (SECB) which resulted in an SECB grant of $7,000 to
NCSEA’s Licensing Committee, to offset the cost of visits to 10
State Member Organizations (MO’s) in order to advance our
agenda on separate SE Licensing.
Some of our committees have been re-organized and recharged,
and the result of their efforts has led to significant accomplish-
ments by many of these groups.
NCSEA’s Code Advisory Committee (CAC) was successful
in representing practicing SE’s on numerous proposed changes
to the 2009 IBC. Positions taken by the CAC were upheld on
issues related to simplified wind provisions, seismic retrofit
STRUCTURE magazine 50
of existing buildings, numerous seismic de-
sign issues, quality assurance and quality
control, and design related to progressive
collapse. Through the efforts of the CAC,
NCSEA signed an agreement earlier this year with the International
Code Council (ICC) Evaluation Service to assist ICC with the
technical review and acceptance of structural products.
The Publications Committee produced two NCSEA books
and related short courses offered throughout the U.S. (Guide
to the Design of Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors Based on the
2006 IBC and ASCE/SEI 7-05, and Guide to the Design of Out-
of-Plane Wall Anchorage Based on the2006/2009 IBC and ASCE/
SEI 7-05).
Our Membership Committee was instrumental in the formation
of four new MO’s in Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin. In July the NCSEA Board met with the new
Wisconsin SEA, who reported that they now have 34 members
and are anxious to grow their group and the programs and
services that they are providing to their members.
The SEER Committee facilitated ATC-20 and ATC-45
training and certification events for MO’s in Florida, Illinois,
New York, and Oklahoma.
NCSEA’s Continuing Education Committee began the
development of a review/refresher course specifically designed
for the new NCEES Structural Engineering examination that
will be instituted in April 2011. The course will be offered
beginning early next year, prior to the first time the new SE
test is given. This committee, along with NCSEA’s talented
staff, worked particularly hard this year to continue a successful
ongoing series of webinars for members that focus specifically on
the educational needs of practicing structural engineers.
The NCSEA Basic Education Committee undertook a survey
of educational institutions for structural-engineering-related
courses offered, and published the results in the May 2010
issue of STRUCTURE magazine, in the interest of improving
the technical and practical quality of education for structural
engineering students.
Our Advocacy Committee has developed the Media Contact
list by increasing the number of states represented from 10, as
of last October, to 28 states currently, with the goal to have all
50 states represented by the time of our Annual Conference in
Jersey City, New Jersey coming up in late September.
In addition to all of this, the NCSEA Board, Executive Director,
Past Presidents, and Committee Chairs spent a day together in
March of this year, reviewing and re-writing the Strategic Plan
that had been first created in 2005.
We created a new Vision Statement this year, as part of the 2011-
2015 Strategic Plan that we have developed. It reads as follows:
NCSEA and its Member Organizations constitute the premier
professional society for practicing structural engineers in the United
States of America.
This is a great summary of what we hope that NCSEA and
its MO’s are and/or will become. It has been my great privilege
and pleasure to serve NCSEA as its President and to help guide
the organization toward this vision. I fully expect the incoming
Board to continue to work toward and define this vision for
NCSEA, and to DWTSTWD (do what they say they will do)!
September 2010

NCSEA Webinar September 9
Wind Design for Storm Shelters and Critical Facilities – Presented by Bill Coulbourne
This webinar will offer design guidance on how to determine
wind pressures on storm shelters and critical facilities using both
ASCE 7-10 and the new shelter standard, ICC 500. Designs for
both hurricanes and tornadoes, as well as for both the Main Wind
Force Resisting System and Components and Cladding, will
be covered. The new strength design maps in ASCE 7-10 will be
used as a basis, and the design pressures using these maps will be
compared to design pressures obtained using ICC 500. Since the
wind speeds used in the designs of shelters and critical facilities are
so much higher than wind speeds used for Category II buildings,
the differences in the design approach will be discussed as well.
The design approach for wind-borne debris will be covered, as
well as how to achieve acceptable building performance under
these high wind pressures and wind-borne debris.
NCSEA Webinar September 14
Wood and Cold Formed Steel Trusses – Presented by Ed Huston
One of the systems structural engineers specify most commonly
is pre-manufactured trusses. The majority of small, light weight
structures use them to frame roofs, awnings, mansards, canopies
and similar architectural elements. There are however, very
different expectations of “who is responsible for what” on the
parts of the SER, the truss industry, contractors, and the building
department. This seminar will explore some of the pitfalls of
specifying pre-manufactured trusses, including:
• Definitions – part of the problem we have is that we define
the same things differently.
• Loads – range of loads, concurrent storage loads, loads
likely to be in place.
• The three types of bracing and who is responsible for each.
The answer may surprise you!
• Roof uplift and load path considerations.
• Typical truss failures and field problems.
• Codes and Standards – are your drawings in compliance?
• Truss inspections – who is responsible? Are these systems
even being inspected?
• Special considerations – long trusses adjacent to walls,
suspended ceilings, attachments to trusses.
Cost: $250 per internet connection
Several people may attend for one connection fee.
There will be a $5 fee for each continuing education certificate requested.
October 19, 2010: ATC-58 Development of Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Criteria –
Upcoming Ron Hamburger
NCSEA October 28, 2010: Design Considerations for Ponding Loads on Roofs – Tom Wallace
Webinars November 9, 2010: Geometric Axis and Principal Axis Bending of Single Angles – Whitney McNulty
November 4 & 11, December 2 & 9 Webinar Series: Practical Design of Structures for Blast Effects – Jon Schmidt
NCSEA’s Eighteenth Annual Conference is this month.
Don’t miss it! www.ncsea.com
STRUCTURE magazine
NCSEA News
Mr. Coulbourne has a BS in Civil
Engineering from Virginia Tech and a
Masters in Structural Engineering from
the University of Virginia. He is a national
expert in wind and flood mitigation and
has been involved in FEMA Mitigation
Assessment Teams for over 15 years.
Mr. Coulbourne has been involved in every major hurricane
and flood disaster since 1995. He has investigated failures and
mitigation design techniques for thousands of buildings includ-
ing residential structures, schools used as shelters, hospitals, and
other critical facilities. Mr. Coulbourne was one of the primary
authors for FEMA’s Coastal Construction Manual and for FEMA
320, Taking Shelter From the Storm – a tornado safe room design
guidance manual for homeowners and homebuilders.
News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Ed Huston, a 1971 civil engineering
graduate of the University of Washington,
is a licensed civil and structural engineer
in Washington and is licensed in seven
other states. He is a principal in the firm
of Smith & Huston, Inc., Consulting
Engineers in Seattle, Washington. Ed
has over 38 years of experience in structural design, evaluation,
investigation and code and standards development. He is a
former President of the Board of Directors of NCSEA, chairs the
NCSEA Code Advisory Committee – General Requirements
Subcommittee, and serves on NCSEA’s Licensing Committee.
Ed is a co-author of the Wind Commentary to the Uniform
Building Code – 1991 Edition & 1994 Editions, ATC-60,
SEAW Commentary on Wind Code Provisions, as well as
the SEAW RSM-03, SEAW’s Handbook of a Rapid Solution
Methodology™ for Wind Design. He is also co-author of the
ATC Design Guide 2: Basic Wind Engineering of Low-Rise
Buildings and co-author of The Masonry Designers’ Guide to
the ACI/ASCE 530 Code, First through Sixth Editions. Ed has
made more than 160 technical presentations.
Each webinar awards 1.5 hours of continuing education.
The times will be 10:00 am Pacific, 11:00 am Mountain,
12:00 pm Central, and 1:00 pm Eastern.
Approved in All 50 States.
51 September 2010
 Proceedings Available
Structures Congress 2010
This set of proceedings contains more than 380 papers
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

presented at the 2010 Structures Congress and the 19th Analysis

and Computation Specialty Conference held in Orlando, Florida
from May 12-15, 2010. This collection contains papers on topics
that are redefining structural engineering in the areas of bridge
and transportation structures, buildings, strategies for today’s
global economy and advances in research. The papers presented
SAVE THE DATE
here cover: analysis and computation; bridges; building design; 2011 Structures Congress
buildings – seismic; business and professional practice; concrete Green Valley Ranch, Resort and Spa
and masonry structures; education and educational reform; Las Vegas, Nevada
extreme loads and loading; non-building structures; research;
and tall buildings. April 14-16
Order 2010 Structures Congress online at www.asce.org/bookstore Visit the Conference website for more information:
or by calling 800-548-ASCE. http://content.asce.org/conferences/structures2011/

2011 Ammann Call Call for 2011 SEI/ASCE

for Nominations
The O. H. Ammann Research Fellowship in Structural
Engineering is bestowed annually to a member for the purpose
of encouraging the creation of new knowledge in the field of
structural design and construction. The O. H. Ammann
Fellowship was endowed in 1963 by O. H. Ammann,
Hon.M.ASCE, and was increased in 1985 by Klary V. Ammann
(widow of O. H. Ammann).
The deadline for 2011 Ammann applications is:
November 1, 2010.
For more information and to download an application visit the
SEI website at:
http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/ammann.html
Structural Columns
Award Nominations
Nominations are being sought for the 2011 SEI and ASCE
Structural Awards. The objective of the Awards program is to
advance the engineering profession by emphasizing exceptionally
meritorious achievement, so this is an opportunity to recognize
colleagues who are worthy of this honor.
Nomination deadlines begin October 1, 2010 with most
deadlines falling on November 1, 2010.
Visit the SEI Awards and Honors page at for more information
and nomination procedures:
http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/honorawards.html

Register Now For a One-Day Seminar

Best Practice Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings
New York City – September 10 San Francisco – September 13 Chicago – September 29
Over the past four years, the National Institute of Standards advanced methods of analysis under a wide range of realistic
and Technology (NIST), working through the National Institute fire conditions.
of Building Sciences (NIBS) and in collaboration with industry This seminar will provide general guidance on the approaches
experts, has prepared a comprehensive document providing to, and practical aspects of, implementing a fire-resistant
guidelines on designing structural fire resistance. design approach for concrete and steel buildings. The guidance
The Guidelines contain the current “best practices” for fire- includes key concepts and examples for identifying performance
resistant design of concrete and steel structures including objectives, conducting risk analyses, selecting design fire scenarios
a review of existing U.S. and international guidelines and and fire exposure curves, and implementing heat transfer and
design standards, which use approaches that range from simple structural response analyses for the structural fire-resistant
prescriptive methods to sophisticated software programs with design of concrete and steel structures.

Earn 6.0 PDHS Co-sponsored by

Visit the SEI Website for More
STRUCTURAL
Information and to Register: ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
www.SEInstitute.org

STRUCTURE magazine 52 September 2010


Announcement of the 2010 O.H. Ammann
Research Fellowship Award
The SEI Technical Activities Division Executive Committee
awarded the 2010 O.H. Ammann Research Fellowship in
Structural Engineering to Mr. Fernando Moreu, a Ph.D.
candidate in the Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
pursing a degree in Structural Engineering. The fellowship,
which the TAD Executive Committee bestows annually for the
purpose of encouraging the creation of new knowledge in the
field of structural design and construction, was awarded for his
research entitled “Use of Wireless Sensors for Railroad Bridge
Replacement Prioritization.” The overall objective of Moreu’s
research is to develop a pilot measurement method to place
accelerometers and record accelerations in railroad bridges,
and to use these readings to quantify structural robustness of
railroad bridge elements. The findings of this study will be used
to implement a methodology for component (or even whole
bridge) replacement prioritization. Mr. Moreu’s full report will
be posted when it becomes available.
Fernando Moreu obtained his Bachelors Degree in Civil
Engineering at the University of Granada (Spain) in 1999.
Mr. Moreu then moved to the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, where he researched nonlinear performance of
reinforced concrete buildings under seismic excitations. In
2000, he started working for ESCA Consultants, Inc. as a
design engineer. Since then, Mr. Moreu has participated in
the design, analysis, development, planning, construction,
retrofitting, replacement and inspection of diverse structural
systems. These systems include – but are not limited to –
highway and railroad bridges, university laboratories, diverse
industry buildings, cooling towers, and special foundations.
Mr. Moreu has participated in the design and replacement of
more than 30 railroad bridges in 7 states. In 2005, he finished
a Masters of Science in structural engineering at the Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department at the University
ASCE 7-10 Now Available
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures provides require-
ments for general structural design
and includes means for determining
dead, live, soil, flood, wind, snow,
rain, atmospheric ice, and earthquake
loads, as well as their combinations,
which are suitable for inclusion in
building codes and other documents.
This Standard, a revision of ASCE/
SEI 7-05, offers a complete update
and reorganization of the wind load provisions, expanding them
from one chapter into six. The Standard contains new ultimate
event wind maps with corresponding reductions in load factors,
so that the loads are not affected, and updates the seismic loads
with new risk-targeted seismic maps. The snow, live, and atmo-
spheric icing provisions are updated as well. In addition, the
Standard includes a detailed Commentary, with explanatory and
STRUCTURE magazine
Structural Columns
of Illinois, while working for ESCA as a full time structural
engineer. In 2007, Mr. Moreu then started his PhD in structural
engineering at the University of Illinois. Mr. Moreu’s research
is focused on the structural health monitoring of railroad
bridges using wireless sensors, having monitored three railroad
bridges with accelerometers between 2005 and 2010. In
2009, Mr. Moreu received the Max Zar Scholarship from the
Structural Engineering Foundation and the NSF Fellowship
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
for Asian Pacific Summer School (APSS) in Smart Structures
Technologies. In May 2010, he was selected the 2009 Young
Engineer Finalist in Spain, his native country. Mr. Moreu has
additionally been awarded with the Talentia Fellowship by the
Junta de Andalucia, also in Spain. Mr. Moreu has presented his
research to both professional and academic audiences in the
US, Canada, Japan, China, Singapore, France, Italy and Spain.
Finally, Fernando Moreu is the US representative for the Spanish
Association of Civil Engineers.
Congratulations to Mr. Moreu for his hard work and dedication
which earned him this fellowship award.
supplementary information, designed to assist building code
committees and regulatory authorities.
Standard ASCE/SEI 7 is an integral part of building codes in
the United States. Many of the load provisions are substantially
adopted by reference in the International Building Code and the
NFPA 5000 Building Construction and Safety Code.
Structural engineers, architects, and those engaged in preparing
and administering local building codes will find this Standard an
essential reference in their practice.
Visit the Publications Website to order: www.asce.org/bookstore
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our
publications at www.SEInstitute.org. Click on
“Publications” on our menu, and select “Errata.”
If you have any errata that you would like to submit,
please email it to Paul Sgambati at psgambati@asce.org.▪
53 September 2010
 CASE Four-Part Fall Business Practice Series Online
The Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) in Understanding and Using AIA C401
cooperation with NCSEA and SEI provides educational business
practice information for members of the three organizations. In
Standard Form of Agreement between
response to the new AIA agreements out last year, CASE has Architect and Consultant
developed a series of four online seminars, focusing on these (presented in two parts)
agreements and more, to be presented between October 7 and Part 1 – Deconstructing AIA B101
November 11. These sessions are: Bill Geisen, GraydonHead
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers

October 14, 1-2:30 p.m.

Survival and Success: Essential Project
Management Practices for Sub-Consultant Part 2 – AIA C401: Uses and Modifications
Bill Geisen, GraydonHead
Structural Engineers October 28, 1-2:30 p.m.
Scott Braley, Braley Consulting
October 7, 1-2:30 p.m. Retirement Plans – Which Plan is the Best Fit
for Your Firm?
Robert Kuna, Wachovia Securities
November 11, 1-2:30 p.m.

In addition to the four 1½-hour online seminars, the registration fee includes a copy of CASE
Document-6 –Commentary on AIA C401 Agreement between Architect and Consultant. (This will
be sent electronically after you register for at least one seminar.)
To register for these seminars and receive special pricing reserved for CASE, SEI and NCSEA
members, go to www.acec.org/case/news.cfm.

ACEC Government Affairs Update

Design Professional Firms Brace for House Floor Action on ACEC Initiatives
Indemnity Turmoil Moved to September
Design professional firms nationwide are bracing for the The House of Representatives attempted to advance two
CASE in Point

aftershocks of two California court rulings that can force firms
that indemnify clients to also pay for the clients’ legal fees – even
when the design firm was not negligent.
In the case of Crawford v. Weather Shield, the California Supreme
Court ruled that a contractual indemnity clause compelled a
subcontractor to pay the legal fees of the general contractor for
a third-party suit, even though the subcontractor was not itself
found negligent. Subsequently, in the case of UDC-Universal in anticipation of the House taking it up in September.
Development v. CH2M Hill, a California appellate court held that
this “duty to defend” existed even though the trial court found
that CH2M Hill was neither negligent nor in breach of contract.
ACEC/California is currently working on a legislative remedy
to these court rulings, with assistance from the ACEC Minute-
man Fund.
Firms doing business in California need to ask how much these
decisions will expand the scope of their unintended exposure,
and what they can do to protect themselves.
ACEC priorities last week, but both efforts were stalled for
procedural reasons.
A bill that included provisions to cap the liability of structural
engineering firms and other contractors working in the 9/11
response and recovery effort was withdrawn due to concerns
over other sections in the legislation. ACEC is working with the
bill’s sponsor, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), to build support
House leaders also suspended consideration of ACEC-backed
legislation that would repeal a mandate in the health care law
that would substantially increase IRS reporting requirements for
businesses. Under the new law, firms would be required to file
IRS Form 1099s for purchases of any goods and services valued
at more than $600 annually.
ACEC is working closely with business community allies to
identify additional opportunities for passage when Congress
returns in September.

STRUCTURE magazine 54 September 2010


CASE Summer Meeting Planned for Boston in September
The CASE Summer Meeting will take place on Thursday
and Friday, September 16-17, 2010, Boston, Massachusetts.
On Thursday the CASE committee breakout meetings will
be held for the National Guidelines, Contracts, Programs &
Communications, and Toolkit committees to continue work
on their respective assignments and planning for future CASE
products. The CASE Executive Committee will meet on Friday.
A CASE roundtable on structural engineering issues will be held
in conjunction with the Boston Association of Structural Engineers
(BASE) dinner/meeting on Wednesday, September 15th at the
MIT Faculty Club. The theme of the evening will be “Risks for
Engineers” and the roundtables will focus on the following:
• Risk vs. Award with Integrated Project Delivery
• BIM Investment versus Payback
• Sustainable Design and the Risk for Structural Engineers
• How to Collect Your Money Without Getting Sued
ACEC Education Information
CIO Roundtable, IT-Focused Programs
Highlight Upcoming Fall Conference
Member Firm CIOs and IT professionals will have a full agenda
of technology focused sessions at the upcoming ACEC 2010 Fall
Conference in Puerto Rico, October 17-20.
For the first time, IT professionals can participate in a CIO
Roundtable, which will be held at the same time as the popular
CEO Roundtables. Following those sessions, there will be a
combined CEO/CIO Roundtable for participants to discuss
organization-wide challenges and issues of mutual concern.
The CIO track of professional development sessions includes:
• IT Tools to Better Orchestrate Collaboration and Knowledge Teach in Engineering School”
Sharing: Social Media and Beyond
• Using Commercial Software in Structural Designs
for Buildings
• Information Modeling for Transportation
• Using Information Technology to Track and Stimulate practical updates of the elements that drive the successful firm in
Project Funding
• Managing Employee Mobile Computing Devices in the The final 2010 presentation of the course is set for Sept. 29-
Office and in the Field
• Sustainability with BIM—Opportunities in New Markets areas of finance, marketing, risk management, contracts, leader-
• Zero Change Orders: How Integrated Project Delivery Can ship, business management, human resources, and information
Improve Your Bottom Line
On Oct. 18, CASE will hold its convocation with sessions that
will focus on the following:
• Avoiding the Pitfalls in Working with Architects By Using
AIA C401
• Using Commercial Software Effectively for Building
Structural Designs (Part of the CIO session series)
• Lessons Learned from Actual Claims (Key Cases)
For more information on the 2010 ACEC Fall Conference and
to register, www.acec.org/conferences/fall-10/registration.cfm.
STRUCTURE magazine
CASE in Point
CASE committees have been the reason behind CASE’s success
for over 20 years and they remain vital to CASE’s future. As part
of the committees’ ongoing activities, face-to-face meetings and
informal discussions are held twice a year to explore current is-
sues and work on projects like new and revised Risk Management
Tools, Guidelines and Contracts, as well as Publications, and
Risk Management Convocations. These meetings also allow the
various CASE committees to interact across all of CASE’s activi-
ties. For more information on the CASE committees and CASE
in general visit their website at www.acec.org/CASE. Contact
CASE Executive Director Heather Talbert (htalbert@acec.org or
202-682-4377) if interested in joining.
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
ACEC Partners with Green Building Council
on LEED Preparation Course
In partnership with the U.S. Green Building Council, ACEC
will offer an online course to prepare participants to take the
LEED Green Associate Exam.
Green Buildings and Preparing for the LEED Green Associate Exam
is a 32-hour course that will be “live” online from Sept. 7-Oct. 29.
Registrants can access the course 24/7 at their convenience.
The curriculum covers LEED across building types and rating
systems, using real project case studies to highlight key concepts
and strategies. After completing the course, participants can
apply to take the LEED Green Associate Exam.
Sharpen Business Skills: “What They Don’t
September 29-October 2, Atlanta, GA
The Business of Design Consulting is ACEC’s bottom-line
focused A/E business management course – comprehensive,
today’s challenging business reality.
Oct. 2, Atlanta, Ga., to examine best-practices in key operational
technology. Created for firm owners, principals, executives and
managers, this on-target update of management priorities is a
solid investment for success.
According to David Stone of Stone & Company, who will
present the marketing and business development segment of the
agenda, “There’s more than enough business out there for your
firm.” Stone will identify the key elements of the “win business”
equation in today’s fast-moving electronic communications age,
integrating the fundamentals of marketing outreach with the
realistic brand-building potential of e-mail and the Internet.
Go to www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1196
for details, access to the course brochure, and to register at the
best-price early-bird rate.
55 September 2010
 Spotlight
award winners and outstanding projects

122 Design Tips in 90 Minutes

Best Presentation at the 2010 Structures Congress/NASCC: The Steel Conference
By Joyce E. Copelan, P.E., M. ASCE, SEI Sacramento Section Chair and Craig A. Copelan, P.E., M. ASCE

At the 2010 SEI Structures Congress/NASCC: The Steel Conference in

Orlando, Florida, participants selected the presentation they found to be the
“Best of the Best” among those offered during the three days of technical
sessions. This year’s winner for best presentation was: 122 Design Tips in 90
Minutes, presented by Dr. James Fisher and Michael West of Computerized
Structural Design (CSD), a nationally known and respected full service
engineering company which maintains its headquarters in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Dr. Fisher completed his PhD in Structural Engineering with the
University of Illinois in 1968; he is a licensed Structural Engineer in several
states. Mr. West obtained his Bachelors in Architecture from the University
of Illinois in 1971 and an MBA from the University of Wisconsin in 1977.
He is a licensed Architect, as well as a licensed Professional Engineer in the
state of Wisconsin and maintains licensure in several states.

Michael West Dr. James Fisher

Dr. Fisher and Mr. West are both principals
with CSD and have been active within the
structural engineering community providing
leadership through various committee mem-
berships within AISC and ASCE, by working
as lecturers within various universities and
through their active advocacy for the use of
structural steel when considering a new build-
ing. They noted that educators spend the
limited time they have with students teaching
fundamentals and theory. Given the work load
of an engineering student, there may or may
not be an opportunity within the student’s
educational experience to work on a project
that can provide the opportunity to consider
the importance of serviceability when design-
ing a steel structure. Dr. Fisher and Mr. West
discussed practical methods to make a project
understandable and constructible when design
is complete, emphasizing that time is money
during the construction of a project and that
good planning during the development of
a project could save time during its fabrica-
tion and erection. They provided a variety of
steps to remember along the path of project
development, emphasizing practical actions
that can be taken to make a structure easier
and faster to fabricate and erect, thus saving
time during construction and money for their
client. Their presentation was based upon the
broad experience they have gained through
their collective 75 years in the structural
engineering profession, and provided a practical
discussion of considerations that should be a minimum of concerns during construction.
taken to heart when putting together plans By reiterating simple yet profound guidance
for a steel structure. Simple guidance like that many engineers in the audience could
reading and thoroughly understanding the relate to through their own experiences,
AISC Code of Standard Practice, maintaining the authors of 122 Design Tips in 90 Minutes,
open and clear lines of communication with Dr. James Fisher and Mr. Michael West,
fabricators, detailers and erectors throughout were able to connect with their audience and
the development process and ensuring that speak to them in a very direct manner, as if
fabricators, designers and erectors remain in across a drafting table or at a building job
sync are practical steps toward saving time and site rather than a conference room podium.
money on a project. Dr. Fisher noted that the The appreciative audience responded by
engineer should not forget that their primary selecting this paper as the 2010 SEI Structures
job should be to produce complete and well Congress/NASCC: The Steel Conference Best
laid out sets of plans, and not to simply do Presentation. If you would like to enjoy this
calculations. The production of a proper set of outstanding presentation it is available for
plans can save money and provide clear guid- review at: www.aisc.org/UploadedContent/
ance toward the completion of the project, with 2010NASCCSessions/E2/▪
Dr. James M. Fisher has specialized in structural steel research and development. He has spent a
large part of his career at his firm Computerized Structural Design investigating building systems
and the study of economical structural framing systems. In recent years, he has become recognized
as an authority in the performance of structures, the design of heavy industrial structures, the
design of Metal Building Systems, and the design of light gage steel structures.
Mr. Michael A. West, during his tenure with Computerized Structural Design, has been
responsible for architectural and structural design for numerous projects in the area of industrial,
commercial and industrial buildings. He has also been responsible for the structural design of
numerous low and mid rise buildings.
Photos of this years Best Presentation award winners were provided
courtesy of the American Institute of Steel Construction

STRUCTURE magazine 56 September 2010

Are Young Engineers Unprepared?
A Young Engineer Answers
By Eytan Solomon, P.E., LEED AP
Debate over the perceived inadequa-
cies of structural engineering graduates
has reached a fever pitch. Pick up just
about any issue of Civil Engineering or
STRUCTURE ® from the last two years
and you’ll find contributions to the dis-
course. Some say that young engineers
today are not technically competent, that
they have no engineering judgment or
intuition, and that these deficiencies will
manifest through poor designs into an in-
crease in structural failures and collapses.
To these ominous claims I offer not quite
a rebuttal, but a reasonable continuation
of the discussion from the viewpoint of that
brash young engineer for whom everyone
fears. I question how the profession has
changed from past generations of engineers
to the present, how it has in fact stayed the
same, and what we should do to approach
a better future.
How Have Things Changed?
Few will deny that the engineer of today
is faced with more information than 100,
50, or even 5 years ago. High-strength
steel, and concrete, prestressed concrete,
fiber-reinforced concrete, and structural
glass are just a few of the new construc-
tion materials of our generation; finite
element analysis (FEA), building informa-
tion modeling (BIM), and sustainability
are just a few of the new design paradigms;
and globalization, intelligent technology,
and digital fabrication are just a few of
the new industry standards.
Similarly, the codified laws by which we
create structures have also expanded and
sharpened. The bureaucratic, legalistic,
rule-fixated demeanor of our society – a
character that does not necessarily yield
negative results – has given rise to building
codes and design guidelines that are volu-
minous and complex without precedent.
We have all heard engineers and professors
pine for the old days when an entire code
book was thinner than a sheet of plywood,
while the rest of the design process was
left to the engineer’s scientific principles
and experience.
Clearly structure geometries today are
more complicated than before. Increasing
computer sophistication is both a cause
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.
and effect of the ever-more “funky” designs
that come across our desks. I once sat
with the president of my firm – an en-
gineer who has seen it all in his 50-odd
years of practice – to look over the latest
geometrically complex proposition from
a certain starchitect. “Why do they want
to do this?” he implored sincerely before
we realized it was a rhetorical question, “I
guess because they can.” While the Empire
State Building is often cited as “proof ”
that super-sized engineering was and can
be performed by hand, in fact there is no
better example of contrast to today’s struc-
tures that are not allowed – by design and
economics – to be nearly as simple, heavy,
stiff, robust, and logically programmed as
the Empire State Building.
In the Frank Gehry age of architecture,
it is simply impossible to design many
buildings without a computer and, in fact,
it is impractical without a tremendous
reliance on computer analysis. We feel
sorry for our architect friends who log
endless hours on AutoCAD, but many
engineering students come out of school
to work as “desk monkeys” on Revit, RISA
or SAP models for geometrically complex
projects. How much “intuition” can one
really attain in such an assembly-line en-
vironment? And does this inherently
disconnect the “first principles” learned in
school from a young engineer’s day-to-day
practice? When our elders went to school,
the truss and beam designs of steel and
concrete were perhaps closer to what they
would actually work with after gradua-
tion. Now the 3-D modeling program is
absolutely essential to an engineer’s ability
to analyze and design complex structures
efficiently, and is very often linked directly
with drawing production and construc-
tion logistics as well.
As a result of the increased complexity in
materials, codes, and geometries, engineer-
ing educators find themselves scrambling
to catch up with the pace of industry,
while at the same time struggling to retain
the fundamental courses in mechanics,
analysis and design. A special education
committee for ASCE recently noted that:
“Students earn at least 20 fewer credits
than did their counterparts in the 1920s.
®
STRUCTURE magazine 57 September 2010
Structural Forum
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
While they take comparable proportions
of mathematics, science, and general educa-
tion, today’s students complete, on average,
18 fewer credits of engineering topics….
How can tomorrow’s civil engineers design
safe, cost-effective projects, accounting for
greater complexity and uncertainty with
less formal education?”
Schools have responded to these seem-
ingly impossible demands with a variety
of solutions: Many offer classes with more
direct preparation for industry practice
such as computer design and drafting,
or group work and project presentations.
Some schools have increased the time to
complete the engineering degree from four
years to five years. And some programs
have actually reacted by cutting back on
the computer and construction oriented
courses, so that the undergraduate cur-
riculum can concentrate on fundamentals
of analysis and design.
How Have Things
Stayed The Same?
Before we throw up our hands in fatalistic
surrender, allow me to suggest that beneath
the bells and whistles of the computer age,
the same timeless principles of engineering,
experience, and management apply as
much now as ever before. As a preamble,
let us concede that the computer as an en-
gineering tool is here to stay, until an as yet
unknown technological evolution replaces
it. I agree wholeheartedly that our practice
very often demands “back of the envelope”
decision-making, but do not mistake that
for ubiquitously casting computers as a
plague or curse.
Some structural engineers, young and
old, believe – whether consciously or
subconsciously – that the way to gain
engineering judgment is by performing
long hours of calculations by hand. I con-
tend that while doing hand calculations is
undeniably important, it is equally necessary
to cultivate engineering judgment and
intuition by walking construction sites,
collaborating with architects, hearing war
stories from contractors and older engi-
neers, seeing how project after project is
“solved”. A legendary professor at Columbia
University used to say, “The best engineer
is the one with grease under his fingernails.”
With a constant objective of educating one-
self, every moment of every workday can be
a learning experience practically regardless of
the actual task: every drawing glanced at, or
conversation overheard, can be another bit of
experience gained, with the right attitude.
My next contention is that the image of past
generations of engineers working exclusively
in an “ivory tower” of first principles must be
a myth. Automation and “short-cut” methods
have been part and parcel of structural engi-
neering for over a century, and the computer
is no more inherently evil than its predeces-
sors. In his excellent essay Don’t Blame the
Computer for Mistakes!, Bashar Altabba “vividly
remember[s] the days when similar arguments
[about computers] were being made about
handheld calculators – back when these were
first introduced. Some schools even banned
their use… At that time, the proposed solu-
tion for complex calculations was a simple
one: just use a slide rule like ‘real engineers’
do! Does anyone today still hold this view
about handheld calculators?” And what about
when the slide rule itself was introduced to cut
down longer, pure-hand calculations?
As an illustration, vector-point “graphic statics”
was a popular method for designing wood,
iron, and steel trusses from the 1900s and ear-
lier, up to at least the 1970s, whereby complex
analysis could be performed by non-engineer
technicians (who merely had to draw a series
of straight lines between dots); in theory, the
results were checked by a supervising engineer. Is
this fundamentally so different from our modern
practice whereby a junior engineer and comput-
er model the structure, and a senior engineer
checks the results? I do not deny that over-
reliance on computer output without proper
care can be gravely dangerous; however, I do
question whether design automation is truly
an entirely new problem. One of my superiors
says that no computer program, ultimately, is
anything more than a “glorified spreadsheet.”
I next take issue with our elders’ fear of de-
clining competence and intelligence in young
engineers. I will not argue against individual
anecdotal claims such as, “I have seen engineers
with 8 or more years of experience with no
engineering intuition or common sense.” There
are, have been, and will be good engineers and
bad engineers, just as there are, have been, and
will be good doctors and bad doctors, good
lawyers and bad lawyers. And like any other
business, the engineering “org” chart is a triangle
with few at the top and many at the bottom.
I’m sure the harbingers of doom know at least
Special thanks go to Jennifer Anna Pazdon for her support and constructive criticism of this article, and to James Furnari for the professor interviews.
STRUCTURE magazine
a handful of good young eggs, and might these
be the few to ultimately succeed those at the
top? And isn’t that the way it has always been?
The senior people at my firm encourage think-
ing of recent graduates as apprentices, with the
idea that one’s first office should provide that
link between the university and the workplace.
On a deep philosophical level, it is not sur-
prising for our elder engineers to fear the future.
A professor at the University of Buffalo noted
that “it is natural that older engineers have a
lack of confidence in younger engineers.” Ours
is a serious and difficult, but rewarding profes-
sion; the responsibility should instill pride and
confidence. Like King Lear, we want to see
our realm passed on to proper hands and we
hope for a brighter outcome than he found.
It is easy to fear that one’s successors may
be unprepared if they do not follow exactly
in one’s footsteps. Machiavelli said that people
naturally remember the past better than it
was, and I suspect that most successful engineers
tend to feel that his or her own path was
the best one. However, difference does not
imply inferiority.
What Should We Do?
Many have offered solutions, for instance
ASCE’s policy 465, which proposes to expand
and deepen civil engineering education at the
university level. In theory this will bolster the
engineering student’s body of knowledge to a
level, certainly not yet on par with, but closer
to that of a medical or law student. While
there are countless outstanding engineers who
never pursued a master’s degree (as well as
the inverse), there may be no realistic way to
demonstrate to the lay public the educational
rigor of the engineering profession without
raising the bar of degree-attainment.
Previously I touched on the rise of the
unconventional, computer-enabled, “funky”
architectural schemes with which we structural
engineers are compelled to work. But truly, are
any of today’s designs more geometrically au-
dacious than the old masterpieces of Eduardo
Torroja’s fantastic concrete thin-shells, or Eladio
Dieste’s incredible prestressed masonry cre-
ations? Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid’s daring
forms have their aesthetic place, of course, but
I contend that structural engineers must “take
back the funk”. We must lead in this geometric
revolution, in step or ahead of the starchitects,
because we ultimately hold the keys to the reali-
ties of strength and stability. Besides Santiago
Calatrava, I fear that engineers have fallen into
the complacency of merely reacting to the
architects’ dreams, while it rarely occurs to us
to have the dream first.
58 September 2010
Another suggestion, made publicly by Ed
Huston, is to dig up – out of books, notes,
and individual experience – all the “rules of
thumb” and “reality checks” engineers have
acquired over the years and circulate them
among peers, both young and old. I could
not agree more. No matter how complicated
an analysis becomes, it is practically guaran-
teed that at some point in the process you will
need to “prove” your design succinctly, in the
space of a single page, to someone: a client, a
colleague, a contractor, a senior or junior co-
worker, or – above all – your own conscience.
Under these challenges is where you learn
what cannot be taught.
I encourage employers to ponder the true
nature of our profession: Does anyone really
start with intuition, or is this cultivated slowly
over time? Is the computer really evil, or
does it in fact help the engineer develop
understanding because it challenges one’s
conventional thinking? Should an engineer-
ing firm be a hierarchy of those who “have”
knowledge and those who simply run models,
or should it be a place of continuing educa-
tion between masters and apprentices? Even if
we do “clean our own house,” how do we deal
with architects who produce foolish designs in
CAD, and construction managers who churn
out schedules from Primavera without any
intuition of their own? And what do we do
about that elephant in the room: The declining
fees for our services!
As a final illustration, let us recall the story
about William LeMessurier re-analyzing the
entire Citicorp Building by himself in a cabin
during the post-erection crisis concerning
bolted versus welded connections, under the
previously unconsidered effects of quartering
winds. While his application of first principles
in hand calculation is magnificent, the more
important moral of this story is LeMessurier’s
global thinking, humanistic conscience, creative
problem-solving, and having the right priorities.
Let us too have the right priorities: Look
inward, and march forward!▪
Eytan Solomon, P.E., LEED AP, is a structural
engineer with Robert Silman Associates
in New York City. His experience includes
new construction, adaptive re-use, historic
preservation, sustainable design, art sculptures,
and unconventional building materials.
Originally published in the winter 2008 issue
of SEAoNY Cross Sections. Please feel free to
send comments to publications@seaony.org.