®

STRUCTURE A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

February 2011 Steel

NCSEA Winter Institute

Amelia Island, Florida
February 25 – 26
 Version 2.0
Now Includes
Adhesive Anchoring

The newly updated Powers Design Assist

(PDA V2.0) anchor design interface puts technical
data into a dynamic real-time environment to
better help you visualize, consider and specify
anchors in today’s changing engineering climate.
PDA’s simple but unique dashboard allows for
anchor design in just minutes using 5 easy steps.
The user has the ability to create and modify
a 3D model of the project combined with
real-time calculation results in accordance
with ACI 318 Appendix D. The software offers
several choices of post-installed mechanical
and adhesive anchors as well as cast-in-place POWERFUL NEW
INTERFACE FOR
anchor solutions. Supporting approvals, listings, REAL-TIME SOLUTIONS
datasheets, etc. are easily accessed in the
software library and can be attached to
detailed project results.

POWERS OFFERS
THE MOST CODE
LISTED PRODUCTS

PDA Improved and modernized dashboard features include:

• Design of adhesive anchors in addition to mechanical anchors and
cast-in-place anchors (CIP)
• 3 new adhesive anchor systems and 3 new mechanical anchors now
included, with additional systems to come
• User can design using 3 versions of ACI 318 Appendix D:
2008, 2005 or 2002 versions
• New library function allows user to access all
UPDATED needed documents without leaving PDA
FREE PDA
SOFTWARE!
REGISTER TODAY AT:
www.powersdesignassist.com Powers
AND RECEIVE A FREE GYM BAG New 2011
A/E Manual
Coming Soon!
Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com
2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
 woodworks.org

Learn Any Time at the

Online Training Library
Visit woodworks.org WEBINARS
Participate live or stream recorded webinars on subjects that range
to expand your knowledge
from panelized roof systems to designing wood buildings that last,
of non-residential and to maximizing credits in green building rating systems
multi-family wood design CASE STUDIES AND INFORMATION SHEETS
while earning valuable Earn credits for reading materials that help you design for earthquakes,
WALL WH
HERE OC
CCURS
fire protection and wind resistance, increase the durability of your wood
education credits—without
buildings, or learn about multi-story podium design
leaving your desk.I-JOIST
T WEB FIILLER
AS REQ ONLINE SEMINARS
QUIRED
Topics cover the gamut, from wood-frame tall walls to modern heavy
3-16d
d NAILS
timber construction, life cycle assessment, how to use preservative
treated wood, and more

And that’s not all. Visit WoodWorks online to access a wide range
of free resources such as workshops and Wood Solutions Fairs,
one-on-one technical support, CAD/REVIT details, calculators and
design guides. It’s all at woodworks.org.

BSLC
AMERICAN
WOOD
COUNCIL

I-JO
OIST PE
ER PLAN
WoodWorks is an initiative of the Wood Products Council, which includes all of the major North American wood associations.

N
WoodWorks is an approved AIA provider. Photos: (left) Ratna Ling Retreat Center Meditation Hall, Leif Calvin; (right) U.S. Port of Land Entry, Julie Snow Architects, Paul Crosby

I-JOIS
ST BLOCKING PAN
NEL @ 16”O.C.
 26
FEATURES
Balancing Act
CONTENTS February 2011

By Jeffrey Diephuis, P.E.

The newest building on the Evergreen Aviation & Space
Museum campus in McMinnville, Oregon, sets a precedent
in structural engineering. Visitors are amazed as it appears as
COLUMNS
though a massive 747 aircraft is sitting on top of the structure 7 Editorial
and, indeed, it is. Stairs will lead guests into the rooftop Continuing Professional
attraction where water slides will spill from the aircraft’s Competency
fuselage and into the building’s wave pool 62 feet below. By Brad Moyes, P.E., S.E.
8 Codes and Standards
Cold-Formed Steel Special
30 “1.26”: From Tsunami to Abstract Bolted Moment Frames
Net Form By Chia-Ming Uang, Ph.D. and
Atsushi Sato, Ph.D.
By Shane McCormick, P.E., S.E., Charles Keyes, P.E., S.E.,
and Peter Heppel 12 Structural Design
A monumental net sculpture was installed in Denver July, Designing a Cold-Formed Steel
2010, as a featured element of the Denver Biennial of the Special Bolted Moment Frame
By Ken Wood, P.E.
Americas. “1.26” was suspended 93 feet above the ground
from a planer mesh tensioned between the Denver Civic 14 Building Blocks
Park Greek Theater and Denver Art Museum. The sculpture, Small Details, Big Consequences
By Gregg Melvin and
fabricated of advanced lightweight materials, required the Steven H. Miller, CDT
use of sophisticated non-linear structural analysis methods to
accurately predict internal forces and deformations. 18 Structural Testing
Putting Mother Nature in a Box
By John Lyons, P.E., S.E., and
DEPARTMENTS Jason Meadows, P.E.
22 Product Watch
42 Quality Assurance Corner 47 InSights New Horizons in Open Web
Tips for Designing Constructible Creating an Alternative for Steel Joists and Joist Girders
Concrete Structures Performance Concrete By Tim Holtermann, P.E., S.E.,
By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E. By Jack Gibbons and Mark Godfrey, P.E., and
44 Great Achievements Mark F. Chrzanowski, P.E. Bruce F. Brothersen, P.E.
Fazlur Rahman Khan 51 Spotlight 36 Code Updates
By Richard G. Weingardt, P.E. Beauty and the Beast Snow & Rain Provisions in
By Bruce Gibbons, P.E., S.E. CEng ASCE 7-10
58 Structural Forum By Michael O’Rourke, Ph.D., P.E.
The Black Belt in Engineering
By David W. Hillery, P.E.
®

STRUCTURE

IN EVERY ISSUE
ON THE COVER
6 Advertiser Index
The Biennial of the Americas Sculpture in Denver, Colorado. This 6 & 48 Noteworthy
48 Resource Guide
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

cover shows the sculpture illuminated at night. The sculpture is

suspended between the Denver Art Museum and Greek Theatre, (Bridge)
located in Civic Park. See feature article on page 30. 52 NCSEA News
February 2011 Steel

NCSEA Winter Institute

Amelia Island, Florida
February 25 – 26
54 SEI Structural Columns
56 CASE in Point

Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE® magazine does not constitute endorsement
by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole
responsibility for the content of their submissions.

STRUCTURE magazine 5 February 2011

Advertiser index PleAse suPPort these Advertisers

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

AZZ....................................................... 45
Computers.&.Structures,.Inc................. 60
CTS.Cement.Manufacturing.Corp........ 43
Design.Data........................................... 41
ESAB.Welding.and.Cutting.Products..... 25
Fyfe.Co..LLC......................................... 40
GT.STRUDL........................................ 23
The.IAPMO.Group................................ 46
ICC................................................ 34.–.35
Integrated.Engineering.Software,.Inc...... 31
KPFF.Consulting.Engineers................... 27
MIDASoft,.Inc....................................... 33
NCEES.................................................. 19
NCSEA/Kaplan.Engineering.Ed............ 11
Powers.Fasteners,.Inc................................ 2
RISA.Technologies................................. 59
SidePlate.Systems,.Inc............................ 29
Simpson.Strong-Tie......................... 17,.21
StrucSoft.Solutions,.Ltd........................... 3
Struware,.Inc............................................ 6
Taylor.Devices,.Inc................................. 37
Valmont.Tubing..................................... 39
Wheeling.Corrugating............................ 50
Wood.Products.Council........................... 4
The easiest to use software for calculating
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists
($100.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com

editorial Board Advertising Account MAnAger
Chair Interactive Sales Associates
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO Eastern Sales Western Sales
chair@structuremag.org
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB Brian W. Miller sales@StRuCtuREmag.org
CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA Davis, CA

Richard Hess, S.E., SECB Mike C. Mota, P.E.

Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA CRSI, Williamstown, NJ editoriAL stAFF
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E. Evans Mountzouris, P.E. Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT execdir@ncsea.com
Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E. Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E. Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
CCFSS, Rolla, MO KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
publisher@StRuCtuREmag.org
Brian J. Leshko, P.E. Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. Associate Editor Nikki Alger
HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
publisher@StRuCtuREmag.org
John A. Mercer, P.E. John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@StRuCtuREmag.org

Noteworthy
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@StRuCtuREmag.org
news and information
STRUCTURE® (Volume 18, Number 2). ISSN 1536-4283.
Seismic Design Parameters for Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and

Haiti and Other Countries published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription
Following.the.Haiti.earthquake.in.January.2010,.many.structural.engineers.contributing.to. rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $90/yr Canada;
the.rebuilding.efforts.struggled.to.find.the.ground.motion.hazard.data.necessary.to.perform. $125/yr foreign. For change of address or duplicate copies,
seismic.design.calculations..Noting.the.shortcomings.of.previously.available.hazard.information. contact your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed
in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not
for.Haiti,.the.U.S..Geological.Survey.(USGS).constructed.new.seismic.hazard.maps.for.that. necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the
country.(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1067/)..USGS.has.subsequently.developed.Maximum. STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
Considered.Earthquake.(MCE).ground.motions.compatible.with.current.editions.of.the. STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of
International Building Code (IBC)..These.data.have.been.incorporated.into.the.USGS.Worldwide Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
Seismic DesignMaps Web Application (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/ww/),. reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of the publisher.
which.provides.IBC-compatible.spectral.response.acceleration.parameters.(Ss.and.S1).for.
many.locations.around.the.world..Other.data.sources.currently.reflected.in.the.Worldwide
DesignMaps.application.include.the.Department.of.Defense.Unified.Facilities.Criteria,.the. National Council of Structural
Global.Seismic.Hazard.Assessment.Program,.and.the.USGS.preliminary.earthquake.hazard. Engineers Associations
maps.for.Afghanistan.(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1137/);.more.datasets.will.be.added. www.ncsea.com
as.time.allows..As.it.already.has.for.Haiti,.USGS.hopes.that.Worldwide DesignMaps will.serve.
as.a.valuable.tool.for.engineers.designing.structures.for.sites.in.other.seismically.active.areas.
around.the.world. C3 Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
For.more.information,.please.contact.Nicolas.Luco,.Eric.Martinez,.Sean.McGowan,.or.Greg. 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
Smoczyk.at.wwdesignmaps@usgs.gov. P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 6 February 2011

editorial Continuing Professional Competency
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By Brad Moyes, P.E., S.E., NCSEA Board Member
I
n last month’s Editorial, John Mercer touched on the impor-
tance of continuing education and the chance to fulfill some
of those requirements by attending the CASE Winter Meeting
and the NCSEA Winter Institute in Jacksonville, Florida in
late February. CASE and NCSEA have joined together this year to
have their winter meetings in the same location and during the same
week, which allows attendees the opportunity to attend both events.
NCSEA’s Winter Institute is purposely held in a location to allow
those in colder climes to escape winter for a few days. This year it will
be held on February 25 and 26 and is entitled Deferred Submittals:
What the EOR Needs to Know and Why, From Design to Construction.
In addition to presentations and discussions on a broad range of topics
regarding deferred submittals, tours of a steel joist facility and precast
concrete plant are included. The topic of deferred submittals is one
that affects practicing structural engineers on a regular basis and has
important implications for acceptable performance of projects. If a
serious problem occurs as a result of the performance of a deferred
submittal item, the EOR will surely be involved in the resolution.
Delegating design responsibility for certain project elements is a
necessity. Many elements of structures are proprietary in nature and
can vary substantially depending on the supplier. The EOR cannot be
caught up with the minutia of specialty cladding elements or pieces
of equipment that may be used. Some elements, such as steel stairs,
can offer substantial savings to projects if design is left to suppliers
who can utilize their standard components. While at times delegating
design to others may seem to be an expedient way to shift the work to
others, it includes an obligation for the EOR to follow through with
review of the subsequent submittal with regard to its completeness
and its impact on the remaining structure. There is also an obligation
by the engineer designing the deferred submittal to keep in mind the
parameters of the supporting structure. The interface between the
supporting structure and the deferred submittal item is a particularly
troublesome area.
Our firm recently received a deferred submittal for an exhaust
stack of a large piece of mechanical equipment. The engineering
firm designing the stack utilized a very conservative design, which
included much higher wind loads than required by code and wind
load on the portion of the stack interior to the building. While a
conservative design of the stack components made sense, the resul-
tant forces on the existing structure
were much higher than we originally
®
assumed and could not be resisted
structure
without substantial building modifi-
cation. After a number of conference
a member benefit
calls and resubmissions of the calcu-
lations, as well as our own analysis,
we were able to arrive at a reasonable
result; however, it was a very time
consuming and frustrating process.
Attending the Winter Institute will
STRUCTURAL help you understand the many pit-
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
falls associated with deferred submittals
and how to avoid them. Attendance
STRUCTURE magazine
will also help you to fulfill continuing education requirements. Mr.
Mercer’s comments about continuing education requirements piqued
my interest in their status nationwide. Although continuing education
has been required in my home state since 1997, requirements vary in
many of the other states I´m registered in. Having been chosen several
times for random audits, I appreciate the importance of maintaining
accurate records of those activities and making sure one complies with
the requirements of each jurisdiction.
The NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and
Surveying) is a non-profit organization that represents the licensing
boards from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands. NCEES has advocated for uniform
licensing requirements for many years, as well as continuing educa-
tion requirements. According to Wikipedia, the first state to require
continuing education was Iowa in 1979. As of this date, not all states
require continuing education; but according to the NCEES website,
36 states plus Puerto Rico now require “continuing professional
competency” (CPC), as they term it.
The NCEES website includes a manual entitled Continuing
Professional Competency Guidelines, dated October 2010. This manual
provides guidelines for jurisdictions that have, or are planning to
have, CPC requirements for licensure renewal. The official position of
NCEES with regard to CPC is summarized in the manual as follows:
NCEES endorses the establishment of uniform continuing profes-
sional competency (CPC) requirements for licensed professional
engineers and surveyors to promote the health, safety, and welfare
of the public by requiring licensees to remain competent within
their profession and to facilitate renewal.
The manual includes a model law and model rules for jurisdictions
to follow. The manual also includes a recommended form to use
for record keeping that can be useful if your state doesn’t provide
one. The model rules require 15 PDHs per year. Most of the states
with continuing education requirements follow the recommended
number of hours, with the remaining states and Puerto Rico requir-
ing somewhat fewer hours. NCEES should be commended for their
work, as it seems that substantial progress has been made in achieving
uniformity as a result of their efforts.
We hope to see you in Jacksonville later this month to attend the
NCSEA Winter Institute. The potential benefits of attending will
go far beyond satisfying continuing education requirements. The
information presented will broaden your understanding of the vital
issues regarding deferred submittals. A side benefit of attending will
be the contacts you will develop with your structural engineering
colleagues and suppliers of structural elements.▪
Brad Moyes, P.E., S.E. joined KPFF in 1974 and was named
a Principal of the firm in 1991. He is a registered professional
engineer in twenty-three states and a LEED Accredited Professional.
Brad is past president of the Structural Engineers Association of
Oregon and the American Concrete Institute Oregon Chapter.
7 February 2011
Codes and
standards
updates and discussions related
to codes and standards

Figure 1: A Type of CFS-SBMF.

Cold-Formed Steel Special
Bolted Moment Frames
Now a Code-Recognized System
By Chia-Ming Uang, Ph.D.
and Atsushi Sato, Ph.D.
T
he American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) recently issued
a brand new standard S110, Standard for Seismic Design
of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Systems–Special Bolted
Moment Frames, which covers cold-formed steel seismic
force-resisting systems. While there are plans to include additional
cold-formed steel seismic force-resisting systems in the future, the
first system introduced in this standard is called the Cold-Formed Steel Special Bolted
Moment Frame (CFS-SBMF). This type of one-story framing system is commonly used for
free standing mezzanines (industrial platform), elevated office support platforms, equipment
support platforms, and small buildings in all seismic areas (Figure 1). The frame is typically
composed of cold-formed Hollow Structural Section (HSS) columns and C-section beams.
Beams are connected to the column by using snug-tight high-strength bolts (Figure 2). If
needed, bearing plates are welded to the web of the beams in the connection region to increase
the bearing strength at bolt holes.
The strong column-weak beam seismic design philosophy adopted in AISC 341, Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, for Special Moment Frame is not applicable for a
CFS-SBMF because cold-formed steel C-section beams usually do not satisfy the stringent

For double C-section

beam only
Chia-Ming Uang is a Professor in the
Department of Structural Engineering, HSS Column
CL
University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA. Uang is a member of AISI
Subcommittee 32 on Seismic Design. He
can be contacted at cmu@ucsd.edu. Channel Beam
VIEW A-A
Atsushi Sato is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Scientific and Engineering B Bolt Bearing Plate
A c A (Optional)
Simulation, Nagoya Institute of Technology,
Bolt Bearing
Nagoya, Aichi, Japan. He can be contacted Plate (Optional) a
at sato.atsushi@nitech.ac.jp.
CL b CL

C-section Beam h
Channel Beam
HSS Column HSS Column

CL B CL
ELEVATION VIEW B-B

Figure 2: Typical CFS-SBMF Moment Connection.

8 February 2011
 Table 1: Member Sizes and Bolted Connection Configuration.
Specimen Beam Column B e a r i n g Bolted Connection
No. Plate, in. a (in) b (in) c (in)
1, 2 12CS3½×105 HSS8×8×¼ 0.135 2.5 3 4.25
3 16CS3½×105 HSS8×8×¼ N/A 3 6 4.25
4 16CS3½×105 HSS8×8×¼ 0.135 3 6 4.25
5, 6, 7 16CS3½×135 HSS8×8×¼ N/A 3 6 4.25
8, 9 20CS3½×135 HSS10×10×¼ N/A 3 10 6.25
seismic compactness requirement. Instead, the a portion of an 8-foot, 3-inch high CFS-
ductility capacity is provided through bolt slip-SBMF with a bay width of 11 feet. Figure
page and bearing in bolted beam-to-column 3 shows the test setup; the column was ori-
moment connections, and beams and columns ented horizontally to facilitate testing. Having
are designed to remain elastic at the design assumed that the beam inflection point was at
story drift to resist the maximum force that can the mid-span, the beam length on each side
be developed in the moment connections. A of the column was half the bay width. The
cyclic testing program that verifies this conceptbeam was connected to the column by eight
was conducted. To calculate the maximum 1-inch diameter, bearing type high-strength
seismic effect in the beams and columns, an bolts. ASTM A607 Class 1, Gr. 50 steel was
analytical model for the yielding element was specified for the beams and ASTM A500 Gr.
then developed based on the concept of instan- B steel was specified for the columns. The
taneous center of rotation of a bolt group. To beams were galvanized with zinc, while the
facilitate design, this analytical model was usedcolumns were coated with a zinc-rich paint.
to develop equations and tables for inclusion in The testing showed all specimens behaved
AISI S110. A study based on the FEMA P695 in a very ductile manner, and the inter-story
methodology was also conducted to verify that drift capacity was significantly higher than the
the proposed seismic performance factors (R 0.04 radian inter-story drift angle required by
and Cd factors) can provide a sufficient margin AISC 341 for Special Moment Frames (Figure
against collapse for the Maximum Considered 4). The cyclic behavior of all test specimens
Earthquake. AISI S110 has been adopted by was dominated by the slip-bearing action in
ASCE 7-10, and this system will be recognized the bolted moment connection. The global
in the 2012 International Building Code. response is characterized by three regions.
Initially, the subassembly responded elastically
with the bolted connection acting essen-
Test Program tially as a rigid joint. Bolt slip was observed
Analytical Modeling of
Moment Connection
Figure 5(b) (page 10) shows the free-body
diagram of a column with a beam framing
into it. With the pin-based column resisting a
shear force, the bolt group in the connection
region is subjected to a load, VC, with a large
eccentricity, h, which is the story height. The
concept of instantaneous center (IC) of rota-
tion can be used to compute the response of
a bolted connection. The slip resistance, Rs,
and bearing resistance, RB, of a single bolt are:
RS = kT Equation 1
RB = Rult[1–e–µδbr]λ Equation 2
where k (slip coefficient) = 0.19 for a galva-
nized surface condition, T = bolt tension force,
Rult (ultimate bearing strength) = 2.1dtFu, δbr =
bearing deformation (in.), e = 2.718, and µ,
λ = regression coefficients. With the values of
T = 17.5 kips, µ = 5, and λ = 0.55, response
predicted by the instantaneous center of rota-
tion method envelopes very well the cyclic
response of the test specimens with varying
member sizes and bolt configurations (Figure
6, page 10). The analysis procedure was also
generalized to model the cyclic response for
subsequent nonlinear time-history analysis.
continued on next page
15

10
A total of nine full-scale interior beam-column during the 0.75% through 2% drift cycles,
5
subassemblies were tested; see Table 1 for the which corresponded to the flat plateaus in
Load (kips)

member sizes. The subassemblies simulated the global response. Then the bolts started 0
to bear against the beam and -5
99 in. column webs at about 3% drift,
Reaction

-10
60 in. which resulted in a significant
Wall

hardening in strength. -15

Lateral
Bracing
The test matrix included some -10 -5 0
Story Drift Ratio (%)
5 10

beam and column sizes with

Beam

(a)
larger width-thickness ratios
Column (w/t) to study the effect of local 1500
W14x99

buckling. Specimens that experi-

132 in.

1000
enced beam or column buckling 500
Moment (kip-in)

Hydraulic still exhibited the same ductile

0
Actuator hysteresis response as shown in
W14x99

Figure 4. Although local buckling -500

occurred at a story drift beyond -1000
4%, it is prudent to limit the
-1500
w/t ratio to 6.18√E/Fy in order -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
to control web local buckling of Slip-Bearing Rotation (rad)
Reaction
Floor the C-section beams. For HSS (b)
columns, the limiting w/t ratio Figure 4: Typical Hysteresis Response: (a) Overall
Figure 3: Test Setup. is 1.40√E/Fy. Response; (b) Bolted Moment Connection Component.

STRUCTURE magazine 9 February 2011

 freebody "A" 1500
Beam where h = story height, Rt = ratio of expected Analysis
tensile strength to specified tensile strength. 1000
VS and VB represent the column shear com- 500

Moment (kip-in)
Column h ponents corresponding to the resistance of the
0
eccentrically loaded bolt group due to bolt
slip and bearing, respectively. Based on the -500
Test
analytical model presented earlier, equations -1000
(a)
and tables have been developed and provided
-1500
in AISI 110 to calculate these two quantities.
IC -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
r0 Slip-Bearing Rotation (rad)
CG (a)
dmax Seismic Performance Factors
2000
Based on the large ductility capacity observed
from the cyclic testing of beam-column sub- 1000
C-section Beam
h assemblies, a value of 3.5 for the Response

Moment (kip-in)
Modification Coefficient, R, was proposed. 0
HSS Column
Recognizing that the hysteresis behavior of
VC
a CFS-SBMF exhibits a yield-like plateau -1000
(b) that is followed by a significant hardening in
the moment connection region, a statistical -2000
Figure 5: Bolt Group in Eccentric Shear: (a) CFS- evaluation through nonlinear time-history -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
SBMF; (b) Freebody “A”. analysis showed that the Newmark-Hall Slip-Bearing Rotation (rad)
ductility reduction rule to account for the (b)
Seismic Design Concept benefit of ductility is conservative. A revised
Figure 6: Measured versus Predicted Responses: (a)
rule was proposed, which was then used to Specimen 3; (b) Specimen 4.
Figure 7 shows the expected response of a
derive the Deflection Amplification Factor,
CFS-SBMF. The elastic seismic force cor-
Cd. The derivation gave Cd = R/1.2 (≈ 3.0).
responding to the Design Basis Earthquake
Conservatively, this value is adjusted up to within the configurations used in the ini-
(DBE, point “e”) is reduced by the R factor (=
3.5 for adoption by ASCE 7-10. tial research. AISI S110-07 with S1-09 was
3.5) to point “d” for sizing beams, columns,
Once the designer calculates the design recently adopted as a reference in the 2012
and bolted moment connections in accor-
story drift using the Cd factor, the AISI International Building Code and is available
dance with the AISI S100. Unlike other steel
S110 design procedure then can be used for purchase online at AISI’s Publications
seismic force-resisting systems where point “d”
to compute the maximum seismic force in Bookstore at www.steel.org/shopaisi.▪
represents the first significant yielding event,
the moment connection (point
CFS-SBMF actually would “yield” at a lower
“c” in Figure 7). Although this
seismic force level (point “a”) due to slippage Beam
procedure eliminates the need ∆ ∆ ∆
of the bolts in moment connections. A hori- Σ(V +R V )
to specify an empirical System S t B
zontal plateau (points “a” to “b”) would result
Overstrength Factor, Ω0, for
due to the oversize of the bolt holes. As the Column
consistency with the format of h
story drift is increased, the lateral resistance
other framing systems, a default
of the frame starts to increase from point “b”
value of 3.0 is adopted in ASCE
once the oversized hole is overcome and the
7-10. The adequacy of these
bearing action of the bolts starts to occur. VS+RtVB VS+RtVB VS+RtVB
proposed seismic performance
The designer amplifies the story drift at point
factors to ensure a sufficient (a)
“d” by the Deflection Amplification Factor Cd
margin of safety against col-
to estimate the maximum inelastic story drift
lapse under the Maximum Base Shear Corresponding linear system
(∆ at point “c”) that is expected to occur in
Considered Earthquake has
a Design Basis Earthquake event. To ensure e Actual Response
also been verified by FEMA VDBE
that beams and columns will remain elastic,
P695, Quantification of Building
the challenge then is to evaluate the maxi- c
Seismic Performance Factors. x1/R
mum seismic force corresponding to point K
In October 2009, AISI pub-
“c” while considering the effect of significant d
lished Supplement No. 1 to
hardening due to bolt bearing. This seismic Vd
AISI S110-07. In Supplement a b
force level, which is equivalent to the seismic
No. 1, revisions were made nVS
load effect with overstrength, Emh , in ASCE
to the document adopting all
7, represents the required strength for the o ∆y ∆d ∆DBE ∆ Story Drift
the modifications included in
beams and columns. Specifically, the required xCd
ASCE 7-10, Chapter 14. The
moment for both beam and column at the
majority of these modifications
connection location is: (b)
ensure that the application of
Me = h(VS + RtVB) Equation 3 the design provisions remains Figure 7: CBF-SBMF Expected Response: (a) Yield Mechanism
and Column Shear Distribution; (b) General Structural Response.

STRUCTURE magazine 10 February 2011

Structural A
s the result of extensive testing and peer review, the first cold-formed steel moment
frame used as a seismic force resisting system was recently approved for adop-
tion by the 2012 IBC (Figure 1). While the seismic design parameters for the

DeSign
Cold-Formed Steel – Special Bolted Moment Frame (CFS-SBMF) are found in
ASCE 7-10, the detailing requirements for this system can be found in the 2007 edition of
the AISI S110 standard including Supplement 1-09. Although newly adopted, this framing
system has been used in the construction of free standing platforms (mezzanines), equipment
support platforms, elevated office support platforms, portal frames and small buildings for
design issues for many years. Structures built in high seismic areas have demonstrated good performance in
structural engineers seismic events; however, up until recently no test data was available to show why and how
this system resisted seismic forces. A companion article in this issue details the testing and
analysis performed at UCSD. (See Codes & Standards, page 8.)

The Analysis Concept

In structural steel systems, a strong column-weak Cold-formed
beam concept was developed as a way to absorb Beams

the energy from a seismic event. However, in

the CFS-SBMF, due to cold-formed steel
components, the members cannot satisfy the HSS Column

compactness requirements to perform like a Bolt/Nut/washers

traditional structural steel system. The results

of extensive cyclic a
testing at UCSD
Designing a Cold-Formed Steel demonstrated that
the connection did,
b

Special Bolted Moment Frame in fact, perform

a

consistently as an
energy dissipation
By Ken Wood, P.E.
mechanism, which is a key element in devel-
oping a seismic force-resisting system. The
design requirements in AISI S110, which were
developed from the testing, allow the engineer
to design a framing system based on the
connection response, so the beams and columns
Ken Wood, P.E. is the Principal of KL will remain elastic during a significant seismic
Wood Engineering, Inc. He is a member event. The capacity design for a yielding element
of the AISI COS Sub-32 committee – in this case the bolted connection – is required
responsible for the development of in order to determine the maximum seismic
AISI-A110. Ken can be reached at effect in the non-yielding members (beams and
klwoodengineerin@qwestoffice.net. columns) at the design story (amplified) drift,
∆. The connection, when subjected to a seismic
event, resists rotation by developing the expected
moment resulting from two force resisting com-
ponents (Figure 2) in the connection.
The first force resisting component is due
to slip of the faying surfaces and, if the seis-
mic event is significant enough, then the
second force resisting component, the bear-
ing component, develops in the connection
Column Shear
to complete the total shear demand on the
Vb range
columns (∑n(Vs+RtVb) (Figure 3). From this
total column shear the expected moment (Me =
Vs h(Vs+RtVb)(Eq. D1.2.3.1-1) can be computed.
Story Drift The Design Procedure
∆s The first step in the design process is to select
∆ y+∆ s a beam and column combination (see Table
∆y
C-D1.1-1 in AISI S110) and determine a
Figure
Figure 2:2: Structural
Structural Response
Response of Bolted of Bolted
Connection
standard beam to column connection from
Connection. this selection. The standard connection based
c HSS Column
Figure 1: Bolted Connection-SBMF.
Figure 1: Bolted Connection-SBMF
on the beam and column selection is in Table
C-D1.2-1 or Table C-D1.2-2 of AISI S110.
These are the only connection combinations
for which coefficients have been developed to
be used in the analysis of the column shear.
Once the framing system has been selected,
an analysis should be performed, using the
applicable building code load combinations
with R = 3.5 (ASCE 7-10, Table 12.2-1),
of the system to establish the structural
period. Using ASCE 7 Equation 12.8-3 (Cs
= SD1/T(R/I) for T≤TL) times the appropriate
seismic mass, Ws, for the structure use, the
total base shear is calculated for the frame
line being checked. Once the base shear is
established, the drift can be calculated by
dividing the total base shear by the structural
framing lateral stiffness, K. This drift, ∆, when
amplified by Cd, is the design story drift used
in the first check to determine if the bearing
component Vb of the connection is zero or
not. In order for Vb to be zero, ∆ must be
less than ∆s+∆y. If Vb = 0, then the expected
connection moment is simply Me = Vsh. If Vb
is zero, then the value for Vs can be calculated
using AISI S110, Equation D1.2.3.1-2. See
Figure 4 for a flow chart on the design process.

12 February 2011
 ∆

∑n (Vs + RtVb) Beam

If ∆ is greater than ∆s+∆y, then ∆b must be computed. In order to calculate ∆b,
the values for ∆s, ∆y, ∆B,max and VB,max must be determined. The ∆y value occurs at
the point where slip shear force (Vs) takes place. Once the value of ∆b is computed,
then you must use AISI S110 Equation D1.2.3.1-3 and adjust the value of Vb until Column
the equations is balanced. That is, the left side of the equation is approximately
equal to 1.0 and, when this occurs, the computed Vb value is used in Equation
D1.2.3.1-1 to calculate the expected moment developed at the bolted connection.
Vs+RtVb Vs+RtVb Vs+RtVb
Figure 3: Column Vase Shear.
Figure 3: Column Base Shear
Vs = Cs k N T/h Eq. D1.2.3.1-2
∆y = Vsn/K drift at connection slip (Fig.C-D1.3-1) Summary
∆B,max = CB,O CDB h Eq. D1.2.3-1-5
Because of the development of the connection
∆s = CDShosh Eq. D1.2.3.1-7
(performance based), relative to the seismic
VB,max = CBNRo/h Eq. D1.2.3.1-4
moment demand, there is no need to apply any
CB, CDS and CB,O = values from Table D1-1
system over-strength factor Ωo (see Table 1.2.1
∆b = [∆-(∆s+∆y)]K / (nVB,max/∆B,max + K) Eq. C-D1.2-9 from commentary section
in AISI S110 and Footnote o in Table 12.2-2
(Vb /Vb,max )2 + (1 – ∆b/∆b,max)1.43 = 1.0 Eq. D1.2.3.1-3
ASCE 7-10) to the seismic force component in
Me = h(Vs + RtVb) Eq.D1.2.3.1-1
the applicable building code load combinations.
The CFS-SBMF is the first lateral force-
resisting system to be introduced in the new
The expected moment (Me) developed at the connection provides the lateral force that the
AISI S110 standard for seismic design of cold-
framing components must resist when with the applicable building code load combinations are
formed steel structures. The design concept
applied. Once the frame analysis is complete, using the load combinations, the beam and column
of this system is based on determining the
capacities must be checked in accordance with the requirements found in AISI S100-2007.
maximum seismic force on the moment con-
nection at the expected story drift when using
the proper Cd (3.5) amplification factor. Once
Frame Analysis and Design-Example
the seismic force has been determined, then
Given: Framing system: Beams – 2C20x3 ½ x .135; Columns – HSS10x10x¼ the capacity design of the beams, columns and
System: h = 8.25 feet; Frame Span = 18 feet; Bay Width = 19 feet connections can be performed in accordance
Loading: D = 12 psf; Live = 125 psf light storage with the AISI S100-07.
Lateral stiffness K = 22.22 kips/inch Since this is a new approach and there are other
Sds = 1.557; Sd1 = .597; Site class= D; Seismic mass = 14.8 kips possible connection types that can be developed,
Cb = 8.5; CB,O = 0.46; Cs = 4.8 From TableD1-1; CDB = 1.18 from Table D1-2 new designs in cold-formed steel systems should
Computed ∆ = 1.52 inches design story drift be submitted for inclusion in future editions
∆s = CDShosh = 1.33 inches of the AISI S110. Based on some preliminary
∆y = Vsn/K = .346 inches connection concepts already presented for fur-
∆s+∆y = 1.68 inches > ∆ Therefore Me = hVs ther testing, it would appear that some of these
∆B,max = CB,O CDB h = 4.47 inches connections would provide for increased per-
VB,max = CBNRo/h = 19.47 kips formance in resisting seismic events.▪
Vs = Me / h = 3.84 kips/column This is the lateral demand at the column.
Yes
The capacities for the beam and column were computed using AISI S100-07. The ∆ ≤ ∆s + ∆y Vb = 0

beam capacity is based on the beam being braced properly in all three axes. No
Beams: 2C20x3 ½x.135 capacity ΦMn = 187 kip-ft Me = V s h
Max. demand Mu = 83.24 kip-ft Load combination: 1.2D+1.6L Compute ∆ b per Eq. (C-∆1.2-9)

Columns: HSS10x10x¼ capacity ΦMn = 113.5 kip-ft ΦPn = 336 kips

Max. demand Mu = 77.9 kip-ft Pu = 29.6 kips Load combination: (1.2+.2Sds)D+L+pQe Compute Vb per Et. (∆1.2.3.1-3)

Compute Me per Eq. (∆1.2.3.1-1)

Symbols
h = Story height – centerline of beam Compute ∆ b per Eg. (∆1.2.3.1-5)
Rt = Ratio of expected tensile strength to specific tensile strength
Vs = Column shear corresponding to the slip strength of the bolt group
Vb = Column shear corresponding to the bearing strength of the bolt group No Is computed ∆ b close
n = Number of columns in frame line to assumed value?

Cs = Value from Table D1-1

K = Slip coefficient = 0.33
N = 1 for single-channel beam or 2 for double-channel beam End

T = 10 kips (44.5kN) for 1-in. diameter bolts Figure 4: Design

FigureFlow Chart.
4: Design Flow Chart

STRUCTURE magazine 13 February 2011

Building
Blocks
updates and information
on structural materials
Small Details, Big Consequences
The Right Type of Fastener Can
Make the Difference Between
Success and Failure
By Gregg Melvin and Steven H. Miller, CDT
Gregg Melvin (gmelvin@acument.com)
is a senior applications engineer with Elco
Construction Products. He has been in the
fastener industry for more than 20 years.
Steven H. Miller, CDT (steven@chusid.com)
is an award-winning writer and photographer
specializing in issues of the construction
industry. He works with Chusid Associates, a
technical and marketing consultant to makers
of advanced building products.
I
s a tiny detail worth getting right? Does Many of the stone slabs on the Arsht Center
selection of a self-drilling screw merit an exterior, weighing approximately 200 pounds
engineer’s attention? each, are held in place by six ¼-inch structural
Over 50,000 self-drilling, self-tap- self–drilling screws.
ping screws were
used to hold slabs
Hard Facts About Hardening
of Sardinian granite
onto the exterior of Screws capable of self-drilling and self-
the massive Adrienne tapping in structural steel are a relatively
Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in recent invention, dating back to the 1970s.
Miami, Florida. This detail was important They drill their own holes and tap their own
enough to warrant specifying a specialized threads, making the substrate act as the nut
fastener – a selectively-hardened self-drilling that secures the fastener. Hundreds of mil-
screw – instead of the conventional case- lions are used around the world every year.
hardened fasteners that are widely used in Attachment of cladding systems is one of
the industry. The reasons for this selection their major uses, but they are also specified
might be surprising. in a wide variety of structural applications.
In order to drill into metal, fasteners need
an integral drill-point that is harder than the
The Adrienne Arsht Center metal being penetrated. This is achieved by first
for the Performing Arts forming the fastener, and then hardening it.
Case-hardening has been the most common
The Arsht Center is the second largest per-
method used. Low-carbon steel fasteners are
forming arts center in the US, a 570,000
heated in a high-carbon environment, infus-
square foot complex that took five years to
ing carbon into the outer layer of the steel
construct. Its two main structures, the Sanford
and creating a hardened shell, or case, that is
and Dolores Ziff Ballet Opera House and
hard enough to drill and tap soft steel. The
the John S. and James L. Knight Concert
inner core of the fastener remains softer and
Hall, include a 2400-seat theater, a 2200-seat
more ductile.
concert hall, and a 200-seat studio theater.
What appears to be stone architecture
reminiscent of ancient structural methods
is actually two layers of very modern design:
a backing wall of concrete masonry units
(CMUs) and a decorative veneer of granite
just 1.4 inches thick. The stone slabs, which
averaged 2.5 feet by 4 feet, were made from
three different kinds of granite, each requiring
slightly different treatment because of varia-
tions in thickness and hardness. The wind
loads reach 140 psf near the roofline of the
structures, which are located in one of only
Self-drilling, self-tapping screws install quickly
two High Velocity Hurricane Zones under
using hand-tools. Courtesy of CDC Curtainwall
Florida’s stringent building codes. Design Consulting, Inc.
14 February 2011
 The chief weakness of these fasteners can be,
ironically, their hardness. Only the drill tip
and the first few threads need to be hardened
for self-drilling. The part of a screw used for
load-bearing, however, is the main section of
the shank, behind the tapping-threads and
up to the head. That section has no need of
surface hardening; unfortunately, case-hard-
ening is not selective and the entire fastener
is treated.
Hardened steel can account for about 25%
of the total diameter of the screw. The hard-
ened metal is brittle, not ductile. The effect
is that the cross-sectional area of ductile steel
can be reduced to 75% or less. In certain
situations, as discussed below, that ductility
is highly desirable.
Selectively-hardened self-drilling fasteners
were developed about 20 years ago. They
perform the same function as case-hardened
units but avoid surface hardening of the load-
bearing portion of the fastener. In selective
hardening, only the drill-tip and tapping
threads of the unit are hardened. The entire
head and the main length of the shank remain
softer and more ductile.
The first selectively-hardened fasteners were
made of a single piece of special, high-carbon
steel alloy. Since carbon is already present
in the metal, enrichment in a high carbon
chamber is unnecessary. Instead, the fastener
tip is passed through a high-voltage induction
coil to heat it, hardening it to approximately
Rockwell hardness HRC 52, while leaving
the rest of the fastener unaffected at Rockwell
hardness in the range of HRC 28-34.
Since the Arsht Center was built, the sci-
ence of selectively-hardened fasteners has
continued to advance. First, bi-metallic
Bi-metallic fasteners are also selectively-hardened. The
drill-tip and tapping threads are high-carbon steel,
fused to a stainless steel shank (left, before coating).
The high-carbon steel is hardened, leaving the shank
unaffected. The entire fastener is then covered with
corrosion-protective/galvanic barrier coating (right).
Courtesy of Elco Construction Products.
STRUCTURE magazine
fasteners were perfected. These highly cor-
rosion-resistant units are made by fusing
a high-carbon steel drill-tip and tapping
threads onto a 300 series (18-8) stainless
steel screw shank. The tip is then selectively
hardened. These bi-metallic fasteners soon
emerged as the fastener of choice for exteriors
and other aggressive environments.
Now, a new generation of fasteners is being
introduced that offer much higher loading
capacities for a given diameter, allowing sig-
nificant reductions in the number of fasteners
that need to be used for an application. These
new fasteners utilize a “super” alloy and a
proprietary heating process that results in steel
of very high tensile strength, and possessing a
specific micro-structure that impedes delayed
hydrogen damage. They have been subjected
to Rising Step Load testing, in which samples
are exposed to a solution with high hydrogen
content and put under stress that is periodi-
cally increased over a number of hours. The
fasteners were stressed up to 70% of their ulti-
mate strength (average 190 ksi/1,310 Mpa)
and showed no signs of hydrogen-induced
damage. They easily exceed the loading stan-
dards for the highest SAE grade, grade 8. Their
tested ultimate strength is also higher than the
ultimate strength of the highest metric bolt
standard, grade 12.9.
These super-high-strength, selectively-
hardened fasteners can save money. They are
expected to cost approximately 20% more
than a selectively-hardened fastener of the
type used on the Arsht Center. They can
reduce the number of fasteners needed for a
given load by up to 40%, a potential savings
of 20% on materials cost.
The savings on labor – from installing fewer
screws – can multiply the savings on mate-
rials several fold. According to Joe Brescia,
founder and CEO of Architectural Glass and
Aluminum, a leading provider of architectural
glazing and cladding, installation gets more
expensive the higher you are above ground.
Above 10 stories, it costs about $6.00 for
every part installed. This means that, even for
an expensive fastener that might cost $1.00
or $1.20 each, switching to the super alloy
fasteners will save enough on labor to make
the fasteners themselves better than free.
Extreme Loading
Under extreme loading situations such as hur-
ricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, or explosions,
the ductility of fasteners becomes a significant
issue. These loads are applied impulsively,
like a hammer-blow, which can produce a
different type of response from gradual or
continuous loading in a structural element.
15 February 2011
A granite slab is held in place on the exterior of the
Arsht Center using a two-part clip assembly. Courtesy
of CDC Curtainwall Design Consulting, Inc.
Brittle materials tend to shatter easily under
impulsive loading. However, the energy of
these loads can be dissipated by ductile struc-
tural elements that deform without failing.
With a case-hardened screw, the ductile
steel can be diminished to 75% or less of
the full cross-sectional area. This makes the
fastener more vulnerable to failure under an
impulsive load.
In a selectively-hardened screw, the full
diameter remains ductile, more likely to
stretch than to break under extreme loading.
This makes selectively-hardened fasteners a
good choice for building enclosure systems for
structures in seismic zones and severe weather
conditions, buildings that require high secu-
rity or are considered likely targets for violent
attack, and buildings adjacent to potential
attack targets.
Surprisingly, however, hurricane-rated fas-
teners were not required for the cladding
on the Arsht Center. The granite slabs were
considered a sacrificial veneer that could
break and fall off without compromising the
weather-proof “skin” of the building.
Designed-In Danger
Instead, selectively-hardened fasteners were
chosen because of a little-known but signifi-
cant issue: due to the use of dissimilar metals
in the attachment of the stone slabs, there was
a significant risk of hydrogen assisted stress
corrosion cracking (HASCC), also known as
delayed hydrogen embrittlement. HASCC is
a by-product of galvanic reaction, but it only
affects steel hardened above certain levels.
HASCC can cause the heads of standard
quality, properly load-rated, code-approved
fasteners to pop off without warning, poten-
tially causing failure of the cladding system.
Under test conditions, it can occur in as little
as 24 hours. It can also occur in a fastener that
has been in service, under load, for 20 years,
if moisture is introduced.
continued on next page
 For a more complete discussion of HASCC, see Melvin,
Gregg and Chusid, Michael, Making the Right Connections,
The Construction Specifier, Aug. 2008, pg 64.

aluminum clip and an unprotected steel screw. Even though the fastener would
be immune to HASCC, galvanic action would cause accelerated corrosion of
the aluminum, weakening it at the connection point and possibly resulting in
pull-through.
The slab joints are then sealed with a non-staining silicone to protect against
wind and rain infiltration.

Costs
Although usually more expensive on a per-unit basis, selectively-hardened fas-
Selectively-hardened fasteners are hardened by passing the drill-
teners can be less expensive in use than the more conventional case-hardened
tip through a heat-source. The main load-bearing section of the
shank remains ductile. Courtesy of Elco Construction Products.
ones. The drill-tips of conventional fasteners frequently snap off, wasting many
screws; this is rare, however, when using selectively-hardened fasteners, yield-
ing overall cost savings. Labor-reduction associated with the new super alloy
When galvanic reaction occurs, the hydrogen generated fasteners is expected to result in even more significant overall savings, especially
by the galvanic cell can cause HASCC. Then the hardened on high-rise structures.
case of the fastener can form micro-cracks right down to
the inner, ductile core. Since many of these fasteners have
hardness up to HRC 42, even the core is hard enough to
Summary
be vulnerable to embrittlement and micro-cracking can When designing structural connections between dissimilar metals, attention
continue inwards. This can compromise not only the must be paid to galvanic reaction. If hardened-steel parts such as self-drilling
hardened case but a considerable part of the softer core, screws are used for the connection, HASCC is also a possibility. Selectively-
leaving as little as 25% uncompromised metal. The design hardened fasteners with corrosion-preventative coating can avoid these dangers
load may then exceed the capacity of the screw, causing and protect the integrity of the structure. In exterior applications or aggressive
the head to pop off. interior environments, bi-metallic or super alloy fasteners are recommended.▪
Selectively-hardened fasteners are HRC 34 or less (Grade
5 strength) in the load-bearing portion of the shank and
head, and therefore immune to HASCC.
The cladding system of the Arsht Center involved alu-
minum, stainless steel, galvanized steel, and carbon steel.
Given so many possibilities for galvanic reactions and
HASCC, with so many metal combinations in a humid
environment, selectively-hardened fasteners made sense.
The Arsht Center granite was attached using aluminum
anchor clips that fit in kerf-slots on the edges of the stone
slabs. Top and bottom courses of stone were attached with
running aluminum extrusions the full width of the stone.
Intermediate courses have smaller clips, ranging from 8
to 12 inches long.
The anchor clips are two-piece aluminum assemblies.
One L-shaped piece is anchored to the CMU backing-
wall with 5/8-inch stainless steel wedge-bolts, painted
with yellow chromate to prevent corrosion. This piece is
anchored to the wall before lifting the stone slab into place.
The second piece is screwed to the first with three ¼-inch
selectively-hardened screws. This clip-piece has a down-
ward-facing lip that mates with the kerf-slot in the top
edge of the stone below it. Detail showing the two part clip assemblies, attached to the backing wall with a 5/8-inch
The fasteners have a corrosion-preventive coating for wedgebolt (F1), and connected with ¼-inch selectively-hardened self-drilling screws (F2).
long-term structural integrity. If moisture infiltrated the Courtesy of CDC Curtainwall Design Consulting, Inc.
clip assembly, it could set up a galvanic cell between the

STRUCTURE magazine 16 February 2011

We engineered the frame,
so you don't have to.

With the Strong Frame™ ordinary moment frame, you can create wall openings
that span up to 20 feet wide and 19 feet tall. In fact, there are 368 pre-engineered
steel frame configurations to choose from as well as custom sizes. So whether
you’re working on a custom home on the lake, retrofi tting a multi-story building
or creating an “open” floor plan, Simpson Strong-Tie has the frame, which means
all you need to do is choose.
For additional information, call (800) 999-5099 or visit www.strongtie.com/strongframe.

© 2011 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SF11-E

Structural
teSting
issues and advances related
to structural testing
Putting Mother Nature in a Box
By John Lyons, P.E., S.E.,
and Jason Meadows, P.E.
John Lyons, P.E., S.E. served as project
manager for the IBHS Research Facility. He is
president and owner of Structural-Evolution
in Peachtree City, GA. John may be reached at
jlyons@structural-evolution.com.
Jason Meadows, P.E. served as project
engineer for the IBHS Research Facility.
He is a member of the Atlanta office of
Walter P Moore. Jason may be reached at
JMeadows@walterpmoore.com.
An overall view of the IBHS Research Facility. Courtesy of IBHS.
I
n August of 1992, Hurricane Andrew
made landfall in southern Florida.
Andrew came on shore with torrential
rain accompanied by 145 mph sus-
tained winds with 170 mph gusts, which
was measured before the equipment was
rendered inoperable by the ever increasing
winds. Andrew was
the third costliest
tropical system to
impact the United
States, with damages estimated near $26 bil-
lion and 23 storm-related deaths.
What if we had a way to reduce the cost or
prevent loss of life from catastrophic events?
What if we could put Mother Nature in a
box to more accurately study the effects of
wind and wind-driven rain? That is exactly
what the Institute for Business and Home
Safety (IBHS) has done in Richburg, South
Carolina.
The IBHS Research Facility – the only one of
its kind – will significantly advance building
science by enabling researchers to more fully
and accurately evaluate various residential
and commercial construction materials and
systems. It is designed to attack full-scale
test structures with the winds and rains of
Sketch-up view of a test specimen in the test chamber. Courtesy of Odell Associates, by Tommy Dew, Jr.
18 February 2011
hurricanes, the pounding hail of severe thun-
derstorms, or wind-driven fire embers.
Privately funded by a consortium of insur-
ance companies, this $40 million facility will
produce new building standards for construc-
tion practices, and test current and future
materials against the worst Mother Nature
has to offer. Real-world application of IBHS
research findings will lead to more sustain-
able, durable communities and will provide
a foundation for development of solid public
policy, such as improved building codes.
The Research Facility
as a Whole
The IBHS Research Facility is a complex of
6 buildings. At nearly 42,000 square feet,
the main structure includes an observation
area, a test chamber, and a fan array that
pumps air through a flow contraction area
before it enters the test chamber. There is
an 11,000-square-foot office and conference
building which has offices for the staff and
classrooms for presentations. The remainder
of the campus consists of four pre-engineered
metal buildings used to facilitate mechani-
cal and electrical equipment, test-specimen
construction, and weathering of the test
specimens where the shingles may be heated
to approximate the condition of weathered
roofing. The specimen (i.e., a two-story house)
is moved throughout the facility on a custom
designed motorized house moving system.
There are four key engineered components
of the IBHS Research Facility that are used to
facilitate these studies: the fan array and flow
contraction area, test chamber, turntable, and
fire protection systems.
Fan Array and Flow
Contraction Area
The fan array and flow contraction area
provides support for the 105 electric fans
on one end and funnels the air through 15
tubes towards a smaller area on the other end,
which increases the velocity of the moving air
and promotes uniformity of the flow exiting
each tube. The structures supporting the fan
array and the contraction area are structur-
ally independent from the main building and
are constructed of precast concrete. Precast
offered a durable substrate on which the fans
could be mounted. Its mass also mitigates
vibration introduced into the structure from
STRUCTURE magazine
An overall view of the IBHS Test chamber and office building. Courtesy WALTER P MOORE.
the operation of the fans. Typical slabs and
walls are made of 8-inch-thick precast panels.
Stability along the axis of the chamber is
provided by load-bearing walls, and stability
transverse to the axis is provided by external
1-foot-thick precast buttress walls. The walls
and slabs of the reduction chamber were given
a smooth finish to reduce the turbulence in
the air flow.
Careful attention was given to the
accommodation of the 16-blade, 5½-foot
diameter fans. These fans, in conjunction
with the reduction chamber, are capable of
producing winds equivalent to Category 3
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
19 February 2011
hurricane strength over land. The super-
structure of the fan array is designed to
support large 8,000-pound thrust from each
fan, as well as the overall maximum thrust
of 400 kips from the entire fan array. The
fans also weigh upwards of 9,000 pounds
each, which require the fan array to be sup-
ported on a large mat foundation.
In front of the fans is a 400-foot diameter
‘clear zone’ that is kept free from debris and
obstructions. Air entering the fans comes from
this zone. Wire mesh screens across the fan
intake prevents foreign objects from being
drawn into the fan. A 20-foot-high earthen
berm planted with pine trees is just outside this
clear zone and serves to absorb sound waves
from the fan array which might otherwise be
objectionable to surrounding residents.

Test Chamber
The 21,000-square-foot chamber houses the
test specimen and must withstand an internal
wind pressure of 30 psf due to the force of
wind moving through the chamber. A 60-foot
clear height is maintained throughout the
chamber. The walls and steel framing mem-
bers are designed to withstand impact loads
which could be caused by airborne debris
separating from the test specimen. The outlet
wall consists of 6-inch-thick reinforced
concrete precast panels that are capable of
resisting the impact of a 15-pound 2x4 travel-
ing at 100 mph. The roof structure consists
of 10-foot-deep structural steel wide flange
roof trusses supporting wide flange purlins
and metal deck. The roof framing and trusses
are designed and braced to perform in uplift The aluminum deluge truss rig being assembled on the test chamber floor just above the turntable.
conditions when the chamber is pressurized Courtesy WALTER P MOORE.
during a test. The roof deck is fastened with
self tapping screws, which provide supe- raised during a test so it does not interfere with
rior resistance to uplift. All steel members the air flow. Lighting Production Equipment
Moving Forward
within the test chamber are galvanized to and Walter P Moore designed a 20-inch by Although the design and construction of this
guard against corrosion, as the chamber will 20-inch, 55-foot by 63-foot aluminum rig- $40 million research facility presented many
often be subjected to rain-tests. Due to the ging grid which supports the sprinkler system engineering challenges, the engineers and
galvanization process, all members have field- piping, and a system of 4,000 pound hoist architects were more excited about the larger
bolted connections. The side walls of the test motors is used to raise and lower the rigging purpose of the facility. In the same manner in
chamber are also precast concrete due to the grid. A system of elbow joints and swivel bear- which automobile crash tests improved the
required impact resistance. ings allows the rigid 8-inch-diameter supply safety of vehicles, this research facility prom-
piping to remain attached in any position. ises to give building designers an unparalleled
In addition, four remotely controlled water opportunity to learn and to improve the safety
Turntable cannons are strategically placed around the and performance of our built environment.
A 55-foot-diameter custom-built turntable chamber. The fire protection system is fed The IBHS Research Facility will, without a
is used to allow the building specimen to by a 750,000-gallon water tank which was doubt, lead to more sustainable and durable
be rotated at different angles relative to the constructed on the facility (650,000 gallons structures for future generations. It will pro-
air stream. The turntable has a 6-inch-thick is allocated for fire suppression through the vide the research needed to improve future
concrete slab surface which is used to secure deluge and sprinkler systems, while the remain- building codes. The researchers at the IBHS
the specimen during testing, and is designed ing 100,000 gallons is used for rain production, Research Facility will begin their experiments
for gravity loads, as well as for shear and the water cannons and a water curtain at the in early 2011.▪
overturning loads due to the force of the outlet that is used to quench embers blowing
wind acting on the specimen. Three build- out of the test chamber).
ing designs were assumed in the analysis so
that the loads could be enveloped for the
turntable design: a two-story framed house,
a small brick veneer commercial building,
Project Team
and a typical prefabricated metal building. Owner: Institute for Business and Home Safety, Tampa, FL
Structural Engineer: Walter P Moore, Atlanta, GA
Design Architect: Odell Associates Inc., Charlotte, NC
Fire Protection MEP Engineer: United Engineering Group, Charlotte, NC
In addition to a dry pipe sprinkler system at Civil Engineer: BP Barber, Charlotte, NC
the roof of the test chamber, a deluge sprinkler Precast Supplier: Metromont, Greenville, SC
system guards against a possible fire in one of Contractor: Holder Construction Company, Atlanta, GA
the test specimens installed on the turntable. Macton: Oxford, CT
The system needed to be positioned within Lighting Production Equipment: Atlanta, GA
15 feet of the test specimen roof, but must be

STRUCTURE magazine 20 February 2011

 TESTED
IBC
®

TO
MEET 2009

The cure for the

uncommon cold.

Looking for a fast cure? The new AT-XP ™ Acrylic-Tie® anchoring adhesive by
Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems ® is specially formulated for fast curing,
even in below-freezing temperatures, and has the easiest hole cleaning
requirements on the market. As a high-strength anchoring solution, AT-XP
adhesive provides optimum performance anchoring threaded rod and
dowels in uncracked concrete. And it provides excellent performance in
temperatures as low as 14° F (-10° C).
AT-XP adhesive has been rigorously tested in accordance with ICC-ES AC308
and IBC 2009 requirements for uncracked concrete. For more information,
call (800) 999-5099 or visit www.simpsonanchors.com.

IN THE SPECS

© 2011 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. ATXP11

AVAILABLE SOON ON THE JOB
AT YOUR SERVICE™
Product
Watch
updates on emerging
technologies, products
and services
New Horizons in Open Web
Steel Joists and Joist Girders
Longer Spans, Less Bridging
and Better End Anchorage
By Tim Holtermann, P.E., S.E.,
Mark Godfrey, P.E., and
Bruce F. Brothersen, P.E.
Timothy J. Holtermann, P.E., S.E. is
the Corporate Engineering Manager for
Canam Steel Corporation and is based
in Washington, MO. He is also the chair
of the Steel Joist Institute Engineering
Practice Committee. He can be reached
at tim.holtermann@canam.ws.
Mark Godfrey, P.E. is the Engineering
Manager for Quincy Joist Company in
Quincy, FL, and is a member of both the
SJI Engineering Practice Committee and
Education Committee. He can be reached
at mark.godfrey@quincyjoist.com.
Bruce F. Brothersen, P.E. is the Engineering
Manager at Vulcraft-Utah, in Brigham
City, UT, and is Chairman of the SJI
education committee. He may be reached at
bbrothersen@vulcraft-ut.com.
I
n preparation for inclusion by ref-
erence in the 2012 International
Building Code (IBC), the Steel Joist
Institute (SJI) has completed the 43rd
Edition of the Open Web Steel Joist and Joist
Girder Specifications, as well as the Code of
Standard Practice.
This edition includes significant changes
and improvements. The 40 balloted revi-
sions encompass previously unpublished
design checks and assumptions, better use
of “mandatory” code language, and reor-
ganization of certain sections for better
clarity. But most important, the changes
are all aimed at making SJI products safer,
easier to use and more economical. This
article highlights significant changes for the
Specifying Design Professional.
Longer Spans and Load Table
Revisions
A substantial expan-
sion to the deep
Longspan DLH-
Series Load Tables
increases the maxi-
mum span length for these SJI joists. The
new longest length is 240 feet – almost a
100-foot increase from the previous maxi-
mum length of 144 feet. To accommodate the
longer spans, the maximum joist depth has
been increased from 72 inches to 120 inches.
The “chord number,” which is the final two
digits of an LH/DLH-Series joist designation,
is simply a relative indicator and a reference
to a particular row in the Load Tables. The
increased range of the DLH-Series Load
Tables has led to the use of chord numbers
up to 25, where the previous limit was 19.
Also, because of the tremendous range of the
DLH-Series joists, it becomes impractical
to list every one foot increment of span
in the Load Table. For the larger chord
numbers, depths and spans, the increment
between Load Table columns increases to
3 feet, and then 5 feet. Linear interpola-
tion can be used for spans between the
given columns.
In addition to the expansion of the DLH-
Series Load Tables, a number of other less
substantial Load Table revisions have been
made. For K-Series, the 8K1 designation
has been dropped, because typically either
a joist substitute can be used or there is
sufficient headroom clearance to allow
the use of a 10K1. The joist substitute
tables have been revised, extending their
range from a maximum span of 8 feet to
a new maximum span of 10 feet. A few
22 February 2011
rows have been added to the K-Series Load
Table to provide greater clarity as to the load
carrying capacity of joists with a span to depth
ratio of less than 12.
Span versus Clearspan
In communication between the Specifying
Design Professionals and the SJI Member
companies, it has become apparent that the
current LH and DLH tables can be confus-
ing when determining a uniform load from
the load table based on the “clearspan.” The
K-Series Standard Load Tables are based on
“span” and many users have assumed the LH
and DLH Standard Load Tables also use span
instead of clearspan. The resulting LH and
DLH joist selection based on span rather
than clearspan would be conservative, but
may not lead to the most efficient joist selec-
tion. Consequently, all four Longspan Joist
Standard Load Tables (LH and DLH Series
in both ASD and LRFD) have been made
simpler to use and more consistent with the
K-Series Standard Load Tables by incorporat-
ing span instead of the clearspan terminology.
Previously for joists with spans within or less
than the “Safe Load” range, interpretation of
several footnotes was required to establish the
uniform load capacity. The revised Standard
Load Tables simplify the use of joists in the
Safe Load range because the Safe Load can
simply be divided by span, and for spans less
than the minimum Safe Load length, a new
column provides the maximum safe uniform
load value.
The “Clearspan” terminology is inconsis-
tent with other top chord length criteria
used in the specifications, such as camber
and erection stability bridging. So the use
of a common term span will greatly simplify
the specification.
JOIST END REACTION
LOCATED AS SHOWN
SEAT HEIGHT
 Anchorage
The Steel Joist Institute Specification includes
an introduction to each joist series. For the
K-Series, the statement is made that standard
K-Series joists have a 2½ inch end bearing
depth. This implies that other depths may
not be available or that, if the seat is deeper,
the entire joist would no longer be “standard,”
which is not the case. Likewise, the introduc-
tion for the LH and DLH Series states that
the bearing seat depth has been established at
5 inches or 7½ inches depending on the chord
number of the joist. Although the Accessories
and Details section of the catalog shows seat
depths for sloped joists that are greater than
the established standards, there are other con-
ditions where the use of deeper seats may be
more appropriate and necessary.
In some cases, the “standard” bearing depths
can be problematic and a deeper seat is the
best solution. For example, on perimeter
beams or supporting members with unbal-
anced tributary loading, the Specifying
Design Professional may wish to move the
reaction point, for a K-Series joist, to the
center of the support to minimize eccentric
loading. When Insulating Form Concrete
walls are used, the outside of the form may
need to be notched to allow for joist end web
GT STRUDL Structural Analysis & Design Software
Base Plate Module
The Best Choice
for
Infrastructure & Nuclear
STRUCTURE magazine
clearance, or the inside face of the form to be
tapered to allow the steel embed plate to fall
no farther than ½ inch from the face of the
wall. Perhaps for K-series joists bearing on the
top of masonry walls, the Specifying Design
Professional may wish to move the reaction
point of the joist closer to the center of the
wall to minimize the opportunity for spalling
of the concrete at the edge of the embed plate.
The new specification clarifies that seat
depths greater than 2½ inches, for K-Series
joists, are readily available. An exception is
created in the K-Series, LH and DLH Series
specifications allowing the Specifying Design
Professional to locate the bearing plate more
than ½-inch from the face of the wall, pro-
vided that the condition is clearly noted on
the contract drawings and the bearing seat
depth is sufficient. Specifically, the Specifying
Design Professional needs to note the required
location of the joist end reaction over the wall.
To deliver the end reaction to the desired loca-
tion, the joist manufacturer needs to provide
sufficient bearing seat depth. The specifica-
tions state if the joist reaction is to occur more
than 2½ inches from the face of the wall, the
minimum seat depth shall be 2½ inches plus
a dimension equal to the distance the joist
reaction is to occur beyond 2½ inches.
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
New R
ele
Versio ase
n 31
23 February 2011
Bridging
Joist bridging plays a key role in the stabil-
ity and load carrying capacity of the joists.
During the construction and erection phase
of a project, the bridging stabilizes the joist
for construction loads prior to the top chord
having full lateral support from the steel
deck. After construction and during the life
of the structure, bridging stabilizes unsup-
ported joist components for the design
loads. Consequently, bridging is not directly
designed for the external loads applied to
the joists. Joists are designed to be strong “in
plane” or the direction perpendicular to the
applied loads. In the “out of plane” direction,
joists are weaker and need bridging to keep
them properly stabilized and aligned so that
they can resist the in plane loads. Factors that
determine the type and number of rows of
bridging not only include construction loads
but also span, depth and member compo-
nent sizes. Bridging consists of horizontal and
diagonal angle members connecting to the
joist top and bottom chords. Common types
of bridging are Horizontal Bridging, Welded
Cross Bridging, Bolted Cross Bridging, Bolted
Erection Stability Cross Bridging (EX) and
Uplift Bridging.
continued on next page
Multi-Processor
Solvers
• Standalone static analysis solvers take
advantage of multi-core processors and
the large address space available on
Windows7 64 Bit operating systems.
Performance Examples
• Linear Static Analysis:
55,000 Joints; 330,000 DOF’s
54 Loading Conditions
Solution Time (32 bit) 286 Seconds
Solution Time
w/2 Processors (64 bit) 36 Seconds
• Nonlinear Static Analysis:
(13th Edition AISC “Direct Analysis Method”)
2,500 Joints; 15,000 DOF’s
88 Loading Conditions
Solution Time (32 bit) 123 Seconds
Georgia Tech - CASE Center
Phone: 404-894-2260
Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu
www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu
 A number of variables were revisited to come up with the modi-
fications to the way the 43rd SJI Specification addresses bridging
requirements. In order to make the bridging revisions in the speci-
fication, the construction loads were reviewed. Construction loads
are not proportional to span and are independent of joist series (K
and LH). Also, the stresses in the top chord vary with joist depth.
Consequently, some revisions to the specification were made to better
match the needs of the joist but not to over design the bridging, which
may cause undo expense to the project. Also, the bridging tables in
the 43rd SJI Specification have been expanded for longer length joists.
These changes resulted in new tables for all joist types.
In the past, the bridging requirement may have seemed quite arbi-
trary and tabulated values were shown with little or no explanation
as to how these values were determined. The 43rd SJI Specification
includes some simple information, which explains design criteria and
equations (K series specification section 5.4(d)) to determine a force
(Pbr) for which the bridging should be designed. Also, the role of
bridging anchorage is included. Rows of bridging must be anchored or
terminated at a rigid support to function properly, which is addressed
in more detail than before. Additionally, the cumulative effect of the
Conclusion
number of joist spaces is included in the equations to determine the The 43 Edition of the SJI specification contains many revisions.
rd

bridging force. Consequently, the new bridging tables include this
force (Pbr) for different standard sizes of joists.
As a result of the revisions to bridging provisions in the 43rd SJI
Specification, some joists will have fewer rows of bridging. In all
cases, the bridging will be more exact in it usage.
COSP New Bridging Table 2.7-1c
It is the culmination of years of research and a concerted effort to
simplify the use of open web steel joist products. This article has
highlighted just a few of the changes. In 2011, the SJI will be con-
ducting Webinars to explain the changes in more detail. Visit the SJI
website at www.steeljoist.org to learn more about new publications
and educational opportunities.▪

MAXIMUM BRIDGING FORCE (Pbr) FOR HORIZONTAL BRIDGING (lbs)

Joist Bridging Angle Size (Equal Leg Angle)
Spacing 1 x 7/64 1¼ x 7/64 1½ x7/64 1¾ x 7/64 2x⅛ 2½ x 5/32 3 x 3/16
(Ft.) r = 0.20” r = 0.25” r = 0.30” r = 0.35” r = 0.40” r = 0.50” r = 0.60”
2.0 2150 3960 5600    
2.5 1370 2730 4410 5910    
3.0 950 1890 3290 4850    
3.5 700 1390 2420 3840 6180    
4.0 530 1060 1850 2960 5030    
4.5 420 840 1460 2340 4000  
5.0 340 680 1180 1890 3240  
5.5 - 560 980 1560 2670  
6.0 - 470 820 1310 2250 5490
6.5 - - 700 1120 1910 4680
7.0 - - 600 960 1650 4030
7.5 - - 520 840 1440 3510
8.0 - - - 740 1260 3090
8.5 - - - 650 1120 2740 5680
9.0 - - - - 1000 2440 5060
9.5 - - - - 890 2190 4540
10.0 - - - - 810 1970 4100
10.5 - - - - - 1790 3720
11.0 - - - - - 1630 3390
11.5 - - - - - 1490 3100
12.0 - - - - - 1370 2850

STRUCTURE magazine 24 February 2011

For demand critical
welds,the right
product is crucial.

ESAB Seismic Certified filler metals deliver the strength you need for structural fabrication.
With products such as Atom Arc, Dual Shield, Coreshield, and Spoolarc, ESAB Seismic Certified filler
® ® ® ®

metals meet AWS ‘D’ designator requirements, and are excellent options for when FEMA 353, D1.1,
or D1.8 is utilized. Plus, our experts will help you determine the best solution for your application.

Get started today. Visit esabna.com/seismic for a brochure, and we’ll even send you a free do-rag.

ESAB Welding & Cutting Products / esabna.com / 1.800.ESAB.123

Atop the completed building, the 747 awaits the installation of water slides which will exit the fuselage and drop sixty feet into the waterpark’s interior pools.
Courtesy of Jeffrey Diephuis.

By Jeffrey Diephuis, P.E. aircraft’s weight and resist added wind and seismic loads from the 747

T
while the structure was completed. KPFF and Hoffman collaborated
he newest building on the Evergreen Aviation & Space with Carr Construction and Campbell Crane to identify the best solu-
Museum campus in McMinnville, Oregon, inspires amaze- tion – balancing the needs of the project schedule, construction sequence
ment. It appears as though a massive 747 aircraft is sitting and cost. The team launched a 3-D modeling effort, which allowed
on top of the structure and, indeed, it is. This surprising them to virtually experience every step of the complex lift, move and
sight sets a precedent in structural engineering, as never before has landing, with accurately modeled building, crane and plane elements.
anyone placed a plane so large on the roof of an erected building. The first task in preparing for the lift was to determine the needed
On a campus known for the Howard Hughes’ HK-1 flying boat bracing for the incomplete building and accommodate construction
(commonly known as the Spruce Goose) and a Titan II rocket, this sequencing. In addition to typical erection bracing, two temporary
milestone project is fitting. Visitors who come to marvel at the HK-1’s steel braced frames were added to resist wind and seismic loads on
vast size or the Titan II’s enormous length in the adjacent buildings the building and airplane. The engineers designed the frames to resist
will soon be able to splash down from the 747 plane atop the new 120kips of lateral force each. Each frame consisted of W8 wide-flange
Wings & Waves Waterpark building as well. Stairs will lead guests into braces which connected to the building’s concrete column and tubular-
the rooftop attraction where water slides will spill from the aircraft’s truss gravity framing system. After erecting the remaining building
fuselage and into the building’s wave pool 62 feet below. structure and completing the lateral system, the construction team
Group Mackenzie of Portland, Oregon, provided the architectural removed the temporary frames from the structure.
and structural engineering design for the building, working in a The lifting procedure involved two cranes; however, the project
design-build collaboration with Hoffman Construction Company. marks the first time an aircraft of this size has been lifted with one
principal crane. A Manitowoc 2250 with MAX-ER served as the
primary crane, while a Leibherr LTM 1400 with luffing jib posi-
Taking Off tioned over the nose served to control the plane’s orientation and
Positioning the recently decommissioned 747-100 cargo plane on the
constructed building required a carefully engineered solution. Despite
the fact that they take to the skies daily, 747s are enormously heavy
and lifting one requires exceptional effort. Completing the lift meant
raising the 269,000-pound plane 55 feet into the air and transport-
ing it 165 feet to perch atop the building frame. The construction
team considered a myriad of variables including weight distribution,
balance, wind speed, crane travel speed, and clearances between the
crane, plane, and building.
Without access to a mobile crane that had the capacity to lift the airplane
and reach over the completed building structure, the construction team
had to devise a scheme for placing the 747 on the partially completed
building. The resulting plan required one-third of the roof structure and
the second floor mezzanine to be left unconstructed in order to provide a
“slot” in the structure for crane access to the plane’s final location.
Hoffman, along with their steel erection subcontractor Carr
Construction of Portland, Oregon, asked Portland’s KPFF Consulting
The 747 was lifted approximately 6 feet off the ground during the test pick.
Engineers to assess the plane’s stability throughout the lift’s phases. KPFF Courtesy of Jeffrey Diephuis.
was also charged with bracing the incomplete structure to carry the

STRUCTURE magazine 26 February 2011

The plane approaches its maximum height on lift day. Courtesy of Evergreen International.

guide the nose to its rooftop support

point. KPFF programmers customized
a commercial crane-modeling program,
and incorporated it into a 3-D computer
model including the building framing and
the plane. The innovative model allowed
the team to track the movements of the
plane and cranes throughout the lift and
travel sequence. This model played an

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

instrumental role in ensuring that the
lift plan maintained adequate clearances
between the plane and the cranes’ booms
and building structure during transport.
In planning the lift, the team established
a clearance “safe zone” for the lifting/travel
sequence. After initial model runs, the
construction team was not comfortable
with how close the body of the plane came
to the boom. The team took advantage of
the model’s flexibility to explore various
other equipment configurations for the
lift. By varying the angle and length of
each crane’s boom and the angle of the
plane to the travel path, the clearances
between the plane, cranes and building
were maximized. The team also removed
wing flaps from the plane itself to increase
the safety margin. Demonstrating this
result before the actual lift would not have
been possible without the 3-D model.
continued on next page
STRUCTURE magazine 27 February 2011
The plane in its final position on the roof of the partially completed structure. Courtesy of Jeffrey Diephuis.
The sophisticated 3-D model was intended for planning purposes, but
the team also used the results in presentations to the owner, insuring
agencies and stakeholders to show that the lift and placement could
be completed effectively.
Dave Garske, project manager at Hoffman, says the model was
also a resource for addressing issues in the contractor’s detailed pre-
engineering erection plan. “We wanted the team’s responses to dozens
of questions including design questions regarding what we’d do if the
crane did not perform as expected, physical questions like ‘what if a
crane operator became ill’, or environmental questions like ‘what if
the wind speed was higher than design limitations?’ These types of
‘what if ’ questions were critical on this project in particular, as this
type of lift had never been done. By using the model, there was no
second guessing on the day of the event.”
Achieving Cruising Altitude
When the plane reached the site, the team removed its four 12,500-
pound engines and replaced them with a light skeletal structure to
support the engine cowlings, bringing the plane’s weight to 269,370
pounds. Determining the center of gravity and subsequent loads for each
crane required an extensive engineering effort. Calculations revealed that
engineers needed to add ballast in the nose to provide the two-crane lift
with an adequate factor of safety against tipping on its tail when raised.
The team loaded eight water tanks providing 23,260 pounds of ballast,
which increased the total weight to 292,630 pounds. The lift required
31,135 pounds of rigging resulting in a total “hook” load of 323,765
pounds. During the hoist, the Manitowoc 2250 bore 294,390 pounds
while the secondary crane carried the remaining 29,375 pounds.
Plan view of the lift model showing the partially completed structure, the plane and
each crane part way down the travel path. Courtesy of KPFF Consulting Engineers.
STRUCTURE magazine
Positioned on the port side of the aircraft, the Manitowoc lifted the
plane using a custom-designed and fabricated 38-foot long, 18,000-
pound spreader. This bar was positioned over the wing and attached
through the wing to the wing landing gear structure on each side. The
secondary Liebherr crane used a standard spreader bar that attached
to a Boeing recovery sling, which cradled the fuselage of the aircraft.
These planes are so rarely lifted from above that only seven sets of
747 recovery equipment exist, and these are positioned around the
world for rapid deployment in emergency and salvage operations.
One variable remained: even aviation experts and engineers could
not fully predict how a static plane would react when suspended, so
the team executed a test pick. They lifted the aircraft approximately
6 feet off the ground on a day with 10- to 15-mph winds. The test
helped validate the center of gravity determined by calculation and
reconfirm the actual crane loads. It also showed that the wind resulted
in an unacceptable amount of sway.
“The plane did what it was designed to do; it reacted to the air
currents and wanted to fly,” explains Garske. “The team multiplied
surface area by wind pressure to approximate the force required to
resist the influence of the wind on the plane’s position. The result
was an estimated 1,100 pounds of force. What remained unknown
was whether two men on a tag line could resist this influence and
adequately control the position of the plane from the ground.” Garske
continued, “We did another test pick the following day and were able
to absolutely confirm that two men on a tag line could control the
plane’s movement. That gave us a level of confidence.”
Touching Down
In May 2010, the team raised the plane, transported the massive
shell 165 feet and lowered the aircraft into the nose gear cradle first.
Then they eased the rest of the plane into wing and fuselage gear
cradles, designed by Group Mackenzie in consultation with Boeing
engineers. After the team successfully “landed” the 747-100 on top of
the waterpark building, crews bolted it into place and performed the
welds to permanently secure the aircraft at its five landing gear posi-
tions. Only then did the huge Campbell Cranes release it completely.
Over the following weeks, the contractor erected the remaining roof
and mezzanine structure around the aircraft. Evergreen officials plan
to open the $25 million waterpark in mid-2011.▪
Jeffrey Diephuis, P.E. is a project manager at KPFF
Consulting Engineers’ Portland office. He may be contacted
at Jeff.Diephuis@kpff.com.
28 February 2011
“1.26”: From Tsunami to Abstract Net Form
By Shane McCormick, P.E., S.E., Charles Keyes, P.E., S.E.,
and Peter Heppel

A
monumental net sculpture was installed in Denver July,
2010, as a featured element of the Denver Biennial of the
Americas. The sculpture, 85x63 feet in plan and 30 feet
deep, was suspended 93 feet above the ground from a
203-foot long planer mesh tensioned between the Denver Civic Park
Greek Theater and Denver Art Museum (Figure 1). In generating the
sculpture form, artist Janet Echelman drew inspiration from a map
illustrating the effects of the February 2010 Chilean earthquake and
its ensuing tsunami. The sculpture, fabricated of advanced lightweight
materials, required the use of sophisticated non-linear structural analy-
sis methods to accurately predict internal forces and deformations.
The Biennial was a month-long event celebrating the culture of
the western hemisphere. The event included music performances, Figure 1: Artist’s initial sketch showing the sculpture suspended between the
roundtable discussions, public lectures, and art exhibits. Attendees Denver Art Museum and Greek Theatre, located in Civic Park. Courtesy of
included current ambassadors, national cabinet secretaries, and former Janet Echelman, Inc.
presidents. As part of the event, the Denver Office of Cultural Affairs
Museum with a recently restored 1920s Greek Theatre in Civic Park,
commissioned Massachusetts-based artist Janet Echelman to design
and creating a quickly deployable (and demountable) piece. She was
a temporary sculpture to be displayed in the southwest corner of
further challenged to meet an extremely tight schedule: only four
Denver Civic Park. The sculpture would be the largest and most
months separated artist selection and sculpture installation.
visible artwork of the Biennial.
In February 2010, an earthquake, measuring 8.8 on the Richter
Echelman is known for designing monumental public net sculptures
scale, struck Chile. The event, which lasted over 90 seconds, had an
animated by wind. Suspended in the air, the sculptures are made of
epicenter 71 miles north of Concepción, Chile’s second largest city.
modern lightweight fiber materials and illuminated at night. Recent
Many buildings collapsed and 486 people perished. During the event,
work includes Her Secret is Patience, the new 145-foot tall civic icon
rapid movement of the ocean floor generated a tsunami that affected
in Phoenix Civic Space Park, and Water Sky Garden, a 75,000-square-
the eastern half of the Pacific Ocean. Scientists with the National
foot immersive art environment with two net sculptures located at
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used data from
the Richmond Olympic Oval, the official venue for the speed-skating
a network of specialized ocean buoys to generate a map illustrating
events of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games.
increased wave amplitude resulting from the earthquake (Figure 2).
Amplitude increased over four feet near Chile and one foot over
Sculpture Design 2000 miles west of the coast. This map served as the initial form
generator for the sculpture.
Echelman’s primary goal for the Denver sculpture was to represent
Scientists calculated that the event shortened the length of the day by
natural phenomena linking the 35 countries of the western hemi-
1.26 microseconds, a figure which became the title of the piece. The
sphere. Additional goals included visually connecting the Denver Art
earthquake, resulting from tectonic plate movement, redistributed mass
closer to the Earth’s core. To satisfy the law of conservation of angular
momentum, the Earth’s rotational speed increased, similar to what
happens when a spinning ice skater pulls her arms closer to her body.
Echelman’s studio created the net form using proprietary computer
software. An outline, created by isolating the area from the NOAA
map most affected by the tsunami, was extruded downward, cinched
at the center, and subjected to gravity forces. The studio divided the
resulting form into differently colored horizontal bands that correlated
to wave amplitude.

Suspending the Sculpture

Figure 2: Map of wave amplitude increase caused by the 2010 Chilean
earthquake. Courtesy of NOAA.
The net form was suspended from an inclined tensioned planer mesh
extending from the North Wing of the Denver Art Museum to the
ground in front of the Greek Theatre. The mesh consisted of twine
spaced at 1¾ inches on center in each direction. Boundary ropes,
7�16-inch in diameter, were at the mesh edges, and 7�16-inch diameter

STRUCTURE magazine 30 February 2011

 stay ropes connected to three points at each end of the mesh. The
North Wing of the Denver Art Museum, designed by Italian architect
Gio Ponti and completed in 1971, is an abstract castle form with
artistically arranged slots and rectangular openings. Perimeter walls
are 10-inch reinforced concrete and extend as much as 25 feet above
the roof. Three openings in these walls above the 6th floor roof, 110
feet above grade, were used as anchor locations for the planer mesh
stay ropes. Twelve-inch deep channels placed across the inside face of
each opening were attached to the walls with concrete screw anchors.
Stay ropes connected to D-rings, which were welded to the outside
face of the channels.
At the base of the Greek Theatre, the contractor installed three
inclined Manta Ray 2 ground anchors. These anchors are often used to
support telephone pole stays and earth retaining systems. The anchors
consist of a straight rod with an end plate that rotates perpendicular
to the rod during installation, to permanently bear against the soil. Figure 3: A spider web, similar in form to the included tensioned mesh used to
Anchors are tensioned in place to confirm assumed design capacities. support the net sculpture. Courtesy of David Kleinert Photography.
The mesh, boundary ropes, and stay ropes consisted of Spectra fiber,
a lightweight polyethylene material manufactured by Honeywell that The artist has, in the past, supported sculptures using inclined masts
has a strength-to-weight ratio seven times that of steel cable. The planer and suspended steel armatures. This is the first installation with a
mesh was tensioned to limit vertical and horizontal deflections, with tensioned mesh, a structure with much less visual mass, allowing the
each mesh twine stressed to 5 pounds, and the boundary and edge sculpture to appear to float in space.
stay ropes stressed to 3,000 pounds. The tensioned planer mesh is
similar to the form of a spider web (Figure 3). Both have a central area
with closely spaced lines, edge lines to collect force from the interior,
Structural Analysis
and primary lines anchored to adjacent structures. Both resist lateral The sculpture was designed according to IBC 2006 and assigned to
forces by significantly deformed geometric forms. occupancy category I, commonly used for temporary facilities that,
The inclined mesh and suspended net were assembled using tradi- in the event of failure, present a low hazard to human life. The design
tional net and braid detailing commonly used in fishing nets. Steel pressure was 15 psf, calculated using a wind speed of 90 miles per
linking plates were eschewed
IES-Feb-Half-Pg-4C.pdf in favor
1 12/27/2010 2:03:08of
PM knots, loops, and splices. hour and a density reduction factor of 15%.
continued on next page
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

CM

MY

CY

CMY

STRUCTURE magazine 31 February 2011

 Peter Heppel Associates (PHA), specialists in aerodynamics and
lightweight structures, completed structural analysis using proprietary
non-linear software. The shape of the tensioned mesh was developed
using form finding techniques (Figure 4). Form finding is a process
involving iterative analytical methods (or physical models) to deter-
mine a deformed shape in equilibrium with externally applied forces.
The process is often used when structures have minimal bending stiff-
ness and resist load primarily by internal axial forces. Loading on the
net and tensioned mesh was estimated assuming that straight segments
and knots had the classical aerodynamic properties of yawed cylinders
and spheres, accounting for the appropriate Reynolds number. The
drag coefficient varied based on wind direction, but was typically
about 0.95. Dynamic effects were generally ignored – wind pushes
nets downstream, aligns elements, and reduces projected area.
Fluttering, usually exhibited by fabric elements such as flags, does
not typically occur due to nets’ high aerodynamic damping proper-
ties. The calculated lateral deflection of the tensioned mesh under
design wind load was two feet. The calculated lateral deflection of
the net itself was ten feet.

Installation
JunoWorks, a Denver-based fabrication studio specializing in art and
architectural metal works, installed the sculpture. JunoWorks first
attached the stays to the Art Museum with a crane, and then lifted
the tensioned mesh and net sculpture over trees and other obstacles
using tall man lifts. Chains were attached to the ends of the stays to Figure 5: The sculpture illuminated at night, a fitting memorial to the 2010
allow adjustment for tolerance and relocation of ground anchors due Chilean earthquake. Courtesy of Janet Echelman, Inc.
to conflicts with in-place utilities and trees. JunoWorks tensioned the
chains with ratchet winches and monitored forces with in-line load
cells. Construction lasted about a week, with the installation of the From Diaster to an International Bond
tensioned mesh and sculpture taking a single day.
Echelman’s “1.26” is a unique fusion of traditional net technol-
ogy, advanced modern materials, and refined aesthetics (Figure
5). Representing wave patterns that affected the entire Western
Hemisphere, it is a fitting memorial of the earthquake that struck
Chile February 2010 and how that event joined 35 countries as one.
The City of Denver currently plans to reinstall the sculpture during
future Biennial Events.▪

Shane McCormick, P.E., S.E., is Senior Professional Engineer

with Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers. He may be reached at
smccormick@martinmartin.com.
Charles Keyes, P.E., S.E., is Principal with Martin/Martin Consulting
Engineers and a specialist in structural engineering of monumental
sculptures. He may be reached at ckeyes@martinmartin.com.
Peter Heppel is Principal with Peter Heppel Associates and a
specialist in aerodynamics and design of lightweight structures. He
may be reached at peter@peterheppel.com.

Project Team
Engineer of Record: Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers
Net Design Engineer: Peter Heppel Associates
General Contractor: JunoWorks
Sponsoring Agency: Denver Office of Cultural Affairs
Architect of Record: Fuse Studio Architects
Lighting Designer: Richter Scale Productions
Figure 4: Inclined tensioned mesh form. Artist: Janet Echelman, Inc.

STRUCTURE magazine 32 February 2011

 Integrated design software for
Bridging Your Innovations to Realities
Bridges & Civil Structures

Moving Load Optimizer Nonlinear Analysis

AASHTO LRFD, CAN/CSA-S6 Dynamic nonlinear dampers and base isolators
BD37, BS5400, Eurocode 1, IRC:6 Pushover analysis
Chinese / Japanese / Korean Standards Material nonlinear analysis (including Masonry)
Abnormal Indivisible Load / Permit Load Inelastic time history analysis
Transverse Analysis Model Wizard Fiber material model
Influence Line & Surface Integral bridge analysis

Construction Stage Analysis

Creep, shrinkage and modulus of elasticity (CEB-FIP, Eurocode 2, IRC:18, ACI, AASHTO, PCA, User-Defined)
Prestress losses in tendons
3D Internal / External tendons
Automatic calculation of effective width
Staged segmental post-tensioning wizards for
- Balanced cantilever construction
- Span by span construction
- Incrementally launched construction
Composite section analysis reflecting deck construction stages
Suspension bridge analysis
- Initial configuration analysis (self-anchored/earth-anchored)
- Backward stage analysis reflecting large displacements
Cable-stayed bridge analysis
- Cable forces optimized through Unknown Load Factors
- Forward/Backward stage analysis reflecting large displacements
- Cable fitting forces by Lack-of-Fit-Force
- Cable tuning

Design
Frame design:
- AASHTO LRFD, CAN/CSA-S6, Eurocode 2
- IRC:21, TB 10002 3-05, JTG D62-04
- TWN-BRG-LSD/ASD
Bridge load rating: AASHTO LRFR
Post-tensioned box girder design: ASSHTO LRFD, Eurocode 2
Composite plate girder design: Eurocode 4
Tendon stress limit check

5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Fl., New York, NY 10001 www.MidasUser.com

+1-212-835-1666 midasoft@MidasUser.com for a free trial version & more...
ICC and NCSEA––Partners in Building Safety
Introducing the NCSEA Affiliate Bookstore
As part of ICC’s continued partnership with NCSEA, and in appreciation
for your shared commitment to building safety, we are happy to offer
10–20% off the list price on select codes, standards, and structural SAVE
references. These items will assist you with the important life-saving
work you do every day. 10-20%
at www.iccsafe.org/NCSEA

10% off
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
To get your discount, enter
Promotional Code: NCSEA
in your shopping cart.
Author: Alan Williams, Ph.D., S.E., C. Eng.
A comprehensive reference filled with equations, calculations,
and modeling instructions. It covers classic methods of analysis
and recent advances in computer applications. (624 pages)
#9320S List $89.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $80.96

REINFORCED MASONRY ENGINEERING HANDBOOK:

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

ASCE/SEI 7-05: MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS

AND OTHER STRUCTURES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE IBC®, 2009
#9002S05 List $125 | NCSEA Affiliate $112.50 Authors: Doug Thornburg, AIA, and John Henry, P.E.
Comprehensive, practical analysis of critical changes between
the 2006 and 2009 IBC. Hundreds of color figures (365 pages)
ASCE/SEI 7-10: MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS
#7024S09 List $42.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $36.51
AND OTHER STRUCTURES
#9002S10 List $125 | NCSEA Affiliate $112.50
MASONRY STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Author: Richard E. Klingner
2005 NDS WOOD DESIGN SPECIFICATION PACKAGE
Complete guide to masonry materials and structural design
#9542S List $150 | NCSEA Affiliate $135
using the 2009 IBC and 2008 MSJC. (588 pages)
#9355S List $118 | NCSEA Affiliate $100.30
TMS 402-08/ACI 530-08/ASCE 5-08
#9026S08 List $100 | NCSEA Affiliate $135
DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES ASD/LRFD, SIXTH EDITION
Authors: Donald Breyer, Kenneth Fridley, Kelly Cobeen, David Pollock, Jr.
ANSI/AF&PA SDPWS-08: 2008 SPECIAL DESIGN The field’s leading text demonstrates all necessary steps and
PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC STANDARD techniques, provides practical design examples. (1,025 pages)
#9580S08 List $50 | NCSEA Affiliate $45 #9047S6 List $79.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $67.96

AISC 325-05: STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, 13TH ED.

#9206S05 List $350 | NCSEA Affiliate $297.50

and select CODE MASTERS

15% off
 People Helping People Build a Safer World™

2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE®

20% off
GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF OUT-OF-PLANE WALL ANCHORAGE:
Publisher: ICC BASED ON THE 2006/2009 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05
Includes bonus downloads. (704 pages) Author: Timothy W. Mays, Ph.D., P.E.
#3000S09 List $111 | NCSEA Affiliate $88.80 Loaded with example problems, this unique guide is the solution to
out-of-plane wall anchorage analysis. (175 pages)
2009 IBC: CODE AND COMMENTARY #7043S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20
Publisher: ICC
Read expert commentary printed after each code section. A GUIDE TO THE 2009 IRC® WOOD WALL BRACING PROVISIONS
Understand code intent and improve application. From: APA and ICC
2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 1 (CHAPTERS 1–15) Learn correct application of the lateral bracing requirements of
#3010S091* List $114 | NCSEA Affiliate $91.20 the 2009 IRC––one of the most common sources of confusion and
2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 2 (CHAPTERS 16–35) misapplication. Includes 200 color tables and figures. (255 pages)
#3010S092* List $114 | NCSEA Affiliate $91.20 #7102S09* List $41 | NCSEA Affiliate $32.80

2009 IBC HANDBOOK: STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN: EARTHQUAKE-

Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., and John Henry, P.E. RESISTANT STEEL STRUCTURES
Discusses IBC Chapters 16–23 using 200+ color figures to Authors: Subhash C. Goel and Shih-Ho Chao
clarify application and intent. A bonus CD contains the complete Filled with examples, formulas, tables, and drawings. (280 pages)
Handbook and many helpful structural references. (681 pages) #7032S List $98 | NCSEA Affiliate $78.40
#4001S09* List $95 | NCSEA Affiliate $76
SEISMIC DESIGN USING STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS: 2006 IBC,
2009 IBC CHECKLIST : STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS
™ 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05
Editor: Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Jaehong Kim, and Farhad H. Shad
The most comprehensive structural plan check book available! Go Effective answers to many common questions. (204 pages)
step-by-step through the 2009 IBC structural requirements to #9183S09 List $54.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $43.96
ensure compliance. Bonus CD contains lists in PDF and editable RTF
files. (375 pages) SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE WIND LOAD PROVISIONS OF
#4008S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20 ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE
Author: T. Eric Stafford, P.E.
STRUCTURAL LOAD DETERMINATION: UNDER 2009 IBC AND Each update is explained in straightforward language. (160 pages)
ASCE/SEI 7-05 #9591S10 List $73 | NCSEA Affiliate $58.40
Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCE
Packed with flowcharts, load diagrams and illustrated design examples SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE SEISMIC LOAD PROVISIONS OF
solved in a step-by-step fashion. (380 pages) ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE
#4034S09* List $65 | NCSEA Affiliate $52 Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., Susan Dowty, P.E., Prabuddha Dasgupta, Ph.D., P.E.
Provides brief summary of updates, diagrams and examples. (192 pages)
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS: #9590S10 List $83 | NCSEA Affiliate $66.40
BASED ON THE 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05, ACI 318-08
Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCE GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGMS, CHORDS AND
A straightforward approach helps engineers analyze, design and detail COLLECTORS: BASED ON THE 2006 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05
low-rise cast-in-place reinforced concrete buildings. (384 pages) #7042S06 List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20
#7034S09 List $79 | NCSEA Affiliate $63.20
2006 IBC STRUCTURAL Q&A
*Also available in PDF Download. #4003S06 List $45 | NCSEA Affiliate $36

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

10-04029
Code
Updates
code developments
and announcements
Snow & Rain Provisions
in ASCE 7-10
What’s New and Different
By Michael O’Rourke, Ph.D., P.E.
Michael O’Rourke, Ph.D., P.E. has been
on the faculty in Civil Engineering at
Rensselaer since 1974. He has been a
member of the ASCE 7 Snow and Rain
Load subcommittee since 1978, and its
chair since 1997. He may be reached at
orourm@rpi.edu.
Wind Blown Snow
N
Ln
Figure 1: RTU Drifting-North Wind.
T
he American Society of Civil
Engineers’ ASCE 7-10 load stan-
dard is now available and, as one
would expect, some things have
changed. Although
the snow and rain
chapters are nomi-
nally the same size
as before (14 pages
in both 7-05 and
7-10.), some changes are subtle while others
are not-so-subtle. In this article, the most
substantive changes are discussed along with
the reasoning behind them.
Minimum Roof Snow Load
The minimum roof load provisions have
been a source of confusion for some time. In
ASCE 7-10, as in ASCE 7-05, the minimum
roof load is the importance factor I times the
smaller of 20 psf or the ground snow load,
pg. The confusion is not the magnitude of
the minimum load but whether it is to be
used in combination with drift loads, sliding
loads and the like. The answer to this last
question is no.
The situation envisioned by the minimum
load provision corresponds to the roof snow
load immediately after a single large snow-
fall without wind. Under these conditions,
neither the exposure factor Ce (no wind), the
thermal factor Ct (no time for thermal effects
to develop) nor the slope factor Cs (no time
for sliding to develop) apply. As a result, the
roof snow load is the same as the ground
snow load. Finally, the “single large snow-
fall” is taken to be I•pg or I•20 psi whichever
is smaller. That is, for locations with com-
paratively low values of pg, one could get the
50 year ground snow load in a single large
snowfall. However, even for locations with
comparatively high values of pg, a single large
snowfall is not expected to result in a ground
snow load of more than 20 psf.
36 February 2011
Ls
Over time, wind and thermal effects come
into play and the roof load morphs into the
balanced load, ps. It is this balanced load,
which includes the exposure, thermal and
slope factors, that is consistent with drifting
and the like.
In ASCE 7-10, this intent is hopefully
clarified by using a new symbol, pm, for the
minimum roof load to avoid confusion with
the flat roof load pf and by identifying the
sloped roof snow load ps as the “balanced”
snow load. Finally, for further clarification,
the following note was added at the end of
Section 7.3.4:
“This minimum roof snow load is a
separate uniform load case. It need not
be used in determining or in combina-
tion with drifts, sliding, unbalanced or
partial loads.”
RTU Drifts
Another area of confusion has been drift load-
ing at Roof Top Units (RTUs). In ASCE 7-05,
it is clear that the drift in question is a wind-
ward drift (three quarters of the height of the
leeward drift from ASCE 7-05 Figure 7-9).
The confusion involved the appropriate fetch
distance. For example, considering the RTU
sketched in Figure 1; some engineers thought
that the drift immediately south of the RTU
should be based upon the fetch distance, Ls.
In ASCE 7-10, the situation is clarified
“For roof projections, lu, shall be taken
equal to the greater of the length of
the roof upwind and downwind of the
projection.”
That is, irrespective of the location of inter-
est being upwind or downwind of the RTU,
a windward drift (¾ factor) using the larger
of Ln or Ls as the fetch distance is prescribed.
In way of explanation, consider an example
with wind out of the north as shown in Figure
1. Clearly the drift immediately north of the
 below and ambient air above. At the other
extreme is a freezer building with cold air
4˚max Thermal Conditions Ct
below and ambient air above. Between these
two extremes are the ground snowpack with
warm earth below and ambient air above, and Unheated and open air structures 1.2
a) Venturi Tube with Laminar Flow a loading dock roof with ambient air above Structures intentionally kept
and below. 1.3
below freezing
4.7˚ In ASCE 7-05, a thermal factor of Ct = 1.2
1/2 1/2 was specified for both unheated structures That is, freezer buildings now have their own
12 12 and structures intentionally kept below freez- group with a new Ct of 1.3, while loading
ing. Based upon the SEAW observations and docks are grouped with unheated buildings
differences in heat transfer characteristics, in with a Ct of 1.2.
TAY24253
ASCE 7-10 BraceYrslfStrctrMag.qxd
we have: 9/3/09 10:09 AM Page c1ontinued on next page

b) Gable Roof with Flow Seperation

Figure 2: Venturi Tube and
Gable Roof Geometry. Y O U B U I L D I T.
W E ’ L L P R O T E C T I T.
RTU is the windward drift for an upwind
fetch distance of Ln. The drift to the south
of the RTU is a leeward drift for a fetch
SEISMIC PROTECTION
distance somewhat less than Ln. The fetch FROM TAYLOR DEVICES
is less because some of the wind blown Stand firm. Don’t settle for less than the seismic protection
snow is captured in the upstream drift. of Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers. As a world leader in
Since a leeward drift for a reduced fetch the science of shock isolation, we are the team you
is not greatly different than a windward
want between your structure and the undeniable forces
drift for an un-reduced fetch, for simplic-
of nature. Others agree. Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers
ity it was decided to require the same drift
are currently providing earthquake, wind, and motion
on both sides.
protection on more than 240 buildings and bridges.
From the historic Los Angeles City Hall to Mexico’s
Thermal Factor

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

Torre Mayor and the new Shin-Yokohama High-speed
In most cases, the roof snow load without Train Station in Japan, owners, architects, engineers,
drifting or sliding is less than or equal to and contractors trust the proven
the ground snow load. This is consistent technology of Taylor Devices’
with the ASCE 7-05 provisions for the Fluid Viscous Dampers.
sloped roof load (or the “balanced” load).
That is, for an importance factor of I
= 1.0, the largest balanced load – one
for a sheltered (Ce = 1.2) unheated (Ct
= 1.2) roof – is 1.008 pg (0.7 x 1.2 x 1.2
= 1.008).
There are, however, some cases where
the balanced roof load was observed to
be larger than the ground snow load.
For example, as noted in a report by
the Structural Engineers Association of
Washington (SEAW), the peak ground
snow load in the Greater Yakima area was
31 pounds per square foot (psf ) during Taylor Devices’ Fluid Viscous Dampers give you the seismic protection
the 1996-97 Holiday Storm, while the
you need and the architectural freedom you want.
measured roof load on Freezer Buildings
and Cold Rooms was roughly 35 psf.
This observation is generally consistent w w w. t a y l o r d e v i c e s . c o m
with heat transfer and conditions leading
to retention of a snow pack. That is, in
relation to the temperature at the bottom
of a snow pack and hence the poten- North Tonawanda, NY 14120 - 0748
tial for melting, the worst case is a roof Phone: 716.694 .0800 • Fax: 716.695 .6015

snow pack on a heated building – hot air

STRUCTURE TAY24253
magazine Brace YourselfFebruary
37 Ad Structure2011
Magazine October 2009 Half-Page Island 5" x 7.5"
 6h
1 h
Upper Roof 6
Lower Roof
S < 20'
a) Geometric Criteria – Drift only for Close (S < 20ft)
Lower Roofs in Wind Shadow (S < 6h)
Smaller of hd
and (6h-S)/6
Smaller of 6hd
and (6h-S)
b) Drift Surcharge Load
Figure 3: Leeward Drift on Separated Roofs.
Unbalanced Loads
It seems that each new version of ASCE 7
brings changes to the unbalanced load provi-
sion. ASCE 7-10 is no exception. However,
the good news is that the changes make the
provision simpler (more engineer friendly)
and more realistic in terms of the applicable
roof geometrics.
Upper Bound Slope –
Unbalanced Loads
In ASCE 7-05, unbalanced loads were
required for hip and gable roofs with slopes
up to 70 degrees. This limit is the same as that
for balanced loads. That is, the slope factor
Cs is zero for roof slopes of 70 degrees and
higher, and the thinking was if fresh fallen
snow doesn’t “stick” to such steep roofs then
the drift loads would similarly not accumulate
on them.
Underlying this approach is the assumption
that, in terms of an angle of repose, drifted
snow behaves like fresh fallen snow. However,
two independent sets of observations suggest
differently. One set is from the Tahoe-Truckee
Engineers Association (TTEA). Located in a
truly beautiful part of Northern California
which gets large amounts of snow, roof snow
loading is a particularly important consider-
ation for TTEA. Their observations suggest
that unbalanced loads (across-the-ridge drifts)
only form on roof slopes of 6 on 12 or less.
The other set are observations of the rise-to-
run of roof step drifts taken from insurance
company files. The vast majority of roof step
STRUCTURE magazine
drifts had a rise-to-run of one Based on the evidence from fluid mechanics
vertical to two horizontal (1V: and a desire to simplify matters, the empirical
2H) or less. relation in Equation 1 was eliminated from
Both sets of observations sug- the ASCE 7-10 provision.
gest that the angle of repose of
“For hip and gable roofs….with a
drifted snow is about 26 degrees,
slope less than 2.38 (½ on 12) unbal-
substantially less than that for
anced snow loads are not required to
fresh fallen snow. It is possible
be applied.”
that windblown snow particles
become more rounded as a
Lower Bound Eave to Ridge Distance-
result of the transport process.
Unbalanced Load
Whatever the actual scientific
reason, the committees choose a The empirical relationship between drift
somewhat conservative approach. height hd, ground snow load pg, and upwind
fetch distance lu, in Equation 2 (Figure 7.9
“For hip and gable roofs
of ASCE 7) was originally developed from a
with slope exceeding 7 on 12
database of leeward roof step drifts.
(30.2)…unbalanced loads are
not required to be applied.”
hd = 0.433√ℓu 4√Pg+10 – 1.5 Equation 2
Lower Bound Slope-
In the database, the fetch distances were typi-
Unbalanced Loads
cally hundreds of feet. This may well have led
The lower bound slope, below to the fact that the relation is problematic for
which unbalanced loads need not much shorter fetch distances. For example,
be considered, has varied over the years. In the one calculates negative drift heights for small
original load standard ASCE 7-88, the limit fetch distances and low ground snow loads.
was 15 degrees. In ASCE 7-02, an empirical With this undesirable feature in mind, a mini-
curve fit relation: mum fetch distance of 25 feet was specified.
For the roof step geometry, an upwind fetch
70
angle = + 0.5 Equation 1 of 25 feet or less is unusual and designers did
W
not question the lower bound fetch distance
was introduced where the angle is in degrees of 25 feet.
and the eave to ridge distance W is in feet. This In ASCE 7-05, the drift height relation
was modified in ASCE 7-05 to exclude roofs in Equation 2 also was used to determine
with slopes less than ½ on 12 since there was unbalanced loads on hip and gable roofs. The
no empirical evidence of drifting W
on such shallow, near flat roofs.
Note that evidence from fluid
mechanics, specifically the behav-
ior of Venturi tubes, is consistent
with the ½ on 12 roof slope limit. Pf
In order to achieve laminar flow,
the maximum angular deviation
Sloped Upper Roof
at a Venturi tube can be no more h>S
than about 4 degrees, as shown in 1
Figure 2 (page 37). Laminar flow 1
means no flow separation and no
Lower Roof
areas of aerodynamic shade. For
the gable with ½ on 12 slope,
also shown in Figure 2, the total
angular deviation from the wind- S < 15'
ward to leeward roof surfaces is a) Geometric Criteria – Sliding Load only for
4.7 degrees. That is, based on the Close (S < 15') Lower Roof in 45˚ Shadow (S<h)
Venturi Tube analog, one expects
flow separation, areas of aerody- 0.4Pf W(15-S)/15
namics shade and drifting for the
½ on 12 roof (4.7° > 4.0°) while
one expects no flow separation, 15-S
no aerodynamic shade and no
drifting for a 3/8 on 12 roof slope b) Sliding Load
(3.58° < 4°).
Figure 4: Sliding Load on Separated Roof.
38 February 2011
windward eave to ridge distance then became
the upwind fetch with the same lower bound
of 25 feet. However, for the gable roof geom-
etry, an eave to ridge distance of 25 feet or less
is quite common. Designers questioned the
lower bound value since it controlled for the
majority of single family residences.
Simply eliminating the lower bound was
not an option due to the aforementioned
problems with Equation 2. Due to the lack
of available case histories, the Snow and Rain
Subcommittee commissioned a small study
of simulated drifts using a numerical tech-
nique developed originally by Cocca (Masters
Thesis, Rensselaer, 2006). An analysis of the
simulated drifts convinced the Subcommittee
that lowering the limit by five feet was con-
sistent with safety margins associated with
larger fetch distances. As a result Section 7.6.1
now reads:
“For W less than 20 ft, use W = Lu = 20
ft. in Fig 7-9.”
Separated Structures
If two roofs are close enough, the lower
may be subject to additional drifts or slid-
ing loads due to the presence of the higher
separated roof.
Drift Loads – Separated Structures
was steep enough (greater than ¼ on 12 for geometric criterion is based upon the 15 foot
slippery upper roof surfaces and greater than horizontal extent for attached roofs, while the
2 on 12 for non-slippery upper roof surfaces). second is based upon a 1V:1H sliding load
The load per unit length was specified to be shadow. As shown in Figure 4, the truncated
0.4pf•W, where W is the upper roof eave to load per unit length is 0.4pfW(15-s)/15.
ridge distance and the horizontal extent was To clarify the application of sliding loads
specified to be 15 feet. for both attached and separated roofs, ASCE
In ASCE 7-10, the sliding load provisions 7-10 notes:
were expanded to include separated roofs. The
“Sliding loads shall be superimposed on
lower roof is subject to a truncated sliding
the balanced snow load and need not be
load if the separation distance is less than 15
used in combination with drift, unbal-
feet and the elevation difference is greater than
anced, partial or rain-on-snow loads.”
the horizontal separation distance. The first
continued on next page
Tubular sections
custom built
to the highest standards.
Yours.

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

In ASCE 7-05, a truncated drift was specified
for the lower level roof if the roof separation
distance s was less than 20 feet. In ASCE 7-10,
the separation distance criterion is retained
and an additional geometric criterion is intro-
duced. Specifically, a leeward drift on the
lower level roof is required only if the lower SuperStruct tubular sections hold up to the strictest
roof is in the aerodynamic or wind shadow design standards without holding them back.
of the upper level roof. The wind shadow
region is assumed to trail downward from • Manufactured in a variety of shapes and sizes to
the upper level roof at a slope of 1V: 6H. As your specifications
shown in Figure 3, the leeward drift height is • Large sizes from 12” up to 48” squares and rectangles
the smaller of hd and (6h-s)/6. The first is the • Lengths up to 55’
drift height based upon the upper roof fetch • Wall thickness 5/16” to 1”
distance, while the second is based upon a • Excellent column strength and torsional properties
snow drift filling the wind shadow space on
• Aesthetically appealing
the lower level roof. The rise-to-run of the
drift is assumed to match the slope of the
wind shadow boundary; hence, the horizontal
extent is the smaller of 6hd or (6h-s).
For windward drifts, the drift is truncated
by simply eliminating the portion of the drift
between the edges of the two roofs. 800-825-6668 • www.valmont.com • Valley, Nebraska

Sliding Loads- Separated Structures Contact Kyle DeBuse at Valmont Tubing toll-free at 1-800-825-6668 ext. 3558 or
kld2@valmont.com to learn more on the design possibilities of HSS SuperStruct.
In ASCE 7-05, a sliding load was required for
a lower roof if the slope of the upper level roof

Client/Job#: 8911_ChangesToAd Color(s): Black

STRUCTURE magazine
Description: SuperStructFebruary
39 Ad 2011
Size: Flat 4.5" x 7"

a) Plan View – Roof with Interior Primary Drains and
Secondary Drains in Parapet Walls
Susceptible Bays
Figure 5: Susceptible Bays.
b) Elevation View – Adjacent Gables with Parapet Wall
Ponding
In ASCE 7-05, a ponding analysis with pri-
mary drains assumed blocked was required for
roofs with slopes less than ¼ on 12. For a ¼
on 12 roof slope, even a “generous” maximum
allowable deflection criterion of the span/100
results in the roof low point being located
above the eave. That is, the ¼
on 12 rule works in precluding
standing water if the eaves are free
draining. However, irrespective
of roof slope, one gets standing
water for other roof geometries.
Figure 5 shows two such roof
geometries that are susceptible
to ponding problems. In the first,
the roof has perimeter parapet
walls with secondary drains and
a roof surface that slopes down-
ward toward primary interior
drains. If the primary drains are
assumed to be blocked, one gets
standing water even if the roof
is much steeper than ¼ on 12.
The second figure has a similar
problem adjacent to the parapet
wall to the left and the valley in
the center.
In recognition of potential
standing water problems for roofs without
free draining eaves, ASCE 7-10 requires a
ponding instability analysis for so-called “sus-
ceptible bays.”
“Bays with a roof slope less than ¼ in./
ft. or on which water is impounded
upon them (in whole or in part) when
the primary drain system is blocked,
but the secondary system is functional,
shall be designated as susceptible bays.
Roof surfaces with a slope of at least ¼
in per ft. (1.19°) towards points of free
drainage need not to be considered a
susceptible bay.”
Summary
This article summarizes the most substantive
changes to the Snow and Rain provisions of
ASCE 7-10. The changes to the Minimum
Load and the RTU Drift provisions were
intended to clarify the existing provision. A
new Thermal factor category was established
for a freezer building and cold rooms. The
revised lower and upper bound roof slopes for
unbalanced loads are straight forward, easier
to apply and based on observed behavior. For
separated structures, drift loads are no longer
required for the lower roof outside the wind
shadow region, while sliding loads are now
required for lower roofs within a 45-degree
sliding load shadow of the upper sloped roof.
Finally, the change to the Ponding provision
was intended to alert users to the fact that
certain roof geometrics require a ponding
analysis irrespective of the roof slope.▪

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

Fyfe Ad-Oct 2010.indd 1 12/1/10 10:55 AM

STRUCTURE magazine 40 February 2011
 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.

Quality assurance corner
Tips for Designing Constructible Concrete Structures
Part 1
By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E.
T
he economy of cast-in-place con-
crete structures depends in large
part on decisions made early in
design regarding framing dimen-
sions, repetition and simplicity of formwork.
Once design is underway, attention to the ease
of reinforcing steel placement contributes
further to the economy of design. The term
“constructability” with respect to cast-in-place
concrete construction refers primarily to the
ease with which formwork can be constructed
and reinforcing steel placed. The next several
QA Corner articles will discuss cast-in-place
concrete constructability tips.
This month’s article focuses on a fundamen-
tal theme – making sure the reinforcing steel
fits. As simple as it sounds, this issue is often
overlooked. What follows is a list of sugges-
tions related to placement of reinforcing steel.
Envision placing the reinforcing steel when
designing the structure: Engineers should
imagine themselves in the field trying to place
the reinforcing steel in the structures that they
design. Visualizing the construction process
will aid in catching constructability flaws.
Draw reinforcing steel details to scale to
verify that the bars will fit: Look for areas
where reinforcing steel congestion may be a
problem. Areas where congestion problems
often occur include,
• Slab/column connections
• Narrow beams
• Columns with more than 2% vertical
reinforcing steel
• Areas of slabs perforated with multiple
openings, particularly near columns
and slab edges
• Slabs in which electrical cable and
conduit are installed
Figure 1: Actual bar dimensions must be considered.
STRUCTURE magazine
meeting and exceeding requirements and expectations
• Areas of slabs where embedded items
such as those required to support
facade supports
Designers need to consider actual dimen-
sions of reinforcing bars, including hook
dimensions and bend radiuses. Figure 1
illustrates an example of wishful thinking
by an engineer attempting to fit too much
reinforcing steel in too little space.
Consider conflicts where multiple typical
details occur at a single location: Engineers
often use typical details to show frequently
occurring conditions. Constructability issues
can occur when multiple typical details occur
at a single location.
Look for congestion when there are more
than two layers of top or bottom bars in
thin slabs: Two-way slabs usually have two
layers of top bars and two layers of bottom
bars spanning in orthogonal directions.
Occasionally there can be a third layer of
top or bottom bars, such as in a two-way slab
where a non-typical diagonally spanning bay
frames to an orthogonal bay. A third layer
of top bars can be especially problematic,
particularly at slab edges where those bars
are hooked.
Consider hook dimensions when selecting
reinforcing: Top bars with hooks are easiest
to install when the hooks can be oriented
straight down as shown in Figure 2. This can
be more readily achieved by using the smallest
bars practical and, when the bars are #5 or
smaller, specifying the use of 90 degree stirrup
hooks. Ninety degree stirrup hooks are smaller
than 90 degree standard hooks for #3, #4 and
#5 bars. For example, the dimension of a 90
degree hook on a #6 bar is 12 inches versus
6 inches for a 90 degree stirrup hook on a #5
Figure 2: Bars with smaller hooks are easier to install in thin slabs.
42 February 2011
bar. When hooked top bars are required in a
7.5-inch thick slab, the #5 bars can be easily
installed with ¾-inch clear cover top and
bottom, without having to rotate the bars to
install them. While a larger number of smaller
bars will be required, the cost for installing
reinforcing steel is usually estimated based on
the tonnage of reinforcing steel rather than
number of bars. The only issue related to
using 90 degree stirrup hooks is that ACI 318
specifies that a transverse bar perpendicular
to the hooked bar be located inside the bend.
This is generally not an issue though, since
there is usually such a bar parallel to slab edges
anyway. A good rule-of-thumb is to use bars
of sufficiently small size such that the hook
dimension does not exceed 80% of the slab
thickness. While adhering to this rule may not
always be possible, it’s a good starting point.
Avoid using 180 degree hooks in slabs:
While the use of 180 degree bar hooks
might seem like a good idea, doing so can
complicate the placement of reinforcing
steel. Consider the reinforcing steel shown
in Figure 3. While bars with 90 degree
hooks can be dropped straight down into
place, bars with 180 degree hooks cannot be
dropped into place unless the perpendicular
edge bar is temporarily moved out of the
way and then re-positioned after the hooked
bars are installed. Consider top reinforcing
steel occurring in a slab at a corner column.
Visualize placing the slab top bars in both
directions using 90 degree hooks versus
placing bars with 180 degree hooks.
Limit the percentage of column verti-
cal reinforcing steel to 2% for economy
and 4% for constructability: ACI 318 per-
mits columns to be reinforced with up to
Figure 3: Avoid using 180 degree hooks in slabs.
8% vertical reinforcing steel. Unfortunately,
columns reinforced with 8% steel using lap
splices will have 16% steel at splice locations
unless mechanical splice couplers are used.
Figure 4 shows the reinforcing steel in two
24-inch by 24-inch columns – one reinforced
with 8-#11 (ρ=2%) and one reinforced with
16-#11 (ρ=4%). The section was cut where
the bars are lap spliced. Note the close bar
spacing in the column with 16 vertical bars.
Large numbers of vertical bars also require
more ties. Installing beam and slab reinforc-
ing through heavily reinforced columns also
can be difficult.
Heavily reinforced columns are not only
difficult to build, they are often not the most
economical design.
Most of the axial load capacity in a con-
crete column is provided by the concrete,
not the reinforcing steel. Figure 5 compares
the load capacity of three 24-inch by 24-inch
columns (using Equation 10-2 in ACI 318)
using different quantities of reinforcing steel
and concrete strengths. Note that doubling
the reinforcing from 2% to 4% increases the
column strength by only 22% while increas-
ing the compressive strength by a relatively
small 30%, from 5 ksi to 6.5 ksi, achieves
the same strength increase. While costs of
concrete, reinforcing steel and labor vary
geographically, the most economical column
design is generally one with no more than 2%
vertical reinforcing.
24”x24” ConCrete Column Design options
f'c As ρ 0Pn
5 ksi 8-#11 2.2%
5 ksi 16-#11 4.3%
6.5 ksi 8=#11 2.2%
Figure 5: Column strength is most influenced by concrete strength.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 4: Avoid using more than 4% reinforcing
steel in columns.
Avoid using bundled bars in columns: For
the reasons discussed above, avoid using bun-
dled bars in columns. If you have to bundle
the bars, the column is too small. Splices
in bundled bars must be staggered, which
adds another level of complexity. Likewise,
mechanical splice couplers, when required,
cannot be easily installed on bundled bars.
Coordinate placement of slab embedded
electrical conduit: Designers must specify
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
criteria for installing slab embedded cable
and conduit in floor slabs. Specifying such
criteria on the general notes will, at a mini-
mum, facilitate awareness that caution must
be taken in coordinating where and how
cables and conduits may be installed with-
out compromising the structural integrity of
the floor framing.
Specify reinforcing steel placing prior-
ity for reinforcing steel in slabs: Although
reinforcing steel placing priority usually does
not affect constructability, placing priority can
affect flexural strength and deflection, espe-
cially in thin slabs. Specifying placing priority
on the drawings and requiring that placing
priority be indicated on the reinforcing steel
placing drawings can eliminate conflicts and
problems in the field.▪
Clifford Schwinger, P.E. is a Vice President
and Quality Assurance Manager at The
Harman Group. He can be contacted at
cschwinger@harmangroup.com.
% increase
1635k –
1977k 22%
2008k 23%
43 February 2011
Great achievements
Fazlur Rahman Khan
The Einstein of Structural Engineering
By Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.
M
ost visible among America’s
impressive list of elite
engineering giants are its
leading-edge structural engi-
neers, the designers of spectacular bridges,
skyscrapers, sports facilities, space-age-looking
buildings and national monuments – record-
setting complex structures that are often the
biggest, tallest, longest and/or first. Foremost
on that list is Pakistan native Fazlur R. “Faz”
Khan, a structural trailblazer whose break-
throughs in structural engineering for tall and
long-span buildings exerted an unprecedented
and lasting influence on the profession, both
nationally and internationally.
Mir M. Ali, University of Illinois professor
and author of Art of the Skyscraper: The Genius
of Fazlur Khan, said that in addition to being
labeled as one of the greatest engineers of our
time, Khan was many times referred to as the
“Einstein of Structural Engineering.”
According to David Billington, coiner of the
phrase “structural art,” Khan’s work exempli-
fied that concept. Said Billington, “The first
fundamental of structural art is the discipline
of efficiency; a desire for minimum materi-
als, resulting in less weight, less cost and less
Sears Tower, now known as the Willis Tower.
Courtesy of SOM and Hedrick Blessing.
STRUCTURE magazine
notable structural engineers
visual mass.” In his many notable skyscrapers,
Kahn clearly mastered those objectives, often
influencing the final architectural appearance
of signature buildings in a major way.
Considered the father of tubular design
in high-rises, Khan was a firm believer that
meshing the talents of structural engineers
and architects always resulted in the best solu-
tions. According to John Zils, senior engineer
and associate partner with Skidmore, Owings
& Merrill (SOM), “It was his unique abil-
ity to bridge the gap between architectural
design and structural engineering that truly
set Faz apart from other structural engineers.”
Because of that, Khan became an icon in both
architecture and structural engineering.
Born on April 3, 1929, in Dhaka, Bengal
(then in British India), Fazlur was the son of
Abdur Rahman and Khadija (Khatun) Khan.
His father Abdur was a well-respected high
school mathematics teacher and the author
of several seminal textbooks on the subject.
He eventually became the Director of Public
Instruction in the region of Bengal. In addi-
tion to his father, Fazlur’s early decision to
become an engineer was influenced by an
older cousin who preceded him into college
to study engineering.
After completing undergraduate coursework
at the Bengal Engineering College, University
of Calcutta, Fazlur proceeded to the University
of Dhaka, where he received his bachelor’s in
engineering degree in 1950, finishing first in
his class. A Fulbright Scholarship, combined
with a Pakistani government scholarship,
brought him to the U.S. and the University
of Illinois at Urbana. There, he earned two
master’s degrees – one in structural engineer-
ing, and the other in theoretical and applied
mechanics – followed by a PhD in structural
engineering in 1955.
Khan immediately joined the internationally
known architectural and engineering firm
of SOM in Chicago. By 1960, he was fast
establishing his trademark of pioneering cre-
ative concepts for tall buildings framed with
structural steel, concrete and/or composite
systems. His “tube system,” using all the exte-
rior wall perimeter structure of a building to
simulate a thin-walled tube, revolutionized
tall building design.
In 1962, while designing the 38-story,
reinforced concrete Brunswick Building in
44 February 2011
Fazlur R. Khan. Courtesy of Skidmore, Owings &
Merrill LLP (SOM) and Stuart-Rogers.
Chicago, he developed methods for using
shear wall and frame interaction to resist lat-
eral forces. Later, he refined this system to
come up with the “tube-in-tube concept,”
initially used for the 52-story One Shell Plaza
Building in Houston.
Khan’s diagonal-framed tube system, first
used for the John Hancock Center in Chicago,
connected widely spaced exterior columns
with diagonals on all four sides of the build-
ing. The concept allowed the 1965 Hancock
building to reach 100 stories, making it the
tallest building in the world. The Hancock
Center and Khan’s other masterpiece – the
110-story, 1974 Sears Tower with its unique
“bundled tube” structural system – drew
worldwide attention to the advancements that
American structural engineers were making in
skyscraper design. At 1,468 feet, Sears Tower
remained the world’s tallest building for more
than 20 years. Clad in a black aluminum skin
with bronze-tinted, glare-reducing glass and
with a gross area of 4.4 million square feet,
the structure was impressive and massive by
any standards. Only the Pentagon had more
space at the time.
Khan’s portfolio of notable international
structures includes the Haj Terminal Building
at the Jeddah International Airport in Saudi
Arabia, an enormous tent-like structure cover-
ing nearly one square kilometer (105 acres)
of area, more space than any other roof in
the world when built. Kahn allowed that the
pioneering design of the terminal, with its
intricate fabric tension roof, was based on
the union of architecture and engineering,
form and function.
Zils said, “In addition to Faz being an inno-
vator of the highest order as evidenced by
his introduction to the profession of numer-
ous innovative structural systems (tubular
structural concept, tube-in-tube, braced tube,
bundled tube, etc), he was the consummate
team leader. You never worked for Faz, you
always worked with him as an equal. Plus, his
enthusiasm for whatever the task at hand or
the project was contagious. His philosophy
was that there was always something new and
interesting about any task or project, and that
it was up to us to find and pursue the issue.”
Many times, Zils observed Faz getting
involved in something that appeared on the
surface to be quite mundane, only to find
that in the end he had discovered something
unique or interesting about it.
Said Zils, “I believe his ability to see the
opportunities that each situation presents
was a major factor in Faz’s ability to think
beyond the norm, and create and innovate
as he did. Working on projects with Faz was
always a joy because he was always probing
and challenging the norm. He always did
this in a collaborative way, incorporating the
entire team in the process. As a result, you
We Protect More Than Steel.
COLORS JOB#
STRUCTURE magazine
4C AZZ-36326 AZZ-36326_7.5x4.75
PROOF SIZE
always felt a part of the process, and when
the task or project was complete, all who
participated felt some sense of ownership in
the result.” This collaboration, believed Zils,
is why Khan was able to produce so many
highly creative and innovative designs in his
relatively short career.
Active in several engineering groups, Khan
was a leader in many of them. He was, for
instance, chairman of the Council on Tall
Buildings and Urban Habitat from 1979 until
his death. He was also an adjunct professor at
Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), often
teaching and working there late at night.
In addition to his participation in profes-
sional societies, and providing leadership and
mentoring to young and up-and-coming engi-
neers, Khan was active beyond engineering in
his community. For many years, he served on
the board of trustees for the condominium
development in Chicago where he lived. And
he never forgot his roots.
Khan’s homeland came to be called Pakistan
in 1947. During 1971, the country was
divided into East Pakistan (now Bangladesh)
and West Pakistan, with its government
and military centralized in West Pakistan.
Because of this, the economic conditions
in East Pakistan (Khan’s homeland) dete-
riorated so much that its people protested
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
REASON N0. 362.
Why galvanize? Consider nine floors of employees
who depend on their steel high-rise offices to work as hard as they do.
Corrosion costs our economy almost $300 billion annually. But the father
working in suite 517 is a stronger reason. Learn more at azzgalvanizing.com.
FILE NAME
45 February 2011
OK as is
OK with changes
the unequal distribution of the country’s
income and wealth. To discourage unrest,
the Pakistani government sent its military
into East Pakistan to terrorize the people.
Ten million Bangladeshi refugees eventually
made their way to India.
As a result, Khan founded a Chicago-based
organization, the Bangladesh Emergency
Welfare Appeal, to help the people in his
homeland. The group, which met at Khan’s
home, raised money for aid and for lobbying
government officials. Many of the Bengalis
involved (including Khan) had family and
friends in Bangladesh who were in obvious
danger; Khan’s group did everything it could
to make it safer for them. India’s aggressive
intervention finally put an end to the killing.
Fazlur’s younger brother Zillur Khan said,
“My brother was not only a creative struc-
tural engineer, he was also a philosopher,
visionary, educator and humanist. As my
guide, he always told me, ‘Think logically
and find the relationships which exist
in every system, because it will help you
understand nature itself, making living more
meaningful and exciting.’”
Khan believed that engineers needed a
broader perspective on life, saying, “The
technical man must not be lost in his own
technology; he must be able to appreciate
life, and life is art, drama, music, and most
importantly, people.” Khan, himself, was an
aficionado of classical music, especially Bach
and Brahms. For enjoyment, he loved singing
Tagore’s poetic songs in Bengali with family
and friends.
Khan and his wife, Liselotte, who emigrated
from Austria, had one daughter, born in
1960. A structural engineer like her father,
Yasmin Sabina Khan said of her father, “He
was concerned, foremost, with people and
how engineering affected them. He wanted
his structures to be part of a culture and
society that strove to benefit its people.” In
celebration of his life, she wrote an in-depth
book about him and the impact of his work,
Engineering Architecture: The Vision of Fazlur
R. Khan, published in 2004.
Khan died of a heart attack while on a busi-
ness trip in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on March
27, 1982. Only 53, he was a general partner
in SOM, the only engineer holding that high
position at the time. His body was returned
to the U.S. and is buried in his adopted home
of Chicago.
Posthumously, the city of Chicago named the
intersection of Franklin and Jackson Streets,
located at the foot of the Sears Tower, “Fazlur
R. Khan Way” in his honor. One year later, in
1999, Engineering News-Record listed him as
STRUCTURE magazine
one of the world’s top 20 structural engineers
of the last 125 years. Three decades earlier,
when Khan was 41 years old, the Chicago
Junior Chamber of Commerce had named
him Chicagoan of the Year in Architecture
and Engineering.
Among Khan’s other honors were the Wason
Medal (1971) and Alfred Lindau Award
(1973) from the American Concrete Institute,
Thomas Middlebrooks Award (1972) and
Ernest Howard Award (1977) from ASCE,
Alumni Honor Award (1972) from the
University of Illinois, Kimbrough Medal
(1973) from the American Institute of Steel
Construction, Oscar Faber Medal (1973)
from the Institution of Structural Engineers
(UK), AIA Gold Medal for Distinguished
Achievement (1983) and Aga Khan Award
for Architecture (1983) from the American
Institute of Architects, and John Parmer
Award (1987) from the Structural Engineers
Association of Illinois.
Khan was elected into the National
Academy of Engineering in 1973, and
received Honorary Doctorate Degrees
from Northwestern University in 1973 and
Lehigh University in 1980. In 2006, he
was inducted into the Illinois Engineering
Hall of Fame (sponsored by the Illinois
Engineering Council).
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
46 February 2011
His works and his citations are reflective of
Khan’s main legacy – more than any other
individual, he helped usher in a renaissance in
skyscraper construction in the U.S. during the
second half of the 20th century. He epitomized
both structural engineering achievement and
the need for creative collaborative between
architect and engineer. To him and his col-
laborators, for architectural design to reach its
highest levels, it had to be solidly grounded
in structural realities.▪
Richard G. Weingardt, P.E., is Chairman
of the Board for Richard Weingardt
Consultants, Inc. in Denver, Colorado.
Mr. Weingardt is the author of nine books.
His latest, Circles in the Sky: The Life and
Times of George Ferris, is the one-and-only
biography of Ferris and how he built his
1893 Ferris Wheel. Mr.Weingardt can be
reached at rweingardt@aol.com.
The online version of this article con-
tains additional photographs. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.

Creating an Alternative for Performance Concrete
By Jack Gibbons and Mark F. Chrzanowski, P.E.
N
ow more than ever, the concrete
industry is looking for ways to do
it better, faster, more economical,
and with greater environmental
stewardship. All of this requires mechanisms
for innovation in an industry that can be slow
to change. Author Jack Gibbons, with the help
of ACI 329 Chair Mark F. Chrzanowski, look
at how the American Concrete Industry has
set their sights on developing a culture that
encourages innovation through performance-
based delivery of concrete.
One of the most significant recent develop-
ments in concrete is the creation of American
Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 329,
Performance Criteria for Ready Mixed Concrete.
This committee formally recognizes the need
to move beyond prescriptive mix specifica-
tions in order to meet the demand for higher
performance concrete and the more rapid cycle
construction schedules that today’s projects
require, while addressing the need to practice
greater environmental stewardship by allow-
ing a project team to tailor the utilization of
materials and construction means and methods
to the specific needs of a given project.
Back in 2004, the Strategic Development
Council of ACI identified the move from pre-
scriptive to performance-based specifications
as an industry-critical technology. This led
to the creation of Innovative Task Group-8,
(ITG-8), whose mission statement read, “to
develop a report on performance criteria and
test methods for concrete materials that could
be used in codes and specifications.”
History
Since their first meeting in Fall of 2007,
members of ITG-8 have been busy writ-
ing a guide report that investigates the
issue of specifying concrete through per-
formance-based criteria. In December
2010, ACI published ITG-8R-10 Report on
Performance-Based Requirements for Concrete
and subsequently discharged the members
of ITG-8. It will now be the task of newly
formed ACI Committee 329 to champion
the concept of performance-based concrete.
Goals
According to ACI 329 Chairman
Chrzanowski, the short term goal for ACI
STRUCTURE magazine
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
329 is to ballot the document and adopt the
ITG-8 Report as the an ACI 329 document.
Possible future goals include:
• Develop additional performance-based
criteria and guidance for future revi-
sions to the ITG-8/ACI 329 Report.
• Review ACI Documents to identify
barriers to performance-based specifi-
cations and work with committees to
address the barriers.
• Review current industry practices to
identify barriers to performance-based
specifications and work within the
industry to remove the barriers.
• Document performance projects with
the intent of educating.
What does this mean?
(Author’s Opinion)
I participate in a seminar each year at
the World of Concrete titled, How to Use
Chemical Admixtures Effectively. Using
admixtures individually, or in many cases,
in combination, is the primary tool advanc-
ing the performance of concrete. Today water
reducers are more powerful than we could
have ever imagined, and accelerators and
retarders are often used all year long. Rapid
cycle concrete construction is common
today and would not be possible without
the creative use of chemical admixtures. It
wasn’t that long ago when a three-day cycle
was the accepted norm for post-tensioned
concrete. Then it was reduced to two. Today
it’s not unusual to pull strand in only one
day. Durability has increased with the use
of supplementary cementitious materials
(SCMs), as well as our ability to produce low
heat mass concrete, and SCMs are crucial
to the production of high- and ultra high-
strength concrete. All of this has been made
possible because of mixes being designed for
performance and not by prescription.
One of the best comments I’ve seen on
the current advances in concrete construc-
tion was from Stan Korista of Skidmore,
Owings & Merrill in an interview he gave
on the design and construction of Chicago’s
100-story Trump Tower. Korista states,
“What has made the difference for concrete
construction is the development of high-
strength concrete mixes, the greatly increased
efficiency of concrete pumps and placing
47 February 2011
InSIghtS
booms, and the development of forming
systems that can be erected safely and quickly
then moved to the next location.” Having
been personally involved in developing the
mixes for the Trump project, the only change
I would make to Stan’s comment is that it
isn’t just about high strength, it’s about high
performance. Only about 40% of the Trump
Tower concrete was high strength, but every
cubic yard was “high performance” for con-
struction purposes. Another published quote
regarding the construction of Trump Tower
came from Dave Alexander, Senior Vice
President of McHugh Construction, con-
crete contractor for the project “….moving
and placing 180,000 cubic yards of con-
crete…..was a technical challenge that might
have been impossible only 10 years ago.”
SOM wrote a performance specification for
the concrete which thoroughly detailed their
requirements and then let Prairie Materials
(the ready mix producer) use their expertise
to design the mix.
Conclusion
ITG-8 and ACI 329 are laying the ground-
work for how the concrete industry can
proceed. We have only scratched the sur-
face of how successful it can be designing
for performance. The Trump Tower is only
one example where performance was essential
in every area. Future examples may be even
more extreme and their success may depend
on designing for performance.▪
Jack Gibbons is the Central Region
Manager for the Concrete Reinforcing
Steel Institute. Jack is a long time member
of ACI and serves on several technical
committees, and is a regular speaker at the
World of Concrete. He may be reached at
jgibbons@crsi.org.
Mark F. Chrzanowski, P.E. is a Principal
Structural Technologist for CH2M HILL and
is currently serving as an expert in concrete
materials to the Panama Canal Authority
(ACP). Mark also is a member of ACI and
serves on several technical committees. He may
be reached at mchrzano@ch2m.com.
NOTEWORTHY news and information

Editorial Board Appoints New Member

Dr. Roger A. LaBoube has been appointed to the STRUCTURE Editorial
Board as a representative of the steel industry. Dr. LaBoube is Curator’s
Teaching Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, Director of the Wei-Wen
Yu Center for Cold-Formed Steel Structures and Director of the Student
Design and Experiential Learning Center at the Missouri University of Science
& Technology (formerly University of Missouri-Rolla). Dr. LaBoube has an
extensive background in the design and behavior of cold-formed steel structures.
Roger is active in several professional organiza-
tions and societies, including a member of the
American Iron and Steel Institute’s Committee on
Specifications for the North American Specification
for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members and a member of the
AISI Committee on Framing Standards. He is a Registered Professional
Engineer in Missouri.
Please join us in welcoming Dr. LaBoube to the Editorial Board.

BRIDGE RESOURCE GUIDE a definitive listing of major bridge professionals and suppliers

Top Firms Engineering & Construction
Buckland & Taylor Ltd.
Phone: 206-216-3933
Email: rsro@b-t.com
Web: www.b-t.com
Product: Bridge Engineering
Description: Buckland & Taylor Ltd. provides
specialized bridge engineering services. Founded in 1972
with a goal of providing the highest standard of bridge
engineering, the Company is recognized throughout
North America and internationally as a leader in the
design, evaluation, rehabilitation and construction
engineering of bridges of all sizes and types.
DBM Contractors, Inc.
Phone: 800-562-8460
Email: rcarnevale@dbmcm.com
Web: www.dbmcontractors.com
Product: Bridge Foundations
Description: Design-build specialty geotechnical
contractor specializing in drilled foundation support, earth
retention, slope stabilization, and ground improvement for
structural support and seismic hazard mitigation.
FIGG
Phone: 850-224-7400
Email: lfigg@figgbridge.com
Web: www.figgbridge.com
Product: Bridge Design
Description: FIGG specializes in bridge design and
construction engineering and management. Our
focus on bridges allows us to create landmarks that
incorporate function, sustainable design and beauty
to enhance the quality of life for communities across
America in the philosophy of Creating Bridges as Art®.
Hayward Baker Inc.
Phone: 800-456-6548
Email: info@HaywardBaker.com
Web: www.HaywardBaker.com
Product: Ground Improvement
Description: Dry Soil Mixing, Dynamic
Compaction, Injection Systems for Expansive Soils,
Rapid Impact Compaction, Rigid Inclusions, Vibro
Compaction, Vibro Concrete Columns, Vibro
PiersTM, Vibro Replacement, Wet Soil Mixing,
Cement Grouting, Chemical Grouting, Compaction
Grouting, Fracture Grouting, Jet Grouting,
Polyurethane Grouting, Wick Drains.
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Phone: 206-622-5822
Email: david.mcmullen@kpff.com
Web: www.kpff.com
Product: Bridge Engineering
Description: KPFF provides planning, design, and
construction support services for new bridges and
bridge replacements; widening, rehabilitation, and
retrofit of structures; load ratings; and inspections.
Projects include simple stream crossings, urban
interchanges, grade separations over railroads,
construction at remote sites, long-span structures,
and floating bridges.
VSL
Phone: 800-899-1016
Email: info@structural.net
Web: www.vsl.net
Product: Bridge Construction Services
Description: With experience on over 130 major
projects worldwide, VSL has resources from proven
systems to constant innovation for the most
challenging projects. Resources include special
superstructure construction techniques such as cast-in-
place cantilever, precast, incremental launching & stay
cables. Custom designed equipment includes precast
erection gantries, form travelers & strand jacks.
Software Vendors/Developers
ADAPT Corporation
Phone: 650-306-2400
Email: info@adaptsoft.com
Web: www.adaptsoft.com
Product: ADAPT-ABI
Description: Easy-to-use, cost effective, and practical
bridge design software for all of your concrete bridge
types: balanced cantilever (cast-in-place or precast),
incrementally launched, span-by-span, cable-stayed,
precast-prestressed girders with field splicing and
topping slab, box girder bridges and more. Handles
geometry and stress control during construction and
reports service load design values.
Computers & Structures, Inc.
Phone: 510-649-2200
Email: info@csiberkeley.com
Web: www.csiberkeley.com
Product: CSIBridge
Description: From the developers of SAP2000,
CSIBridge is a new, comprehensive state-of-the-
art software product for the structural & seismic
analysis, design and rating of simple and complex
bridges. All operations are integrated across a single
user interface that provides an easy-to-use and
intuitive workflow environment.
GT STRUDL
Phone: 404-894-2260
Email: joan.incrocci@ce.gatech.edu
Web: www.ce.gatech.edu
Product: GT STRUDL
Description: GT STRUDL Comprehensive Linear/
Nonlinear, Static/Dynamic analysis features for
Frame and Finite element structures includes moving
load generation, response spectrum, transient, and
pushover analyses. Models plastic hinges, discrete
dampers, tension/compression only members and
nonlinear connections. Multi-Processor Solver Feature
is available which enables the solution of static/
dynamic models with over 300,000 DOF.
MIDASoft, Inc.
Phone: 212-835-1666
Email: midasoft@MidasUser.com
Web: www.MidasUser.com
Product: Midas Civil 2011
Description: Midas Civil 2011 is the leading structural
steel design software with live load optimizers for
curved/straight girder, composite, skewed slab, frame,
and arch bridges. Other applications include segmental
post-tensioning, suspension, cable-stayed, and culvert
bridges. Midas Civil is continuously enhanced to
be fast, user-friendly, and equipped with innovative
graphic components.

STRUCTURE magazine 48 February 2011

Pile Dynamics, Inc
Phone: 216-831-6131
Email: media@pile.com
Web: www.pile.com/grl
Product: GRLWEAP
Description: GRLWEAP 2010: Available in Standard
and Offshore Wave versions. The most widely used
pile driving simulation software in now more powerful
and user friendly. New features improve the accuracy
of predicted stresses, bearing capacities, blow counts
and installation time.
POSTEN Engineering Systems
Phone: 510-275-4750
Email: sales@postensoft.com
Web: www.postensoft.com
Product: POSTEN Multistory
Description: Not only the most efficient &
comprehensive Post-tensioned Concrete Software that
automatically designs the tendons, drapes as well as
columns for you (no fiddling, no time wasting), but
also the only software specifically designed to produce
efficient, cost saving, sustainable designs with automatic
documentation of material savings for LEED.
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com
Product: RISA-3D
Description: With RISA-3D’s versatile modeling
environment and intuitive graphic interface you
can model any structure from bridges to buildings
in minutes. Get the most out of your model with
advanced features such as moving loads, dynamic
analysis, and over 40 design codes. Structural design
has never been so thorough or easy!
Strand7 Pty Ltd
Phone: 252-504-2282
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Web: www.strand7.com
Product: Strand7
Description: Strand7 is a sensibly priced FEA system.
It comprises preprocessing (with CAD import,
automeshing), solvers (linear, non linear, dynamic
and thermal) and postprocessing. Release 2.4’s many
new features include staged construction, a moving
load module, new solvers including quasi-static for
shrinkage and creep/relaxation problems.
Suppliers
CETCO
Phone: 847-851-1800
Email: CDPinfo@cetco.com
Web: www.cetco.com/cdp
Product: Shore Pac Polymer Drilling Slurry
Description: Shore Pac is a free-flowing, dry,
granular polymer. Shore Pac polymer has a molecular
weight that creates high viscosities at low dosage
concentrations. When mixed with fresh water, the
polymer chains uncoil creating a strong bond that
binds the excavated soil solids, facilitating removal
from the excavation.
STRUCTURE magazine
CONTECH Construction Products Inc.
Phone: 800-338-1122
Email: nollj@contech-cpi.com
Web: www.contech-cpi.com
Product: CONSPAN® Bridge Systems
Description: CON/SPAN Bridge Systems’
precast modular units provide quick, aesthetic and
environmentally preferred solutions for pedestrian
and roadway bridges. Each structure, complete with
precast headwalls and wingwalls, is custom-designed
and can accommodate architectural treatments/
facings. CON/SPAN bridges, with span ranges from
12 – 60 feet, are provided by CONTECH.
Product: CONTECH Structural Plate
Description: CONTECH Structural Plate products
include MULTI-PLATE®, Aluminum Structural
Plate, Aluminum Box Culvert, SUPER-SPANTM
and SUPER-PLATE® bridge solutions. Structural
Plate options feature fast, easy low cost installation
and proven durability. These structures, part of
CONTECH’s bridge product line, account for over
45,000 installations worldwide.
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.
Rapid Set®
Phone: 800-929-3030
Email: jong@ctscement.com
Web: www.ctscement.com
Product: KSC Type-K Cement
Description: ASTM C-845 Type-K Cement
Shrinkage-Compensating Concrete (SCC) has been
successfully used in over 800 bridge decks since
the 1960s. SCC characteristics include reduced
permeability, excellent durability and little to no
cracks, increasing the concrete life cycle of the decks
and lowering maintenance costs.
Product: Rapid Set® Construction Cement
Description: Rapid Set® is a brand of fast-setting
cement products used in concrete applications
requiring the highest durability and fastest strength
gain, achieving structural or drive-on strength in one
hour. High durability makes Rapid Set® ideal for
bridges, highways, airport pavements, tunnels, parking
decks, and roadways.
Product: Rapid Set® Low-PTM Cement
Description: Rapid Set Low-P Cement is a specialty
formulated Rapid Set® cement. When incorporated
into a concrete, the performance includes very
low permeability, high durability and corrosion
resistance. These attributes are highly desirable for
structural repairs and bonded overlays in exterior and
harsh environments.
The Dyson Corporation, Inc.
Phone: 440-946-3500
Email: mhiggins@dysoncorp.com
Web: www.dysoncorp.com
Product: Fasteners and Construction Accessories
Description: The Dyson Corporation manufactures
domestic fasteners, forgings and machined parts
for major steel and simple steel bridge structures,
including large diameter structural bolts and nuts,
wire rope cable sockets, bridge pins and nuts, eye
bolts, turnbuckles, clevises, stirrup rods, threaded
foundation rods and studs.
49 February 2011
Hayward Baker Inc.
Phone: 800-456-6548
Email: info@HaywardBaker.com
Web: www.HaywardBaker.com
Product: Earth Retention
Description: Anchors, Anchor Block Slope
Stabilization, Gabion Systems, Micropile Slide
Stabilization, Sheet Piles, Soil Nailing, Soldier Piles
& Lagging, TRD – Soil Mix Walls, Slurry Walls,
Jet Grouting, Cement Grouting.
Product: Structural Support
Description: Augercast Piles, Drilled Shafts, Driven
Piles, Franki Piles (PIFs), Helical Piles, Jacked Piers,
MacropilesTM, Micropiles, Pit Underpinning.
Western Wood Structures
Phone: 800-547-5411
Email: bridges@westernwoodstructures.com
Web: www.westernwoodstructures.com
Product: Timber Bridges
Description: Western Wood Structures is a sales
and engineering company specializing in the
design, fabrication, distribution, and installation of
timber bridges. We design and supply vehicular and
pedestrian bridges, using the highest quality, pressure-
treated, glulam timber. Experience our enduring
commitment to quality, achieved through 40 years of
premium performance.
Wheeler
Phone: 800-328-3986
Email: info@wheeler-con.com
Web: www.wheeler-con.com
Product: Prefabricated Bridge Kits
Description: Steel, timber and FRP bridge kits for
recreation and vehicular applications. Fully engineered
and ready for installation.
Wheeling Corrugating
Phone: 304-234-2326
Email: bensonmw@wheelingcorrugating.com
Web: www.wheelingcorrugating.com
Product: Stay-In-Place Steel Bridge Forms
Description: Wheeling Bridge Form is a heavy-duty
steel decking system for forming bridge slabs quickly and
permanently. High strength, galvanized Wheeling Bridge
Deck is specially designed to sustain heavy loads and
adapts to pre-stressed concrete, built-up girders, or steel
beam bridges. Wheeling Bridge Deck also provides a safe,
solid, working platform.
Williams Form Engineering Corp.
Phone: 616-866-0815
Email: williams@williamsform.com
Web: www.williamsform.com
Product: All-Thread Rebar
Description: Williams Form Engineering
Corporation has been providing threaded steel bars
and accessories for rock anchors, soil anchors, high
capacity concrete anchors, micro piles, tie rods, tie
backs, strand anchors, hollow bar anchors, post
tensioning systems, and concrete forming hardware
systems in the construction industry for over 85 years.
All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2011
Editorial Calendar are now available on the website,
www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Listings are provided
as a courtesy. STRUCTURE® magazine is not
responsible for errors.

Beauty and the Beast
Wild Beast Music Pavilion at the
California Institute of the Arts (CalArts)
By Bruce Gibbons, P.E., S.E. CEng, LEED AP
award winners and outstanding projects Spotlight
Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. received an Outstanding Project Award for the Wild
Beast Music Pavilion project in the 2010 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural
Engineering awards program (Category – New Buildings under $10M)

C
omposer Morton Feldman used the metaphor “wild beast”
to describe what he believed was the generative vigor
within art. The new indoor-outdoor music pavilion on
the CalArts campus in Valencia, California, is wild but
welcoming, featuring a flowing, arched roofline. Positioned just inside
the main campus entry, the new structure serves as a prominent
gateway to the campus.
The Wild Beast’s versatility expands the educational resources of the
school. The venue functions as a classroom, as a 100-seat indoor music hall
and, when the hangar-style doors are open, as an outdoor amphitheater
with a capacity for up to 500 spectators. It can be used for instruction,
rehearsal, performances and student gatherings. Through creative col-
laboration between the architect and engineer, the image of the project
evolved from the client’s functional requirements for additional classroom
space for their music program into an iconic project that has now been
adopted by CalArts as a primary symbol of artistic creativity.
LA-based architectural firm Hodgetts+Fung envisioned a space echoing
the interior of a string instrument and called for a light and flowing roof
form. This aesthetic goal required the structural engineer to optimize the
balance between form and function, and two concepts were investigated
with the goal to minimize the structural depth of the curved structure.
First, a system consisting of a concrete “sandwich” shell with a central
styrofoam core and rebar “trusses” at 24 inches on-center in both the
longitudinal and transverse directions was studied.
Alternatively, a system of longitudinal curved steel beams at the outer
edge and valley lines supporting a composite deck with 3-inch shotcrete
was studied. By providing fixity at the base and roller supports at the
tip of the roof, it was possible to take advantage of the curvature to
minimize deflection and bending in the members. The form of the curve
was adjusted to maximize structural efficiency by balancing positive and
negative moments, and this proved to be the most cost-effective solution.
Courtesy of Tom Bonner 2009.
The primary structure consists of four parallel ribs that spring up
from the floor, arch over the space, and then rest lightly on a concrete
masonry wall. These ribs – 14-inch wide-flange sections rolled the
‘hard way’ to radii as tight as 12 feet – achieve a 60-foot roof span.
The shell’s geometry was originally designed using NURBS curves and
then rationalized into a series of segments with defined arc lengths and
radii. Frame action is utilized where the roof is curved, transitioning
to composite action where the roof flattens out.
Composite metal deck spans between the ribs, connecting to the
webs of the two outer members to minimize apparent structural depth.
High-strength concrete was sprayed on the outer face of the metal
deck to provide acoustic mass and increase overall rigidity.
The structure’s longitudinal lateral system comprises a series of curved
cantilevered columns, although the struts at the end resting atop the
masonry wall provide some additional restraint through frame action.
During an earthquake, the structure will undergo lateral drift along
its primary axis. The strut connections employ pins and clevises to
allow out-of-plane rotation, effectively creating a horizontal roller
joint that accommodates large drifts and minimizes load transfer to
the cantilevered concrete masonry wall below.
The transverse lateral system is more rigid, with behavior similar to
that of a concentric braced frame. The inclined struts at the cantilever
end transfer lateral load directly from the roof diaphragm to the
concrete masonry wall, and at the curved end diagonal bracing is
provided between the relatively vertical portions of the W14 ribs,
hidden behind acoustical panels.
The 600-square foot hangar-style doors were designed to be par-
ticularly heavy to provide acoustic mass. The door frame, requiring
both vertical and horizontal stiffness, is formed from two side-by-side
W24 beams welded flange-to-flange to form a flanged box beam, and
braced out-of-plane at its corner by a single, wide-flange beam that
doubles as rigging for spotlights and microphones.
Copper shingles, mullionless glazing and custom plywood panels give
this building the refined finish it deserves. Together with the exposed
structure, they form a unit that communicates the elegance of a musical
instrument and the athletic poise of a wild beast.▪

Bruce Gibbons, P.E., S.E. CEng, LEED AP, is a Senior

Principal at Thornton Tomasetti and has more than 25
years of experience in the structural design, specification and
construction of a wide variety of structures. Bruce may be
reached at bgibbons@thorntontomasetti.com.
Diagram showing bending moments in primary structure due to gravity loads.
Courtesy of Thornton Tomasetti.

STRUCTURE magazine 51 February 2011

 2010
2011
N C S E A Membership
Partnering Organizations
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

SEI CASE
Reston, VA Washington, DC

Associate Members
AISC International Code Council Metal Dek Group, a Unit of CSI
Chicago, IL Birmingham, AL Columbia, SC
American Forest & Paper Association ITW Red Head Schuff Steel Company
Washington, DC Addison, IL Phoenix, AZ
Bentley Systems, Inc Metal Building Manufacturers USP Structural Connectors
Carlsbad, CA Association Burnsville, MN
Cleveland, OH
Institute for Business & Home Safety
Tampa, FL

Affiliate Members
CETCO Building Materials Group Dwyer Companies Powers Fasteners
Hoffman Estates, IL West Chester, OH Brewster, NY
Cold-Formed Steel Engineers Institute Fibrwrap Construction, Inc. RISA Technologies
Washington, DC Lombard, IL Foothill Ranch, CA
Construction Tie Products (changed Hardy Frames, Inc. SE Solutions, LLC
from Associate to Affiliate this year) Ventura, CA Holland, MI
Michigan City, IN
Helical Anchors, Inc. SidePlate Systems, Inc.
CSC Inc. Minneapolis, MN Laguna Hills, CA
Chicago, IL
Hilti, Inc. Steel Joist Institute
DECON USA, Inc. Tulsa, OK Myrtle Beach, SC
Beaufort, SC

Sustaining Members
Barrish, Pelham & Associates, Inc. Criser Troutman Tanner Consulting LBYD, Inc.
Sacramento, CA Engineers Birmingham, AL
NCSEA News

Wilmington, NC
Barter & Associates, Inc. Ruby & Associates, Inc.
Mobile, AL Degenkolb Engineers Farmington Hills, MI
San Francisco, CA
Burns & McDonnell Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
Kansas City, MO DiBlasi Associates, P.C. San Francisco, CA
Monroe, CT
Cartwright Engineers Structural Engineers Group, Inc.
Logan, UT Dominick R. Pilla Associates Jacksonville, FL
Nyack, NY
CBI Consulting, Inc. TGRWA, LLC
South Boston, MA Dunbar, Milby, Williams, Chicago, IL
Pittman & Vaughan
Construction Technology Laboratories The Harman Group, Inc.
Richmond, VA
Skokie, IL King of Prussia, PA
Engineering Solutions, LLC
Cowen Associates Consulting Thornton Tomasetti
Oklahoma City, OK
Structural Engineers Chicago, IL
Natick, MA Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP
United Structural Systems Ltd., Inc.
New York, NY
Lancaster, PA

STRUCTURE magazine 52 February 2011

 NCSEA News
NaTioNal CoUNCil oF STRUCTURal ENgiNEERS aSSoCiaTioNS
2011 Winter institute
Deferred Submittals:
What the EOR needs
to know and show
From Design to Construction
February 25 & 26, 2011
The complexity of deferred submittals is not often appreciated by the Structural Engineer, nor fully
comprehended by the contractor, both of whom will subsequently be impacted by the results of inap-
propriate integration of the deferred submittal with the original drawings. The challenges may be
further exacerbated by the interpretation of building departments and the lack of concise definitions
and controls. Do SE’s get themselves into trouble, more often than not, by improperly dealing with
deferred submittals? Don’t miss this opportunity to find out and discuss these problems with your peers!
Only $595 for 2 days, or $350 for 1 day. Earn up to 15.5 professional development hours.

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Included in the program Friday are tours of the Canam Steel Joist Facility and Gate Concrete Products.

Location: Reservations:
Omni Amelia Island Plantation 1-888-261-6165 Group number: 022011NCSEAWINT
Amelia Island, Florida 32034
Mention NCSEA Winter Institute for a special room rate Register at www.ncsea.com
of $149 until February 9.
Room rate includes free hourly transportation to/from JAX Airport (Jacksonville, FL). Call 904-277-5920 at least 3 days
before your arrive with your flight information to secure a ride.

February 10, 2011: Detailing of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Structures to Minimize the Effects of
Restraint to Shortening – Bryan Allred
March 1, 2011: Building Information Modeling in Structural Engineering Practice Today –
Upcoming David J. Odeh
NCSEA March 10, 2011: Post-Tensioned Slabs on Ground Design – Bryan Allred
April 19, 2011: Code Issues in Existing Buildings: Archaic and Obsolete Structures –
Webinars: Donald Friedman
May 17, 2011: AISC T.R. Higgins Lecture–The AISC Seismic Design Provisions: Past, Present
and Future – James O. Malley

NCSEA/Kaplan Structural Engineering Exam Review Course

Obtain two weekends (12 hours each) of targeted review,
sitting in front of your computer, with 24/7 playback. Review
anytime. Instructors are knowledgeable, hand-picked and rec-
ommended by your peers:
January 29-30: Vertical Forces Review.
February 12-13: Lateral Forces Review.
Visit www.ncsea.com and follow the “Hot Topics” link for
the NCSEA/Kaplan SE Exam Review Course, to register and
for more information on the course and the instructors.

2011 NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

CALL FOR ENTRIES
The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) announces the Call for Entries for the 2011 NCSEA
Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards Program. Projects must have been completed between January 1, 2008 and December
31, 2010, or must be sufficiently complete such that they clearly show the basic design of the structural system. Projects may be
located anywhere in the world. Multiple entries from the same firm will be accepted. All entries must be received at the NCSEA
office by 4:00 p.m. CDT on Friday, July 22, 2011. Visit www.ncsea.com for more details.

STRUCTURE magazine 53 February 2011

 2011 Structures Congress Technical Sessions
Thursday, April 14, 2011

Track Bridge Buildings 1 Buildings 2 Extreme Loads Forensic

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Track Chair Bruce Peterson James Dolan William Baker Ahsan Kareem Alicia E Díaz de León
8:00 AM – Innovative Seismic Long Span Stadium Roofs Building Specific Seismic State of the Practice for Legal and Business Challenges
9:30 AM Analysis of Bridges Strengthening and Design Blast Resistant Design to the Dissemination of
of Structures Failure Information
10:00 AM – Seismic Reliability and Integrating Life Cycle and Nonlinear Seismic Analysis Innovative Methods Forensic Investigation of
11:30 AM Performance Assessment Carbon Assessments for Everyday Application to Defeat Blast Loads: Crane Failures: Case Studies
of Bridges Windows and Doors and Lessons Learned
12:00 PM – 2:00 PM Opening Luncheon, Plenary Speaker and Awards Program
2:15 PM – Bridge Structural Health Existing Masonry Seismic Design of Cold Current State of Practice Wind Vulnerability for
3:45 PM Monitoring Specification: Buildings Evaluation Formed Steel and Metal of Bridge and Tunnel Critical Facilities
2020 and Retrofit Building Systems Vulnerability Assessments/
Evaluations
4:00 PM – Long Term Structural Structural Performance Lateral Force Systems Advances in Concrete for Performance Issues in
5:30 PM Health Monitoring in Fire Blast Resistant Structures Buildings and Structures
of Bridges
6:00 PM – 7:30 PM Grand Opening Reception

Friday April 15, 2011

Track Bridge Buildings 1 Buildings 2 Extreme Loads Forensic
Track Chair Bruce Peterson James Dolan William Baker Ahsan Kareem Alicia E Díaz de León
8:30 AM – Assessing and Retrofitting Tall Building Design in An Introduction to New Blast Design Forensic Remediation
10:00 AM Steel Bridges for Fatigue Seismic Regions: Design AISC Design Guides Measures
Philosophies & Global
Perspectives
10:30 AM – Design Build Procurement Wind Induced Torsional The 14th Edition AISC Blast Analysis and Testing Structural Repair
12:00 PM Loads on Buildings Steel Construction Manual and Strengthening of
Foundations and
Slabs-on-Grade
1:30 PM – Innovative Bridge Floor Vibration Detailing Issues for General Provisions, Load Performance of Structures
3:00 PM Analysis Approaches Serviceability Steel Structures Combinations, and Dead Under Extreme Loads
Structural Columns

Live and Atmospheric through Field Observations

Ice Loads and Analytical Investigations
3:30 PM – Innovative Bridge Design Comparing the Results of Innovations in Steel Plate ASCE 7-10 Seismic Loads Reducing Brittle and
5:00 PM and Construction Wind – Tunnel Studies Shear Walls Fatigue Failures
Approaches of Unconventionally –
Shaped Tall Buildings

5:30 PM – 9:30 PM Evening at the Hoover Dam

Saturday April 16, 2011

Track Bridge Buildings 1 Buildings 2 Extreme Loads Forensic

Track Chair Bruce Peterson James Dolan William Baker Ahsan Kareem Alicia E Díaz de León
8:30 AM – Experimental Investigation Wood Light Frame Design Use of Protective Systems ASCE 7-10 Snow, Rain SEI/ASCE Chile
10:00 AM of Bridge Response to Achieve High Seismic and Flood Loads Earthquake Assessment
Performance Goals Team Report Session 1

10:30 AM – Cable Supported Bridges Reinforcing Topics for Soil Structure Interaction ASCE 7-10 Wind Loads SEI/ASCE Chile Earth-
12:00 PM Concrete Structures and Seismic Isolation at quake Assessment Team
Nuclear Facilities Report Session 2

1:30 PM – 3:00 PM Closing Session – Unique Challenges of the Built Environment of Las Vegas

For more information about the 2011 Structures Congress, including Registration and Housing

STRUCTURE magazine 54 February 2011


April 14-16, 2011 – Green Valley Ranch Resort and Spa, Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas Structures
Theodore L. Droessler
Hoover Dam Bypass Project
Nevada Geology and
Assessment of Seismic
Hazards
Opening Luncheon, Plenary Speaker and Awards Program
Alternative Project
Delivery Methods
Research in Nevada
Universities
Grand Opening Reception
New Research and Novel
Applications 1
A. Emin Aktan
Resilience of Structures,
Infrastructures, & Commun-
ities Under Seismic Hazard
Advances in Shape Memory
Materials Bridge Applications
Progress of the SEI
Disproportionate Collapse
Standards and Guidance
Committee
Advances in Structural
Analysis – Multiscale
Mechanics and Advanced
Simulation Methods in
Structural Engineering
Evening at the Hoover Dam
Las Vegas Structures
Theodore L. Droessler
Viva Las Vegas –
Structural Challenges
Construction Failures in Las
Vegas Nevada During the Past
Twenty Years
Closing Session – Unique Challenges of the Built Environment of Las Vegas
visit our website at www.structurescongress.org.
New Research and Novel
Applications 1
A. Emin Aktan
Dynamic Monitoring of Civil
Structures Using Advanced
Sensing Systems and Techniques
Seismic Analysis of Nuclear
Facilities
Life Cycle Performance Under
Multiple Hazards
Multi Hazard Modeling and
Response of Structures
New Research and Novel
Applications 2
Paul Mlakar
What Can We Learn From the Structural Engineers and the
Great Structural Designers Media
Creating Greater Triple
Bottom Line Benefits from
Sustainability Approaches
Recent Advances in
Structural Engineering
Experimental Validation of
Design Concepts and Analytical
Methods for Collapse-Resistance
of Structures Subjected to
Explosive and Abnormal Loading
New Research and Novel
Applications 1
A. Emin Aktan
Bridge Reliability and
Fragility Issues
Recent Developments in
Simplified Nonlinear Static
Procedures for Seismic
Evaluation and Design of
Structural Systems
STRUCTURE magazine
New Research and Novel
Applications 2
Paul Mlakar
Advanced Computation
Techniques in Structural
Engineering
Remote Sensing of Structural
Damage
Student Structural Design
Competition
RAPID Assessment of Effect
of Haitian Earthquake
Business and
Professional Practice
John Tawresey
Connection Details
Engineering
Current and New Technology
in the Business of Structural
Engineering
ASCE Guiding Principles
Business and
Professional Practice
John Tawresey
Effect of I-35 Minnesota
Bridge Failure on Bridge
Inspection and Evaluation
Program
Opportunities for the IPD
Structural Engineer Now and
Into the Future – Technician
or True Consulting Engineer –
That is the Question!
55
Business and
Professional Practice
John Tawresey
SE Licensure
How the Future of Structural
Engineering Sees the Future
of Structural Engineering
Thinking about Engineering
Construction Crane Collapse
Case Study
CASE Risk Management
Convocation
Cheng Lok Caleb Hing
How Structural Engineers
Can Work Effectively with
Architects Who Use AIA C401
The Changing Face of
Indemnity: Meaner
and Uglier!
New Tools for Managing Risk
and Project Implementation
Lessons Learned from
Arbitration, Mediation
and Litigation
Education
A. Emin Aktan
Failure Case Studies and
Forensics in Engineering
Education – Best Practices
Advances in Structural
Engineering
To view the interactive Technical
Program, including all presenters and
abstracts, on the SEI Website, visit
www.structurescongress.org
February 2011
Structural Columns
Energy Structures
and Non-Structural
Components
Robert Bachman
Structural Performance
Criteria for Alternative Energy
Production Systems
Design and Reliability of
Transmission Tower and Wind
Turbine Structures
Design and Evaluation of
Non-Structural Components
and Non Buildings
Seismic Response of
Ceiling Piping Partition
Non-Structural Systems
Non-Building Structures
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Robert Bachman
Wind Effects of Non-Building
and Special Structures
Seismic Blast Vibration and
Modular Weight Management
Aspects of Petrochemical
Structure Designs
Design, Investigation
and Repair of Large
Non-Building Structures
Seismic Retrofit of
Non-Building Structures
Special Structures
Robert Bachman
Engineering of Monumental
and Unusual Stairs
Engineering Live
Entertainment
 CASE Risk Management
Convocation in
Las Vegas Next Spring
The CASE Risk Management Convocation
will be held in conjunction with the Structures
Congress at the Green Valley Ranch Resort in Las
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
Vegas, NV, April 14–16, 2011. For more infor-
mation and updates go to www.seinstitute.org.
The following CASE Convocation sessions are
scheduled to take place on Friday, April 15:
8:30 AM - 10:00 AM
How Structural Engineers Can Work
Effectively with Architects Who Use
AIA C401
Speaker – William Geisen, Esq.,
Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP
If your firm works as a sub-consultant to architects, come
examine CASE’s Commentary on AIA Document C401,
the Standard Form of Agreement Between Architect and
Consultant. AIA Contract Document C401 incorpo-
rates by reference AIA Contract Document B101, the
Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect.
The interplay between C401 and B101 cannot be over-
emphasized. Using C401 without understanding fully
the interrelationships with B101 is a recipe for disaster.
This presentation will cover how the engineer’s rights
and obligations are impacted by these two agreements,
and CASE’s recommended provisions to include in your
contract with the architect. Understanding and using
B101 effectively can give you more leverage in collecting
fees, getting paid for Additional Services and collecting
more reimbursable expenses.
CASE in Point
10:30 AM – 12 Noon
The Changing Face of Indemnity:
Meaner and Uglier!
Speaker – Brian Stewart, Esq.,
Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart
This program will present an overview of some recent
California cases having received national attention, which
could present potentially disastrous results for the engineer-
ing community. The discussion will center on how and why
the cases were decided the way they were, and what is being
done as a result of the holdings in those cases. The program
will conclude with a description of some legislative and
practical efforts to defend against this unfortunate tide.
STRUCTURE magazine 56
1:30 PM – 3:00 PM
New Tools for Managing Risk and
Project Implementation
Speakers – Stacy Bartoletti, President and COO,
Degenkolb Engineers
Nils V. Ericson III, Project Manager,
The Di Salvo Ericson Group
John Aniol, Vice President,
Thornton Tomasetti
Brent White, President, ARW Engineers
The CASE Tool Kit Committee has developed a number of
new tools that will be presented in this session. Developing
a Culture of Quality provides a white paper and PowerPoint
presentation used to engage firm leaders in a discussion about
their firm culture and key aspects that contribute to quality. A
new tool on staffing projections provides a method for firms to
project future revenues and staffing demands based on contract
values and potential work. Project Work Plans set the stage
early for project success and a new work plan template will
be presented. Finally, a new tool titled Managing Computer
Software Use will be presented. This tool provides a white paper
on key aspects and responsibilities of the project manager and
principal in charge relative to software use on projects.
3:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Lessons Learned from Arbitration,
Mediation and Litigation
Speakers – John O. Woods, Jr., P.E., President, WOODS
PEACOCK Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Bruce E. Titus, Esq., Principal Rees Broome, PC
Charles Vonderheid CBIZ
This panel discussion will focus on applying lessons learned
from the speakers’ involvement with arbitration, mediation and
litigation. The speakers, who are a practicing structural engineer
& arbitrator, an attorney specializing in construction law, and
a professional liability insurance agent, will share some of their
own lessons learned and anecdotes.
February 2011

CASE Winter Planning Meeting Scheduled for February
The CASE Winter Planning Meeting will take place on
Wednesday and Thursday, February 23-24, 2011, at the Amelia
Island Plantation, Florida in conjunction with the NCSEA
Winter Institute. On Wednesday afternoon, the CASE Executive
Committee will meet and set the agenda for the next day’s com-
mittee planning sessions. The committee breakout meetings will
take place on Thursday for the National Guidelines, Contracts,
Programs & Communications, and Toolkit Committees to
continue work on their respective assignments.
CASE in Point
As part of the Committees’ ongoing activities, face-to-face
meetings and informal discussions are held twice a year to
explore current issues, and work on projects like new and revised
Risk Management Tools, Guidelines and Contracts, as well
as Publications, and Risk Management Convocations.  These
meetings also allow the various CASE committees to interact
across all of CASE’s activities.  For more information on the
CASE committees and CASE in general visit their website at
www.acec.org/CASE.

Follow ACEC on Facebook

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

The just-launched ACEC National Facebook page offers members and prospective members a new way to stay abreast of
important Council initiatives and events. Go to www.facebook.com/pages/ACEC-National/150339271657089?ref=ts to
view ACEC’s new Facebook page, or search “ACEC National” in your Facebook account. You must be registered with Facebook
to view the ACEC National page.

ACEC Education Information

Prepare for LEED Green Associate Credential

With On-Demand Course
Green Buildings and Preparing for the LEED Green Associate exam
is a first step towards the Green Building Certification Institute’s
(GBCI) LEED Green Associate professional credential.
In partnership with the U.S. Green Building Council, ACEC
again offers this unique online course on the sustainable build-
ing concepts that are fundamental to all LEED Rating Systems.
The 32-hour course is “live” online 24/7 beginning
January 31, 2011 and is accessible to registrants at their
convenience through March 27, 2011. ACEC mem-
bers may register for the course at a special discount price.
For complete details on course content and to register:
www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1196

STRUCTURE magazine 57 February 2011

Structural Forum
The Black Belt in Engineering
By David W. Hillery, P.E.
W
hen a person trains in mar-
tial arts long enough and
acquires sufficient skill, he
receives a black belt to wear
with his uniform. Once he obtains this belt,
he does not declare that he has a black belt;
he does not claim that he owns the black belt,
nor even that he wears the black belt. What he
says is that he is a black belt. The training that
earned him the new belt color has changed
his entire identity, and symbolizes much more
than just a reward or medal of achievement
in the martial arts.
Engineers should be the same. We do not
merely act as Engineers only during the times
when we are working on a project or only in
the office; but the title of Engineer remains
with us on the weekend at home, and in bowl-
ing alleys, restaurants and churches as well.
We have had our very identities changed by
the training that we have received, and we do
not want to separate ourselves from the title
that we use: Engineer with a capital E.
I might state the fact that I am an Engineer
upon meeting another person for the first
time. Most of us consider this line of work
as something to be proud of, and something
that defines our very being and purpose. The
title Engineer is a role that defines us just as
the color of the belt defines the martial artist.
I agree with Richard G. Weingardt, P.E., who
has written at least eight books and numerous
articles for STRUCTURE® magazine, about
Engineers doing non-engineering things to
promote our profession to non-engineers.
He inspired me to believe that if I accom-
plish something like earning a black belt in
martial arts or writing a novel – more on that
in a moment – I should tell people that I
have done so, and make sure that they know
that I am an Engineer. I should strive to call
attention to the fact that Engineers make
a difference; if I am asked to speak to any
audience, even for a non-engineering reason,
they ought to know that I am an Engineer.
By doing so, I can enhance their knowledge
and change the way they define the role of
an Engineer in their own minds. I can, and
should, make a difference to them, as a way
of promoting my profession. It will help all
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and
construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA,
®
CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE magazine
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
of us if I am successful in other areas of life
besides Engineering.
Not only am I a 5th degree black belt in
Taekwon-Do, I have also recently published
a science fiction novel called The First Degree.
It is the story of an Engineer who is a student
of Taekwon-Do, and who has some surprising
adventures involving space and time travel,
alien life forms, deadly weapons, amazing
computer technology, and interesting char-
acters doing interesting things. Of course, in
order for me to be successful as a new author,
my publisher must sell enough books to make
money; and the more copies we sell, the more
success I will have in promoting what we as
Engineers do. Becoming a successful Author,
with a capital A, will provide me with more
opportunities to speak to audiences who
will listen as I tell them about what we do as
Engineers. I can tell stories and explain things
in a way that they might enjoy, as they learn
to understand better who we Engineers really arts and inspecting bridges are all separate
are. I want to make them more aware of us, and unrelated activities, but I beg to differ
just as Mr. Weingardt has suggested. – because I am an Engineer who does all
I will probably never get called by a reporter three of these, they are inter-related as far as
about the fact that I am an Engineer. However, I am concerned. I encourage all Engineers to
now that I have written a novel, someone at a try, when you assemble with non-engineers,
newspaper or television station might want to to let the audience know that your identity
interview me. Then, when I mention that I includes engineering as well as the activities
am also a black belt in martial arts, that will that brought you together.
probably find its way into the story as an Finally, we need to be more interesting. I
entertaining bonus for the audience. I know love to hear about Engineers standing in front
that in such an interview, I will also mention of an audience, or writing articles or books
that I am an Engineer and present this fact that get read by many people, and effectively
in a way that will be perceived as a bonus as communicating about engineering subjects
well. Perhaps I will tell the audience some- in a way that truly interests the audience.
thing that they did not know about bridges Maybe you can become such a person your-
or buildings. This exposure of the world of self. Too often, brilliant Engineers are lacking
engineering would be possible because I had in presentation and communication skills, as
accomplished something supposedly unre- smart as we may be in our various fields of
lated to engineering. expertise. The audience may get bored if we
What opportunities do you have to connect fail to entertain. I think that we should strive
your hobbies, interests, and non-professional to find ways to entertain people and, in the
accomplishments to engineering? It could process, make sure that they know that we
be said that writing fiction, doing martial are Engineers.▪
David W. Hillery, P.E. (david.hillery@gmail.com) is a structural engineer
with Jacobs in Houston, Texas. His book, The First Degree, is available online at
www.DorranceBookstore.com.
58 February 2011
 Easy to Learn
From expert in-person training to informative online webinars
and tutorials, it’s never been easier to learn RISA.

800.332.RISA www.risa.com
© 2011 RISA Technologies, LLC