Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
code listed
ICC-ES ESR-2818 ICC-ES ESR-2966
Power-Stud+ SD1
Zinc Plated Carbon Steel Body and Expansion Clip, with Nut and Washer
code listed
ICC-ES ESR-2502
Power-Stud+ SD2
Zinc Plated Carbon Steel Body with Stainless Steel Expansion Clip
Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com 2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300 Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
At Martin/Martin we work on a variety of commercial projects and specialize in arena and stadium work, defensive design and construction services. To meet the requirements of such demanding and differing projects we historically used software packages from multiple vendors. This was dif cult to manage as each software package had its own interface and approached engineering problems differently. No single engineer knew every product in-depth, which created problems with quality control, consistency, and it impacted project scheduling. What we really needed was a single software package that could reliably and accurately do everything we needed. Tedds was our ideal solution because it provided an extensive library of calculations and created transparent output with detailed equations. It also reduced the need to perform calculations by hand, which had been very time consuming.
Tedds also offered us the capability to write our own calculations which has been invaluable. It works within the Microsoft Word interface, enabling us to develop custom tools that allow us to ef ciently handle complicated problems that have not been well addressed by other software developers. This has given us a competitive advantage and we see great potential to take this further.
Tedds has helped us to meet aggressive project demands and deliver a high quality service to our clients.
Without Tedds, calculations would have taken considerably longer to develop and verify, with less transparent output. Tedds is exible, its regularly updated and the size of the library means we can quickly respond to the changing needs of our clients.
CSC thanks Martin/Martin for its contribution to this case study.
See the bene ts of Tedds for yourself with our free trial.
Free Trial
Download Tedds at
cscworld.com/TryTedds
Tedds has an extensive calculation library and produces transparent output with detailed equations.
CALC S-
20 2 1
Features
22 The Rise of One World Trade Center
By Ahmad Rahimian, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. and Yoram Eilon, P.E.
CONTENTS
November 2012
After the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, a major debate ensued in engineering communities worldwide with respect to the appropriate lessons to be learned and the need for mitigation strategies. Intensive studies were conducted for years afterward and included reports suggesting guidelines to be implemented in future standards. The design team, faced with numerous and unique challenges, paramount among them being security-related issues, was charged with the design of 1WTC and expected to meet or exceed future codes and standards that had not yet been published.
Columns
7 Editorial
If Its Not One Thing, Its Another .But Its Always Something
By Ben Nelson, P.E., SECB
9 InFocus
The Social Nature of Engineering
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
26
10 Guest Column
The 2010 AISC Code of Standard Practice
By Charles J. Carter, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
Biosphere 2 has a new project in progress: Landscape Evolution Observatory, a science project that is changing the way nature is studied, while at the same time raising the bar for structural engineering challenges. The project consists of three identical large steel planting tray structures built inside an existing glazed space frame building and supported over an existing concrete floor structure.
14 Building Blocks
Winery Supports its Liquid Assets on HSS and Cast Steel Connections
By Yi Yang, S.E., Jill Weinberg-Huyette, E.I.T. and Carlos de Oliveira, M.A.Sc., P.Eng
Departments
28 InSights
In-Model Review
By Adam Azofeifa, P.E.
16 Structural Design
Survival of a Crane Truss in a Waterfront Project Part 2
By Vitaly Feygin, P.E.
35 Spotlight
Warner Drive
By Sara Means, S.E. and David Cocke, S.E.
31 Legal Perspectives
Understanding Professional Liability Insurance Part 2
By Gail Kelley, P.E.
42 Structural Forum
Developing the Next Generation of Structural Engineers Part 3
By Glenn R. Bell, P.E., S.E., SECB
In every Issue
8 Advertiser Index 34 Resource Guide (Software Updates) 36 NCSEA News 38 SEI Structural Columns 40 CASE in Point
on
the
Cover
One World Trade Center, currently under construction, is the tallest of the four buildings planned as part of the Ground Zero reconstruction master plan for lower Manhattan. It will also be the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere upon completion in 2013. See more about this project in the feature article on page 22.
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
November 2012
Coast to coast
editorial
If Its Not One Thing, Its Another. new trends, new techniques and current industry issues But Its Always Something
By Ben Nelson, P.E., SECB, NCSEA President
n the immortal words of the late great American philosopher, Roseanne Rosannadanna (Gilda Radner), If its not one thing, its anotherbut its always something. How many times did Rosanne Rosannadanna express her off-kilter philosophy on Saturday Night Live and make you think, wow, she really is onto something! I couldnt help but smile last week and flash back to Ms. Rosannadanna when I overheard two recently hired young engineers talking in the office. They were both quite animated, if not exasperated, about some upcoming changes to the International Building Code we discussed in one of our Monday lunchtime classes. The training focused on yet another round of revisions to the IBC-2012 and one young engineer said to the other, How do you keep up with the never ending revisions to the building code? The other engineer didnt miss a beat and responded to him quite seriously, Yea, if its not one thing, its another.but its always something. When I heard his response, I started to chuckle and asked him if he was a Rosanne Rosannadanna fan; and he had no idea of whom I was asking. I clearly have passed into the older generation within my firm. However, that was just the start of our discussion, which lasted into the afternoon. Following much dialog, these two young engineers expressed to me what is resonating around the country with countless others. Young engineers graduating into their structural engineering careers have a lot to think about. How do you keep up with endless revisions to the various building codes and design standards? How do you learn the ins and outs of the building code, much less all the material specific codes and standards? How do you learn to model a building, when the most exposure you had in school was limited to elements and portions of buildings and not much with modeling an overall building? How do I become proficient in BIM without loosing sight of basic structural engineering theory and application through calculations? How can I gain sufficient engineering expertise in order to pass the PE exam in another three or four years? How can I best prepare for taking the PE exam? How do I learn about what NOT to do and not repeat the mistakes of others? How do I know what Im doing is right? How do I know whether to take the 8 hour PE exam or the 16 hour SE-1/SE-2 exam? Fortunately for these young engineers and for all practicing structural engineers around the country, they are not alone in their desire
to advance their learning in their careers. NCSEA advocates for the practicing structural engineer, and one way in which we accomplish this is to provide exemplary continuing education and training opportunities that combine the technical and practical applications-oriented nature of a topic. Whether they are newly hired Engineering Interns, mid level Professional Engineers, Senior Project Managers, or even seasoned Principal Engineers, NCSEA focuses on fulfilling needs of the practicing structural engineer. The continuing education opportunities that NCSEA presents are wide-ranging and offered in several learning environments. They are taught by the best of the best practicing structural engineers. They come in the form of live webinars, multiple-day conferences, trainingcertification classes, practical publications, and short course review training for taking the SE-1 and SE-2 NCEES tests. Each of these training opportunities shares resources of NCSEA staff and is created within one of many NCSEA sub-committees that pool our collective national talent. There are NCSEA learning opportunities that actually address each of the earlier young engineers questions. NCSEAs continuing education does not solely focus on younger engineers but also addresses needs of more seasoned staff in effectively managing ones practice. Beginning next year, NCSEA is building on the success of the technically-oriented NCSEA Annual Conference and evolving the focus of our companion conference (NCSEA Winter Institute) into becoming the NCSEA Winter Leadership Meeting. Mark your calendars to attend the upcoming NCSEA Winter Leadership Meeting at the Westin La Paloma Resort in Tucson on March 7-8, 2013. There, you will learn management-level tips for developing the next generation of future leaders in your firm, coaching for mentoring, establishing an effective training program in your firm, how to avoid making the big mistakes when making choices in this soft economy, and share in exciting roundtable discussions with your results-oriented peers around the country. The NCSEA Winter Leadership Meeting will offer 16 hours of learning and sharing the strategies of success. I fully expect our attendees will come away thinking like Rosanne Rosannadanna, and perhaps add a few of their own zany side-bar stories. I hope to see you in Tucson in March 7-8, 2013 where we can all learn, if its not one thing, its another. but its always something! Ben Nelson, P.E., SECB is a Principal at Martin/Martin, Inc. in Lakewood, Colorado. He can be reached at bnelson@martinmartin.com.
November 2012
Advertiser index
AZZ Galvanizing .................................. 15 Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................. 29 Canadian Wood Council ....................... 18 Cast ConneX......................................... 25 Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 44 CSC Inc.. ................................................ 3 Design Data .......................................... 30 Devco.................................................... 12 Fyfe ....................................................... 11 Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 20 The IAPMO Group............................... 27 KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 32 NCSEA ................................................. 13 New Millennium Building Systems ......... 6
editorial Board
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO chair@structuremag.org
Chair
Dick Railton
Western Sales 951-587-2982
Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
editoriAL stAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE Editor Associate Editor Graphic Designer Web Developer Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
execdir@ncsea.com publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Nikki Alger
Rob Fullmer
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
William Radig
STRUCTURE (Volume 19, Number 11). ISSN 1536-4283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $90/yr Canada; $125/yr foreign. For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board. STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
www.ncsea.com
C Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc. 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine magazine on-line at Visit STRUCTURE online Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at at www.structuremag.org www.structuremag.org www.structuremag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
November 2012
inFocus
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues The Social Nature of Engineering By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
n order for engineering to qualify as a genuine example of what the ancient Greeks called praxis, it would have to satisfy at least two prerequisites: It must be a predominately social form of activity, rather than a strictly technical one. It must be pursued as an end in itself, rather than merely as a means to some other end. However, the reputation of the profession is such that most people would likely assume that it meets neither of these requirements. The common perception even among engineers themselves is that engineering is primarily a matter of technical problem-solving and design by solitary individuals, and that the chief function of an engineer is to devise the most efficient means to achieve an end that is specified by someone else. James Trevelyan, a mechanical engineering professor at The University of Western Australia, challenges the first of these misconceptions in a 2010 paper (Reconstructing Engineering from Practice, Engineering Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 175-195). He instead characterizes engineering as fundamentally a human social performance, observing that it relies on harnessing the knowledge, expertise and skills carried by many people, much of it implicit and unwritten knowledge. Therefore social interactions lie at the core of engineering practice. Trevelyans research consisted primarily of interviews with and observations of engineers in all major disciplines, experience levels, and types of business. He was surprised to discover how frequently they were relying on others to perform some work or provide information . . . These were mostly one-on-one situations with little or no formal authority . . . [which] led to the conclusion that securing willing and conscientious cooperation is an important part of coordination. Separately, Trevelyan also surveyed 180 novice engineers and found that they spent about 60% of their time engaging directly with other people, a figure that is remarkably consistent with results from similar studies of seasoned veterans. Despite this, Trevelyan found that engineers persistently labeled tasks like performing analysis and preparing calculations as doing engineering, and generally marginalized other aspects of practice. This is important because people tend to devote more effort to activities congruent with their current identity, and engineering failures are usually the result of social breakdowns, rather than technical mistakes. Engineers constantly face time, information, and resource constraints, and thus must routinely make rapid and difficult choices in an effort to satisfy many diverse demands. In doing so, they confront not only the uncertainties inherent in nature and materials, but also the (often greater) unpredictability of their fellow human beings. This is precisely why engineering requires the exercise of practical judgment not just theoretical knowledge and technical rationality, although those are also indispensable (Knowledge, Rationality, and Judgment, July 2012). In fact, engineering seems like a good candidate to serve as a paradigm example of a field that encompasses all three categories. The problem, as Joseph Dunne recognized (The Rationality of Practice, September 2012), is that modern societies
are increasingly attempting to organize and regulate human behavior strictly in accordance with technical rationality and engineering is by no means exempt from this trend. In response, Dunne asked an important rhetorical question: In certain respects technical rationality seems to accord with the fabric of the material universe . . . However, does the attempt to impose it on the very different reality of human practices spring from a considered understanding of this reality itself, or from an a priori enthusiasm (even obsession) to have in these areas the same kind of standardisation and control which, partly through technical rationality, we have in our dealings with some aspects of the material universe? Dunne clearly leans toward the second option, and I am inclined to agree with him. The same subconscious desire may also explain why engineers largely relegate the social aspects of their professional lives to non-engineering status. Analysis and calculations clearly fall within our comfort zone, where we normally feel like we have a firm handle on things. The same is true even for more creative tasks like conceptualization and modeling. Dealing with people is a different story. In Dunnes words, a person then encounters volatile constellations of human passions and motivations and intervenes in a field of forces or immerses herself in a medium in which she seeks to bring about a propitious result. Our actions are inserted in a web of interaction, with its own power and limits conditioned by its capacity to mesh with without manipulating the actions of other agents. Furthermore, To acknowledge these points is to recognize the frailty and intricacy of human affairs or, what amounts to much the same thing, the non-sovereignty of the single agent. Along similar lines, Trevelyan describes the engineering enterprise as a combined performance carried out by a wide variety of stakeholders in which the engineers role is both to compose the music and conduct the orchestra. This is a helpful metaphor, because composers and conductors provide definitive guidance to those who actually play the instruments, but cannot directly dictate precisely how they do so once the baton is raised. Likewise, an engineer has to ensure that everyone involved has sufficient understanding of the essential features that will create value to ensure that they are faithfully implemented and reproduced by other people. Trevelyans last comment is interesting, because it implies that the engineer is the one who best knows how to create value and is then responsible for communicating this to everyone involved again suggesting that engineering has a significant social dimension. What kind of value do engineers contribute in this way? I will begin addressing this question in my next column. Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org), is an associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City, Missouri. He chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board and the SEI Engineering Philosophy Committee.
STRUCTURE magazine
November 2012
Guest Column
dedicated to the dissemination of information from other organizations
recent session at the 2012 American Institute of Steel Construction North American Steel Construction Conference: The Steel Conference in Grapevine, TX explored the 2010 AISC Code of Standard Practice. Moderated by Glen Tabolt of STS Steel, the session featured the following speakers: Charlie Carter of AISC, Jim Stori of STS Steel, Kirk Harman of The Harman Group, Jim Larson of Phoenix Steel Erectors, and David Ratterman of Stites and Harbison, PLLC. The session also provided a look at whats happening now in the AISC Committee discussions that will lead to the next edition of the AISC Code of Standard Practice. Following is a summary, and an invitation to comment and add to the discussion. The session from the NASCC is also available in free streaming media at www.aisc.org/2012nascconline; look for session N18.
Committee, including: the National Council of Structural Engineering Associations (NCSEA), the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Institute of Architects (AIA), The Association of Union Constructors (formerly the National Erectors Association), the Steel Erectors Association of America (SEAA), and Arcom Master Systems (MASTERSPEC).
A Brief History
Charles J. Carter, Ph.D., S.E., P.E. is Vice President and Chief Structural Engineer at the American Institute of Steel Construction in Chicago, IL. He serves as Secretary of the AISC Committee on the Code of Standard Practice.
Charlie Carter spoke on the history of the Code, both recent and long-term. Its an AISC original, dating back to 1924. This emphasizes how wise the founders of AISC were they got it right in many respects at the start, proposing that the industry and design community would need standard design requirements (the AISC Specification), uniform contractual recommendations (the AISC Code of Standard Practice) and helpful guidance for design and construction (the AISC Manual ). The Code and both of these other documents are still alive and carrying on today. The Code has lived through many revisions and five major rewrites. There are recommendations in the Code that date back to the very beginning, but the Code has changed with the times to continue in its role to reflect standard practices. It has always been written as a default agreement for the buying and selling of fabricated steel. Alternative provisions, when needed or desirable, can be stated in the contract documents. The Code was an industry-written document until the late 1990s. The Committee that wrote the 2000 Code of Standard Practice was broadened to include diverse and balanced representation of all stakeholders, including Architects, Engineers, CM/GCs, Fabricators, Detailers, Erectors, and one Attorney. The Code has very much become a collaborative effort since that time. Many organizations and entities now have designated representation on the
10 November 2012
specific mention of tolerance is made in the Code, it does not mean that the Committee intends the reader to think this is a case where the tolerance is zero. Rather, it is simply unspecified and the designers and constructors need to alert each other when a tolerance is needed. Section 2.1 contains a few scope clarifications, such as base and bearing plates, loose as opposed to attached to the steel frame. Section 4.7 now states that the erector should receive the erection drawings in a timely manner. Section 6.4.3 has been clarified as to what is expected for incidental camber in trusses. Section 7.10.2 Commentary expands on the information that should be clear in the documents so that the erector can better understand and perform the erection of a structure. Section 10.2.5 has better definition of whats required on an outside corner joint for AESS. Section 3.1.2 was the most significant change in the 2010 Code. It highlights SER responsibilities when connection design is delegated (types of loads, transfer forces required). It also highlights the fabricators responsibilities (submission of substantiating connection information and confirmation that the shop drawings are incorporating the connection designs). Commentary clarifies intent of the Committee. Section 4.1 now has Commentary that describes the benefits of a pre-detailing meeting to discuss the project. Section 4.4 has been updated to track and coordinate with changes in Section 3.1.2. Note that the approval process is still followed, each engineer (the SER and the connection engineer) is responsible for his/her own work, and the SER retains ultimate responsibility for the structure as a whole including connections.
The contract documents supersede the Code of Standard Practice when they do not have the same provision or requirement (per the Scope statement in Section 1.1). There is a specific list of what is included in structural steel (Section 2.1) and whats not (Section 2.2). There is a checklist of what should be on the structural drawings (Section 3.1). There are defined processes for connection design work (Section 3.1.2).
The use of other drawings is permitted, but such use must be referenced in the structural drawings (Section 3.2). The SER has final authority in a technical disagreement regarding connection design (Section 4.4). Approval of a shop drawing starts a cost event fabrication starts! (Section 4.4.1). There is a system of specified tolerances within which a steel frame will be built (Sections 6 and 7). continued on next page
11
November 2012
Section 4.2, my responsibilities as Jim Stori spoke to the significance of the Code a fabricator from his perspective as a fabricator. Key tabs Section 5, mill materials and tolerances in Jims 1992 copy of the Code included: Section 6, including fabrication and Section 3.1, completeness of camber tolerances structural drawings Section 10, defining whats to be expected when AESS is specified Section 4.2.1, selection of connections Section 7.11.5, owner acceptance of and responsibility for approval the frame Section 7.2, what site conditions fabricator can expect Section 7.5.1, AB location tolerances What the Code Section 7.11, erection tolerances Means to an Erector Section 7.11.5, owner acceptance of the frame Jim Larson spoke to the significance of the The 2010 version was presented as more Code from his perspective as an erector. relevant to the marketplace today because The Code provides for the steel it addresses issues the owner, the contracindustry discipline from the average tor, the design professionals, the fabricator, erectors perception. the detailer, and the erector must all deal It addresses things that all steel with. Key tabs in Jims 2010 copy of the erectors should be aware of for their Code include: performance and obligations. Section 3.1, much expanded in It outlines what other construction its definition of whats required disciplines have the right to expect on structural drawings including from the steel erector. connection design delegation The Code interfaces with other Sections 3.5 and 4.6, related to AISC guidelines with regard to revisions and RFIs (didnt even know steel erection, such as detailing, LGBeamer_5x4.75.pdf the term 20 years ago!) 1 10/9/12 9:44 AM fabrication and certification.
Challenges
David Ratterman finished the session with a summary of some challenges the Committee and AISC face: AISC is evaluating the role of Code Committee going forward. Traditionally, it has been limited to describing what can be stated as standard practice. There often are cases where practices are not standard, however. To address such areas, the Committee may begin to develop guide documents of best practices that are companions to but not part of the Code. The Committee is also seeking ways to address items that require faster, authorized updates and guidance faster than the traditional cycle of publishing the Code every 5 or 6 years. The Committee expects to tackle the challenge of how to resolve unauthorized amendments to the Code (those made in ways that violate AISCs copyright). Related, we will provide guidance on acceptable approaches to stating alternative requirements and procedures in the contract documents.
Complete Modeling and Design of Steel Studs, Joists, Channels and Zs Includes 2007 North American Specication (AISI S100) as Adopted in the 2009 IBC Additional Design Features
Framed Openings HSS Sections Floor Joists
Integrated Header, Sill and Jamb Design Square, Rectangular, Strong & Weak Axis Analyzes Six Load Cases including Alternate Span Live Load
CM
MY
CY
CMY
Only $499
Phone: (541) 426-5713 x 301
Wood Sheathing, Gypsum Board and Steel Sheet Straps 1 or 2 Sides, Chord Studs and Strap Connections Multiple Load Cases, Pinch Axial Load
Questions?
The AISC Committee on the Code of Standard Practice welcomes input on the above information, and any other thoughts or ideas that you might care to share. Please send any correspondence to Charlie Carter at carter@aisc.org.
12
November 2012
Course Fee*
$1199
The format of Kaplans SE Review Course is fantastic. I cant imagine a more convenient way to prepare for the SE exam.
Jeff D., SE
Register today!
1-800-420-1432
www.kaplanaecengineering.com/LiveReview
*Students repeating the SE Review Course are eligible for 50% discount. Call for details.
MRKT-8085
Building Blocks
updates and information on structural materials
Winery Supports its Liquid Assets on HSS and Cast Steel Connections
By Yi Yang, S.E., Jill WeinbergHuyette, E.I.T. and Carlos de Oliveira, M.A.Sc., P.Eng
o facilitate the streamlined performance that is essential to large-scale wine production, massive fermentation tanks at a new facility in Livingston, California had to be supported at a height such that their contents could be rapidly discharged into a press at grade level. In addition to the significant seismic demand imparted on the structure by the tanks which, when full, weigh up to 3,000 tons other constraints specific to the wine-making process dictated the design, as did the clients challenging schedule. The Owner engaged Summit Engineering to carry out a complete structural design in a time frame that would require completion of bid packages within six weeks and construction packages within three months. In addition to the rigorous design schedule, the new facility had to be ready to receive its first shipment of grapes within mere months of the award of the construction contract. This dictated the design of a structure that could be constructed quickly and efficiently in the field. It was immediately clear that a steel-framed structure was best suited to the application; however, the type of steel frame was based on a more thorough analysis of the Owners requirements. The flexibility of a moment-resisting frame would have been problematic with respect to piping tolerances, and open perimeter bays were not a priority for the client. The choice, then, was between Ordinary Concentrically Braced Frames (OCBFs) and Special Concentrically Braced Frames (SCBFs). Selecting SCBFs decreased the seismic design loading significantly by allowing the use of a response modification coefficient R = 6, rather than R = 2.5 for OCBFs. This reduced foundation sizes and resulted in a significantly lighter and more economical superstructure. With the seismic force-resisting system selected, design could begin in earnest. Studying various construction scenarios revealed that field welding
Butterfly gusset plate connection. The gusset plate is continuous through the column to accommodate the significant pass-through forces imparted to the braces during an earthquake; beams and braces are fieldbolted to the column.
10.750- and 8.625-inch diameter braces equipped with Cast ConneX High-Strength Connectors framing into a butterfly gusset plate connection at the beamcolumn intersection.
and the associated special inspection would impede the construction schedule. High-strength cast steel connectors emerged as an excellent solution for the SCBF connections. These connectors are configured to accommodate field-bolted installation of shop-fabricated brace-to-connector assemblies, thereby eliminating field welding at the brace-to-gusset connections. As the connectors accommodate double-shear bolted joints, their use results in highly compact gusset plate connections. By contrast, shear lag in conventional field-welded brace connections, where hollow structural section (HSS) members are slotted and reinforced, requires the use of significantly larger gusset plates. The high-strength connectors fit well with the design philosophy for this project, which capitalized on the simplicity of the connection details and ease of construction and maintenance. At first the Owner was hesitant, expressing some concern regarding the specification of a proprietary product. In addition, the testing and documentation that the connector manufacturer, Cast ConneX, had completed for ICC-ES certification of the connections was still under review during preparation of construction documents, creating some concern from the Merced County Building Department. However, both concerns were quickly put to rest, as representatives first worked with the design team to demonstrate to the Owner the significant cost and time savings that their connections provided, and then submitted ample permitting support documentation. Utilizing cast steel connectors also aided in expediting the design process, since the manufacturer provided standardized connection details in its design manuals, as well as customized connection detailing support. Early in the design, it became apparent that a larger size of brace would be required than was accommodated by the connectors available at the time. Cast ConneX developed a new size of high-strength connector one to fit
14 November 2012
10.750-inch outer diameter HSS and was able to design and qualify the part in time for production for the project. This was in part because of the Owners willingness to engage the manufacturer in advance of the bidding process for the structural steel a testament to the value that the connectors represented. Cast ConneX designs its cast steel connectors to accommodate round HSS brace members; the design team also selected HSS sections over wide flange shapes for the structures columns. HSS are the most efficient members for resisting not only axial loading, but also biaxial bending. In this project, several columns had to withstand loads from as many as three directions, so a symmetric section was ideal. HSS also lend themselves to consistent and repeatable detailing from both a design and construction perspective. Coordination with the tank manufacturers and the piping engineers was facilitated by the uniform sections of the frames; tolerances within the structure were critical as piping was to weave between the already compact configuration of the tanks. Finally, the design team recognized that the HSS column and brace sections would be easier to clean and maintain in service, which was important to the Owner since a winery is essentially a food production facility.
there was not a single RFI or change order generated in relation to the fabrication or installation of the braces fitted with the connectors. Eliminating costly and time-consuming field welding of the SCBF brace connections resulted in an efficient structure that met the schedule and budget constraints of the project. Yi Yang, S.E. is a member of the Structural Engineering Association of California. Yi is currently a Principal and the Structural Division Manager at Summit Engineering in Santa Rosa, California. Yi may be reached at yi@summit-sr.com.
The new Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF) structure at the winery, configured to support massive fermentation tanks at their second story.
Steel contractor Lloyd W. Aubry Company provided fabrication and erection services for the primary structural steel on the project. Cast ConneX provided technical support to ensure that the cast steel connectors were properly implemented, and the design team provided additional support with respect to erection sequencing in one tight area of the structure where braces had to be installed prior to a beam above. The result of this overall cooperative effort was a smooth process of erection;
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Jill Weinberg-Huyette, E.I.T. graduated from California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, while serving as the New Member Chair and Secretary for the Cal Polys Student Chapter of SEAOC. She is a Structural Staff Engineer at Summit Engineering in Santa Rosa, California.Jill may be reached at jill@summit-sr.com. Carlos de Oliveira, M.A.Sc., P.Eng is president and principal structural engineer at Cast ConneX Corporation. The firm supplies both standardized and customized steel connector products. Carlos may be reached at carlos@castconnex.com.
azzgalvanizing.com
COLORS
JOB#
4C
PROOF
AZZ-36385
SIZE
15
OK as is
November 2012
OK with changes
Structural DeSign
design issues for structural engineers
ite conditions often dictate the engineering of long-span trusses for container cranes. Part 1 of this article (August 2012, STRUCTURE) included discussions on stress and fatigue, corrosion, dynamic impact allowance and the effect of dynamic impact on fatigue. Part 2 provides additional insight into torsional resistance, fracture critical connections and buckling analysis of built-up box elements. Other important issues discussed include methods of corrosion protection within ice fluctuation zones, and proposed deflection and camber criteria for long-span crane ways.
ability of the torsional supports to prevent angular twist comes at a price. Any restraint imposed on cyclic movement is prone to fatigue distress. Such connections should be carefully designed, in order to keep the stress range in the connection below the fatigue threshold limit. It is also good practice to keep intersecting welds away from geometric discontinuities, where forces normal to each other frequently reverse signs.
Vitaly Feygin, P.E. (vfeygin.mic@gmail.com), is a principal structural engineer with Marine and Industrial Consultants, with offices in Jacksonville and Tampa. He is the author of two patents related to sea walls, composite cofferdams, bridge fenders and port structures.
The online version of this article contains detailed references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
16 November 2012
and check the plate between diaphragms for buckling from uniform compression loads. The rectangular box section buckles after the plate with the smallest stiffness begins buckling. The stiffness of the two adjacent plates, and the stiffening effect of the internal angle, delay the buckling of the whole box assembly. Plate theory provides a generic expression for rectangular plate local buckling in the elastic range: fcr = fy = kc 2D / (b2t) (Equation 8) where D = Et3 / 12(1- 2) = plate flexural stiffness; = 0.30 = Poisson ratio in the elastic range; = 0.50 = Poisson ratio in the plastic range; t = plate thickness; b = plate width; and k c = buckling coefficient based on relative flexural stiffness of both plates. Brockenbrouh and Johnston provide modified local buckling coefficients, k w, based on the interaction of two adjacent long plates of a rectangular tube. Rectangular tube buckling in the plastic range (fcr 0.5fy) can be determined from: f cr = fy 0.25fy2/fcr (Equation 9) The original formulas from the theory of plates cited in the USS Steel Design Manual have better defined boundaries and are more user-friendly. In that sense, the old forgotten art should be given due respect. Both Equations 8 and 9 represent nominal buckling strength. Appropriate resistance or safety factors should be applied to both formulas. c = 0.9 (LRFD) c = 1.67 (ASD) Plate design for post-buckling behavior of built-up compression elements of the truss should not be allowed. continued on page 19
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
by the number of lobes, or half waves, developing in the plate after buckling. As the load is increased, the edge stresses increase, but mid-width stresses decrease. Analytically, that behavior is approximated by selecting the total width of the strips, known as the effective width, such that the product of this width and the maximum stress in the plate is equal to the integrated product of the actual stress over the entire plate width. The plates ability to resist shear strain contributes to its postbuckling strength. Unfortunately, the AISC 13th Edition does not fully explain this concept; such behavior creates a useful resistance mechanism, but the designer must understand the limitations of such an approach. In particular, while post-buckling behavior can be used for the analysis of redundant systems, it should not be used for the analysis of nonredundant structures subject to cyclic loading. Original formulas for the strength analysis of circular tubes were based on test results restricted to elastic local buckling cited by Brockenbrouh and Johnston (USS Steel Design Manual ). A circular tube section with a thick
CRANE TRUSS TORSIONAL RESTRAINT wall usually fails in multi-lobe buckling, and is FIG. 7 a preferable section for compression elements. The buckled form of the circular tube is unstable and cannot be used in the post-buckling mode. According to experimental test data, the local buckling stress for a circular tube is:
(Equation 7 )
where R is the inside radius and t is the wall thickness. Test results confirmed that tubes with a slenderness ratio of f y R/(Et) 0.064 could be stressed to the yield point without local buckling. In circumstances where a circular tube section cannot be used as a compression element due to truss geometry, a rectangular box section is the next preferable section for a compression member. However, the rectangular box section tends to fail in a four-lobe buckling mode. The section with a larger number of lobes, or half-waves, is more stable and can resist a larger buckling force. One way to deal with that particular problem is to install properly spaced internal diaphragms,
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
STRUCTURE magazine
17
November 2012
(light frame, heavy timber, glulam and engineered lumber) Allows eccentric axial loads and combined axial and lateral loads for up to 100 loads using any distribution (point, trapezoidal, partial uniform, etc.) Designs sloped and oblique angled beams up to 6 spans
Shearwalls
Most buildings can be modelled in minutes. Shearwalls then generates wind and seismic loads, distributes forces to shearwalls using rigid and flexible diaphragm methods, and designs perforated and full height segment shearwalls. Free training videos available on our website!
Designs connections using lag screws, bolts, wood screws, nails, rivets and shear plates
Connections
banana effect in built-up plate assemblies. The best way to control this phenomenon is to minimize the number of welds and avoid intersecting welds. It should be noted that sectional distortions have serious detrimental effect on fatigue life of the structure that cannot be analytically factored into the assembly design. Another highly important issue, frequently neglected by design professionals, is the selection of weld material. The weld materials should be neutral or cathodic against the base metal. A similar approach should be used for selection of bolts in bolted connections. The consequences of mistakes in selecting the right weld and fastener material can be extremely costly, and sometimes catastrophic. Fracture Critical Elements The crane truss is a non-redundant structure. Failure of any truss element has catastrophic consequences. All members of the truss having a stress ratio -1 R < 1 should be designed as fracture critical elements. Both, the AISC 13th Edition and the AASHTO LRFD manuals prescribe certain Charpy V-notch toughness requirements for weld and base metal materials in such members. However, it is prudent to use even more stringent toughness requirements than those currently prescribed by both codes. The Charpy V-notch impact test evaluates notch toughness, or the resistance of a specimen to fracture in the presence of V-shaped notches. The amount of energy required to fracture the specimen is used for plotting two curves: Energy vs. Temperature Percentage of Shear Fracture vs. Temperature The temperature at which the percentage of shear fracture decreases to 50% is called the fracture transition temperature. The temperature at which the selected value of energy is absorbed (usually 20 ft-lb) is called the ductility transition temperature. The lower the transition temperature, the better the resistance to brittle fracture. Selected steel components must absorb a specified energy (E = 20 ft-lb) at the lowest expected operation temperature. The best material for structures subjected to high cyclic loads in an aggressive marine environment is ASTM A852 steel with Fy = 70 ksi, formerly known as COR-TEN B-QT (high strength, low alloy quenched and tempered steel). Environment and Corrosion Protection Corrosion fatigue is a problem encountered by many marine structures. The best way to protect a submerged waterfront structure is to
Figure 5 (from part 1): Fatigue resistant box section for truss fabrication.
Grain Size Smaller metal grain size allows for longer fatigue life. Extensive heating increases the size of the metal crystals, reducing fatigue strength. Internal Defects Weld porosity, non-metallic inclusions and internal shrinkage can significantly reduce fatigue strength. Therefore, all welds subjected to cyclic loading should be checked for porosity and internal cracks using advanced quality control methods. Weldments The designer of the truss is urged to develop a welding procedure that minimizes the number of assembly welds. The ideal assembly is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The designer should realize that any additional welds will increase stresses caused by weld shrinkage. Intersecting or even parallel welds increase the likelihood of the so-called
STRUCTURE magazine
19
November 2012
prevent contact with the aggressive medium. Protection is especially important within the boundaries subjected to high abrasion and ice movement. A newly developed, highly alkaline modified cementitious epoxy coating, Cemprotec E942, provides superior resistance to impact and water ingress. However, even the best paint will eventually peel off the steel due to ice abrasion and ice adhesion during high tide/low tide fluctuation. The fact is, treatment of steel with a protective coating is always too little, too late and too expensive. What is the solution? The best way to deal with corrosion protection of steel within a zone of high abrasion is to prevent the coating from peeling off. Creation of a low friction zone around the steel within high tide/low tide depth solves that problem. Such treatment prevents direct ice contact with the painted surface and allows ice to slide up and down during the tide fluctuation. The abrasion protection detail shown in Figure 8 efficiently protects the paint on struts and diagonals from peeling off. UHMW-PE panels bolted to box and tube sections within the affected depth will prevent ice from adhering to steel elements. A final line of defense for fully submerged steel can be provided by passive cathodic protection.
due to dead load (weight of the crane girder + attributed weight of the deck) plus half of the live load, including any load on the deck and the maximum load delivered to the girder from the wheels of the crane bogie. No impact factor should be included. The maximum vertical deflection for a crane girder due to dead load and 100% of the live load is limited to L/1000. Girders or trusses with spans greater than 100 feet are designed with deflections below L/1200. Larger deflection creates severe traction problems, and leads to untimely rail or bogie wheel replacement.
Figure 8: Abrasion protection detail within ice formation zone.
Summary
Fatigue analysis is not an exact science, but rather an art based on statistical formulas and solid engineering judgment. However, it is an important and valuable tool for estimating the service life of a structure. Fatigue is a plastic damage accumulation. Signs of fatigue are frequently visible. Therefore, it is highly important to identify all fracture critical connections, and schedule periodic inspections from early in the structures lifespan. Understanding the plastic damage accumulation concept will help the engineer design a cost-effective and long-serving structure.
Open sections of diagonal joints at the truss top chord are highly susceptible to accelerated low water corrosion (ALWC). The best solution is to fill the annular space between the side plates of the open sections with expandable closed-cell foam, which prevents moisture retention and growth of sulfate-reducing bacteria.
Visit www.iesweb.com
Download Your Free 30-Day Trial
IES, Inc. | 519 E Babcock St. Bozeman MT 59715 800-707-0816 | info@iesweb.com
STRUCTURE magazine
20
November 2012
2012 Simpson
ne World Trade Center (1WTC), currently under construction, is the tallest of the four buildings planned as part of the Ground Zero reconstruction master plan for lower Manhattan. It will also be the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere upon completion in 2013. The overall height of the tower from the ground level to the top of the spire reaches 1776 feet (541 meters) as a tribute to the freedoms emanating from the Declaration of Independence adopted in 1776. 1WTC, with its main roof at 1368 feet (417 meters) above ground, is designed to have the same height as the original towers. WSP Cantor Seinuk was commissioned by Silverstein Properties, the developer of the tower, as the structural engineer for the new One World Trade Center. In 2006, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owner of the World Trade Center, took over the development of 1WTC as part of an agreement with Silverstein Properties. The collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 created a major debate in engineering communities worldwide with respect to the appropriate lessons to be learned and the need for mitigation strategies. Intensive studies were conducted for years after 9/11, including reports issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in September, 2005, suggesting guidelines to be implemented in future standards. The design team, faced with numerous and unique challenges, paramount among them being security-related issues, was charged with the design of 1WTC and expected to meet or exceed future codes and standards that had not yet been published. For obvious reasons, many of the specific technical solutions and details will remain confidential. One World Trade Centers program includes 3.0 million square feet of new construction above ground and 500,000 square feet of construction of new subterranean levels. The tower consists of 71 levels of office space, and eight levels of MEP space. It also includes a 50-foot high lobby, tenant amenity spaces, a two-level observation deck at 1,242 feet (379 meters) above ground, a sky restaurant, parking, retail space and access to public transportation networks.
Building Geometry
The building footprint above grade level starts with a 205-foot (62.5-meter) square plan. The office levels start 190 feet (58meters) above ground level, stacked over four levels of mechanical space above the main lobby. The four corners of the tower slope gently from the first office level inward until, at the roof, the floor plan again forms a square, but with a reduced dimension of 145 feet (44 meters), rotated 45 degrees from the base quadrangle. The elevation is formed by eight tall isosceles triangles creating an elongated Square Antiprism Frustum. At mid height of the tower, the floor plan forms an equilateral Octagon. The tapering of the building geometry reduces the wind effect on the tower. Generally, tall building designs in New York City are governed STRUCTURE magazine
by wind loads; however, this tower shape has an innate positive effect on the building performance under wind loading. Above the main roof at elevation 1368 feet (417 meters), a 408foot (125-meter) tall spire is designed to be mounted atop a thick reinforced concrete mat directly supported by the towers concrete core. Additional supports are provided via a multilayer circular lattice ring above the main roof, that are connected to the spire via a series of cables and supported by the main roof framing. The tower structure extends 70 feet below grade passing through four subterranean levels, where some of its structural components required repositioning to clear the Path train tracks that pass under the building at the lowest basement level.
22
conduct an overall study of the stability of the World Trade Center site foundation wall and subterranean diaphragm slabs, the so called bathtub structure. The result of this study is incorporated into the design of the below grade spaces common to multiple stakeholders on the site. It required the introduction of auxiliary shear walls at below grade levels, positioned in strategic locations. The original slurry walls are reinforced by the addition of a liner wall directly supporting the below grade slabs. The below grade floor slabs are also designed to laterally brace the slurry walls as part of the long term bathtub stabilization strategy. The New Jersey Path Trains run through the West Bathtub where 1WTC is located. It was essential to keep the Path trains operational during the construction process; therefore, the constructability strategies became a primary consideration in the design of the below grade structure. Temporary structural steel framing was introduced and integrated into the permanent structure, bridging over the train tracks. The tower stability system, although enhanced by the below grade structure, was designed to be self-sufficient. The tower structure is comprised of a hybrid system combining a robust concrete core with a perimeter ductile steel moment frame. The reinforced concrete core wall system at the center of the tower acts as the main spine of the tower, providing support for gravitational loads as well as resistance to wind and seismic forces. It houses mechanical rooms and all means of egress. The core structure is compartmentalized with additional internal shear walls in orthogonal directions. The concrete strength ranges from 14,000 pounds per square inch (psi) to 8,000 psi from the base to the top. The walls are connected to each other over the access openings using steel link beams embedded into the concrete walls. A ductile perimeter moment frame system is introduced for redundancy and to further enhance the overall building performance under lateral wind and seismic loads. The perimeter moment frame wraps around all vertical and sloped perimeters, forming a tube system. Along the height of the tower, the tapering multifaceted geometry creates unique structural conditions which necessitated the design and fabrication of special nodal elements using relatively large plating with significant capacity for load transfer. For further enhancement of the lateral load resisting system, the concrete core at the upper mechanical levels is connected to the perimeter columns via a series of multilevel outrigger trusses in both orthogonal directions. STRUCTURE magazine
Axial Shortening
Axial shortening studies were performed to identify the anticipated deformation of the concrete core wall and perimeter steel framing during and after construction. The elastic shortening of the steel erection columns at the core before encasement had to be carefully considered. The goal was that at the end of construction, the floors would be leveled and positioned at the theoretical elevations. In order to compensate for the shortening, the contractor could adjust the elevations of perimeter steel columns and the concrete core walls by super-elevating them to differing degrees. For the structural steel, this could be achieved by either fabricating the columns longer than the theoretical, shimming in the field during erection or a combination of both.
23
November 2012
utilized. For this project, 14,000 psi concrete was introduced for the first time in New York City. Research and experience have shown that a modulus of elasticity higher than values suggested by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) building code can be achieved by producing a high performance mix design specific to the project and site. Therefore, in addition to the strength, the modulus of elasticity of concrete was specified as a dual requirement. For 14,000 and 12,000 psi, the modulus of elasticity of 7,000,000 psi was specified. This contributes to the stiffness of the tower core wall, without the premium of specifying a higher concrete strength or increasing the thickness of the walls. The high strength concrete used for the thick concrete walls, defined as mass concrete, required a particular concrete mix to meet the most stringent of demands. To reduce and slow the heat of hydration, industrial by-products such as slag and fly ash were used to replace more than 50% of the cement content. This provided the additional benefit of helping the project meet the anticipated LEED Gold Standard.
Aeroelastic tests, that are prevalent methods of wind tunnel testing for tall buildings to obtain overall wind loads and responses such as accelerations, were performed at the Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin Inc. (RWDI) wind tunnel facilities in Canada at different stages of the design. The aerodynamic and aeroelastic effects of the spire were also considered. The acceleration results at the highest occupied level meets the criteria of human comfort for office buildings. The structure is also designed for wind storms with a 1000 year return period, per IBC 2003.
Summary
As of mid-2012, construction of the tower has reached above the 100th floor and soared above the height of the Empire State Building. Completion of construction through the main roof is anticipated for first half of 2013. The design and construction of this project is the result of a relentless collaborative effort between numerous design and construction teams over a period of several years, resulting in creating an iconic tower reaffirming the preeminence of New York City. Dr. Rahimian, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE is the Chief Executive of WSP Cantor Seinuk, based in New York and part of WSP Group PLC. In 2011 he was named to the Structural Engineer Magazine Power List and is the recipient of the 2007 AISC Special Achievement Award. Yoram Eilon, P.E. is Vice President at WSP Cantor Seinuk. November 2012
24
Personnel transporter
Existing spatial 3D frame building digitally recreated using 3D laser scanning technology
iosphere 2, just North of Tucson, Arizona, has a new project in progress: Landscape Evolution Observatory (LEO), a science project from the University of Arizona that is changing the way nature is studied, while at the same time raising the bar for structural engineering challenges.
Figure 1: Rendering of the LEO system showing its parts and the existing building partially opened to show the structures inside. Courtesy of University of Arizona School of Architecture/M3 Engineering and Technology.
Description
The project consists of three identical large steel planting tray structures built inside an existing glazed space frame building, a large greenhouse previously used for intensive agriculture, and supported over an existing concrete floor structure. These steel structures have three main parts (Figure 1): 1) The tray is a 38-foot wide by 100-foot long (11.6 m x 30.5 m) steel box open on the top, sloping 10% in the longitudinal direction and changing the transverse slope along the trays length to form the ridges and valley channels that simulates a hill slope. To form this compound slope, the tray is structured with transverse U-shaped frame beams spaced at 1 meter on center, to match the sensor grid spacing resembling the ribs of a ships hull structure. All the transverse beams are attached to two deep longitudinal girders that connect to the substructure. The tray is clad on the bottom and all four sides with 3-inch deep steel N-deck, fiber reinforced cement board and a special waterproofing membrane to contain a one-meter thick layer of a special soil made of crushed basalt, irrigation water and a complex array of 2,847 different sensors. 2) The substructure is a system of steel columns, beams and steel braces that support the tray through ten load cells centered on the top of each column, 3) The personnel transporter is a mobile steel structure similar to a gantry crane that travels over the tray, covering the full width and length of it, and allows scientists to monitor and take samples of the experiment without disturbing the soil. These three steel structures are unique in the world, in size and purpose, as they will simulate the interaction of the elements, especially water, with soil and vegetation on a hill slope. A special irrigation system and its supporting structure runs parallel to both sides of the tray, rising over 10 feet (3 m) above the top of the tray to support sprinkler heads that will simulate the effect of rain in various patterns.
Challenges
Each planting structure of LEO mimics a hill slope; several concepts were explored during the early design phases to achieve the desired surface slope. A steel structure with 16-gage N-deck was defined as the most cost effective based on the design loads and the different slopes that define the hill. STRUCTURE magazine
The existing building introduced challenges with regard to space and the limited weight that could be carried by the current concrete structure, making the steel structure layout and optimization a priority. The layout of the structure using a steel tray and a braced substructure, is in response to these characteristics as well as a product of the selection of the load cells. The 10 steel columns of the tray frame were aligned directly over 10 concrete columns of the basement structure, thus eliminating bending loads on the concrete floor beams. Subsequent to the design phase, one more challenge presented itself: the access to the building. There is only one direct entrance from the outside that measures 10 feet wide by 12 feet high. This demanded the design of several connections to be bolted for ease of field construction, as well as set a limit on the size and weight of pieces that were transported to the construction site. The selection of load cells presented challenges, as the connection of the load cells needed to support the tray at an angle. The high axial loads in combination with the lateral load from the sloped tray reduced the options available in the market. Furthermore, one of the performance requirements set by the scientific group for the load cells was the ability to detect a change in weight equivalent to a layer of 1 cm of water (about 2 lbs/ft2) over the tray. All of these conditions required consultation with the load cell manufacturer, Honeywell, who provided a semi-customized set of load cells. The load cells are rigidly attached on the lower end to the column cap plates and have a self-centering pinned connection at the top, thus reducing the overall moment transferred to the load cell. The use of these load cells required tighter construction tolerances than standard steel construction, making the construction dimensional control more stringent. Working as the worlds largest weighing lysimeters (measuring devices that are used to measure the amount of water released through evapotranspiration) in addition to monitoring other parameters in the soil, these structures are subject to conditions that restricted the use of certain materials and required tighter tolerances during construction. For instance, any material in contact with soil or water inside the tray had to be tested by the scientist group in order to determine its effects on the experiment, leading the team to use materials such as fiberglass, polypropylene and special waterproofing membranes that could satisfy the complex conditions of loading and performance for such an experiment. Materials such as galvanized and stainless steels were prohibited from contacting soil or irrigation water, as they could affect the experiment. Nonetheless, the solutions were developed satisfactorily and construction started on time. Steel shop drawings were developed using Tekla Structures as part of the design documents. This saved money and time during the construction phase, as the detailing complexity and any clashes were solved during the design phase. In addition, the model used to generate November 2012
26
the detailed shop drawings was used to quantify materials and helped the steel fabricator to understand the complex structures in a more efficient way before starting fabrication. The advantage of using BIM technology was reflected also in the reduced amount of RFIs and field changes, given the complexity of the project. During the final phases of design, an additional concern was raised: can we fit LEO within the complex spatial configuration of the building? Laser scanning technology was used to recreate a model of the existing building and determine more accurately the available space, which helped enormously in finding possible clashes and redesigning areas such as the personnel transporter. Such technology allows the designer to improve the use of space, and reduce or eliminate costly modifications during construction. The personnel transporter idea started with a need to mobilize scientific staff over the experiment without affecting the soil or its content; however, no similar system had been previously used in such conditions. Many ideas were explored during this process and, finally, the use of window washing technology combined with industrial engineering expertise gave way to the current system, which provides a safe way to explore the contents of LEO.
Figure 2: Jacking System (partially) and Temporary Spacer Installed (left) and Load Cell Installed (right). Courtesy of M3 Engineering and Technology.
Construction Realities
Despite the challenges, the project has progressed in a very positive and satisfactory way, in great part thanks to the team effort between all parts of the group, from the Owner to Designers, Vendors and Contractors. As a good example of this, during preconstruction, the contractor and steel fabricator proposed the addition of a jacking system to the structure to facilitate exchange of the load cells for temporary spacers once the soil was loaded. The original intent during design was to use
the temporary spacers until the steel structure was placed in position; however, the contractor recommended using these until all welding was done to avoid affecting the load cells during the construction. The load cell, Jacking System and Spacer are shown in Figure 2. The project is in its final phase, finishing the construction of the third structure and putting the final touches on the second planting tray. More information may be found at the project website http://leo.b2science.org/, including three webcams that broadcast real time video of the LEO project. Allan Ortega-Gutierrez, P.E. is a Structural Engineer at M3 Engineering and Technology and was in charge during the structural design and the construction administration phases of LEO. Mr. Ortega-Gutierrez can be reached at aortega@m3eng.com.
STRUCTURE magazine
27
November 2012
InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues There are still several obstacles that stand in the way of 3D in-model review. BIM software has become so advanced that now even concrete reinforcement can be completely modeled, right down to the last stirrup, but the models become far too visually convoluted to be efficiently reviewed. Shop drawings tend to present the information more concisely when it comes to rebar. In addition, depending on the review software being used, an engineers review stamp cannot be attached to the model. Some software does enable an electronic signature or stamp to be embedded in the model, but sometimes the only evidence of an SEOR review is a report that is generated to summarize the review comments along with a stamped transmittal back to the contractor. A clear outline in the project contract of the expectations from a model review therefore becomes incredibly important. These issues and others indicate that perhaps, at least for the immediate future until in-model review software has been further developed, the best review methodology is a hybrid form that combines 3D in-model review and electronic shop drawings the 3D model provides the engineer with all the benefits of BIM, and all the comments and stamps can be transferred to electronic drawings to serve as documentation of the review. As structural engineers, we have a responsibility to our clients to design safe structures and facilitate an efficient construction administration process. As we continually strive to improve our codes and design methodologies through research and advanced analysis and design tools, so should we aim to improve our construction administration practices with tools that increase efficiency and contribute to better quality control. Ultimately, our goal is to provide our clients with the best possible structures and to ensure that those structures are being constructed as designed. Any tool that helps us achieve that goal should be embraced. The construction industry is in a generation of technological transition. BIM has already exponentially improved our ability to communicate our designs. Its time to take the next step. Adam Azofeifa, P.E. is a Design Engineer at Degenkolb Engineers in Oakland, California. Adam is an active member of SEAONC (Structural Engineers Association of Northern California), and past co-chair of the SEAONC Younger Members Forum. He may be contacted at aazofeifa@degenkolb.com.
In-Model Review
The Next Step in Construction Administration
By Adam Azofeifa, P.E. right in the model. Now the question is: can we and should we take advantage of that capability? This past year, the AISC Technology Integration Committee performed a survey of approximately 500 structural engineers to gauge their perspective on 3D in-model review. According to the survey, most engineers (roughly 90%) are using some form of paper or electronic (PDF or similar) drawings to review steel submittals, and less than 1% are using a true form of 3D in-model review. The survey also revealed that the majority of engineers felt that they either had the skills or the staff capable of performing an in-model review. At the same time, when asked if they thought an in-model review would save time compared to a paper or electronic drawing review, most engineers thought not. What this implies is that while many engineers feel they are capable of performing a 3D in-model review, given the opportunity, most would not choose that option. This revelation should not be surprising, considering that 24% of engineers surveyed also think that in-model review will never be the prevalent form of submittal review and shop drawings will always be required. Having recently performed a 3D in-model review of the steel structure for a large hospital project, I have an experienced perspective on the topic. I can say with confidence that the idea is not something to be dismissed. Not only did the in-model review significantly reduce review time compared to traditional shop drawing reviews, but the process also streamlined the communication of comments and revisions back to the fabricator and detailer. A 3D model enables the engineer to evaluate the structure (or subsection of the structure) as a whole, rather than a single member at a time. And the intelligence of the software enables an engineer to review and stamp several connections and members at once. This is the essence of Building Information Modeling the elements in the model are not simply 3D renderings. Each element, from wide flange column to anchor bolt washer, has information embedded in it the same information that one would see on a shop drawing, except now it can be viewed within the context of the structural assembly. Additionally, RFIs, submittals, contractor notes, and the engineers comments can all be attached to the elements in the model. All relevant information is contained in one file that is easily stored, shared, and accessible.
uilding Information Modeling (BIM) has become progressively more popular as a drawing production tool in the last decade, to the point that engineers can now use software such as Revit and Tekla to not only create a set of drawings, but also develop a comprehensive model that can be combined with models from the architect, MEP, civil engineer, etc. to thoroughly coordinate the construction documents. Even 2D CAD drawings (for those team members not working in BIM) can be imported into BIM software and rendered for the purposes of clash detection and coordination. While the analytical capabilities of BIM software may not yet be where structural engineers would like it, hopes are high that it will be there soon. And we are fast approaching the day when building engineers no longer maintain archives with dusty rolls of (often incomplete or inaccurate) construction drawings, but rather a single comprehensive as-built computer model, where every component of the building is modeled right down to the light switches. With this ability to develop 3D models for comprehensive coordination and documentation, doesnt it make sense that we also use modeling software as a review tool? The construction industry is currently in a state of transition when it comes to reviewing construction documents. The traditional path, where a sub-contractor submits multiple sets of paper shop drawings to the structural engineer for review, is becoming an exercise of the past. Some sub-contractors are now using BIM software to develop their shop drawings. And with ever more attention being focused on sustainability, the trend has shifted from delivering hard copies of those shop drawings to simply sending electronic versions. More advanced technology and mark-up software (e.g., Bluebeam Revu) enable drawings to be reviewed and stamped without plotting a single sheet. But why stop there? If the subcontractor uses a BIM model to develop its shop drawings, and the engineer has comparable modeling software available, we can cut out the shop drawings all together and engineers can simply review the fabricators model. This idea may seem unrealistic and maybe even implausible, but the fact is that software already exists that enables fabricators to send their 3D models to engineers for a complete review that takes place
STRUCTURE magazine
28
November 2012
With RAM, STAAD and Documentation Center, Bentley offers proven applications for:
l Steel/Steel Composite l Reinforced Concrete l Wood and Wood Products l Foundation Design l Post-Tensioned Design l Steel Connections l Structural Drawings and Details all easily coordinated with the Architect and other team members and their design applications such as AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation and more.
www.Bentley.com/Structural
2010 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley, the B Bentley logo, MicroStation, RAM, and STAAD are either registered or unregistered trademarks or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated or one of its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries. Other brands and product names are trademarks of their respective owners.
Benefits of the SDS/2 Connect add-in to Revit Structure: Automatically designs and optimizes thousands of connections
- Based on AISC standards and your preferences
LegaL PersPectives
right of subrogation against other participants, however. As a result, most E&O policies state that the insurer waives its rights of subrogation against clients of the insured, but only to the extent required by a written contract. A/Es should ask their insurance brokers to review their standard client contracts to ensure that the subrogation requirement in their policy does not conflict with any provision in their contracts.
art one of this article discussed general concepts related to professional liability coverage, including the insurers duty to indemnify (October 2012, STRUCTURE). To indemnify means to compensate or protect from a loss. Under a professional liability policy, the insurer has a duty to indemnify the insured for covered losses, up to the limits of the policy. This second part looks at the insurers duty to defend, as well as common exclusions to coverage.
is not liable for any settlement, assumed obligation, or admission to which it has not consented.
Settlement
Likewise, the insurer cannot settle a claim without the insureds consent. However, if the insured refuses a settlement that is acceptable to both the claimant and the insurer, the policy may limit the insurers liability to the amount for which the claim could have been settled, plus the claim expenses incurred until the date of the refusal. Likewise, if the insured requires the insurer to appeal a judgment that the insurer would not otherwise have appealed, the policy may limit the insurers liability to the lesser of the damages awarded in the judgment or the appeal. The insured is responsible for any increase in damages (including interest, attorney fees and costs). Insurers will often provide an incentive to encourage the use of mediation to settle claims. As an example, the policy may state that if the insured settles a reported claim though mediation, the insurer will reduce the deductible for that claim. The fact that defense costs are applied toward coverage limits is another incentive to settle a claim rather than allow it to go to litigation or arbitration.
Claim Expenses
Expenses incurred in defending against a claim, referred to as either claim expenses or defense expenses, include the reasonable and necessary fees charged by an attorney. Many policies give the insurer the right to designate the attorney; some policies allow the insured to select the attorney, subject to the insurers approval. Claim expenses also include the other fees and expenses that result from the investigation, defense and appeal of a claim, if incurred by the insurer, or by the insured with the prior written consent of the insurer. Most types of liability insurance, including CGL policies, do not apply claim expenses to the policy limits. In contrast, professional liability policies are typically wasting policies which means that claim expenses are deducted from the policy limits. Both the insurers duty to defend and its duty to indemnify terminate when the applicable policy limit is exhausted, whether or not the claim has been resolved.
Subrogation
As is typical with insurance policies, professional liability policies will usually state that the insurer is subrogated to the insureds right of recovery for any payment made under the policy. Subrogation means that the insurer steps into the shoes of the insured and acquires any rights the insured has with respect to the payment. For example, if the A/Es insurer was required to pay an adjacent land owner for damage caused in part by the owner, the insurer could sue the owner for reimbursement. The insured must do whatever is necessary to secure and preserve the insurers rights, including signing any documents needed for the insurer to effectively sue in the name of the insured. It has become common for participants on a construction project to waive their
Duty to Defend
The insurer must defend any claim covered by the policy, even if the claim results from groundless or fraudulent allegations. The insured must provide the insurer with all information, assistance, and cooperation that the insurer reasonably requests. In addition, the insured cannot do anything that prejudices the insurers position or its rights of recovery. In particular, the insured cannot settle a claim or admit liability without the insurers consent. The insurer
Other Exclusions
Professional liability policies typically exclude coverage for claims that are more properly covered by other types of insurance. Thus they exclude coverage for liability arising out of the insureds ownership, operation, or use of property or any kind of vehicle. They also exclude coverage for liability arising out of the sale or distribution of any product developed by the insured. continued on next page
STRUCTURE magazine
31
November 2012
Likewise, policies typically exclude claims arising out of any type of alleged discrimination, as well as liability arising out employment-related practices, including refusal to employ any person or termination of any persons employment. Claims for workers compensation under any workers compensation, unemployment compensation, or disability benefits law are also excluded. An E&O policy will cover claims alleging that the insureds professional services are not in conformity with the applicable standard of care, as this is the definition of negligence. It will not cover any other express warranties with respect to the insureds services, however. For example, it would not cover a claim based on the insureds failure to complete work by the agreed-upon date, because that would be a breach of contract, not negligence.
Supplementary Payments
Many E&O policies reimburse the insured for legal fees and expenses if a regulatory or administrative action is brought against the insured based on its performance of
MARYHILL MUSEUM, GOLDENDALE, WA
professional services. Such actions are usually brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA), or the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Some policies also reimburse reasonable legal fees and expenses if a disciplinary proceeding is brought against the insured. A disciplinary proceeding means a proceeding by a regulatory agency to investigate charges of professional misconduct in the performance of professional services. Although these reimbursements generally do not have a deductible and do not count against the coverage limits of the policy, the maximum amount reimbursed is typically much lower than the coverage limits. In addition, the insurer will not pay any damages, fines, or penalties pursuant to an administrative action or disciplinary proceeding. Most policies will reimburse the insured for loss of earnings and travel expenses if the insured has to take time off from work to attend mediation meetings, arbitration hearings, depositions, or trials relative to a claim. The insured is typically not compensated for any other time spent in assisting in the defense and investigation of a claim.
Other Insurance
Professional liability policies are usually written such that coverage is in excess of any other valid insurance available to the insured, including any project-specific insurance. This includes policies carried by parties other than the insured. Coverage does not start until the limits of any other policy have been exceeded.
Additional Insureds
Owners often ask to be included as additional insureds on an A/Es CGL policy, as this provides them with coverage for claims by third parties, such as tenants, that arise from the A/Es work. However, most professional liability policies exclude coverage for claims by another insured (insured versus insured claims). Thus, it does not make sense for an owner to be named as an additional insured on a professional liability policy, since the policy would not cover the owners claims for design defects.
Conclusion
An insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer. Most professional liability policies contain an integration clause that limits the contract to the application and the policy. Typical wording for such a clause is: The Insured agrees that this Policy, including the Application and any endorsements, constitutes the entire agreement between the Insured and the Insurer. It is important that an A/E read its policy documents carefully so that it understands its rights and obligations. When deciding whether to purchase professional liability insurance, an A/E should compare the policies offered by several different insurers, to see which policy best fits its needs. Gail S. Kelley, P.E. is a LEED Accredited Professional as well as a licensed attorney in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Ms. Kelley is the author of Construction Law: An Introduction for Engineers, Architect, and Contractors, published in 2012 by John Wiley & Sons.
Seattle Everett Tacoma Lacey Portland Eugene Sacramento San Francisco Walnut Creek Los Angeles
Long Beach Pasadena Irvine San Diego Boise Phoenix St. Louis Chicago New York Abu Dhabi, UAE
STRUCTURE magazine
32
November 2012
SidePlate
for
Wind
Register for Upcoming Webinars to
THE NEW, ALL FILLET-WELDED SIDEPLATE DESIGN SAVES TIME AND MONEY ON WIND-CONTROLLED (R=3) PROJECTS
Saves tonnage Competitive shop labor Shortens construction schedule No UT inspection
For over 15 years the industry has looked to SidePlate moment connections to save time & money on earthquake and progressive collapse type projects. But the new, more efficient SidePlate design saves on virtually any wind controlled project as well, when compared to ordinary conventional moment connections and has been shown to be competitive when compared to braced frames. For this 6-story, 195,000sf wind-controlled (R=3) hospital in North Carolina, the owner was able to realize construction savings in excess of $200,000. Call us today to see how we can help you bring these benefits to your steel projects.
SidePlate FRAME Column Assembly
SteelFab has been working with the new SidePlate details for over two years, and weve found that SidePlate consistently reduces the structure weight and number of moment frame connections required. Weve seen substantial savings to overall budgets on both seismic and wind-governed projects.
MARSH SPENCER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT SteelFabCharlotte, NC
a subsidiary of MiTek, a B erkShire h athaway Company To learn more, call 800/475-2077 or visit www.SidePlate.com/frame
SOFTWARE UPDATES
ADAPT Corporation
Web: www.adaptsoft.com Product: ADAPT-Edge
Description: Structural analysis software for integrated design of concrete buildings. Fast and exible modeling approach for gravity and lateral design of building components including oor and foundation systems. Seamlessly integrates with Revit. Models RC or post-tensioned members.
RISA Technologies
Product: Studrails
Description: North American standard for punching shear enhancement at slab-column connections. Studrails are produced to the speci cations of ASTM A1044, ACI 318-08, and ICC ES 2494. Also increasingly used to reinforce against bursting stresses in banded post-tension anchor zones.
Design Data
S-Frame Software
Bentley Systems
Product: RAM
Description: Performs complete analysis, design, and drafting of both steel and concrete buildings. RAM optimizes work ows through the creation of a single model by providing specialized design functions for buildings, as well as thorough documentation.
StructurePoint
IES, Inc.
Nemetschek Scia
CSC Inc.
Struware, LLC
Weyerhaeuser
Product: Tedds
Description: Speeds up daily structural and civil calculations. Access a large library of automated calculations or write your own, while creating high quality and transparent documentation. Free trial at website.
STRUCTURE magazine
34
November 2012
Spotlight
Warner Drive
A Building Transformation
By Sara Means, S.E. and David Cocke, S.E. Structural Focus was an Outstanding Award winner for the Warner Drive project in the 2011 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards Program (Category Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/ Rehabilitation Structures).
he Warner Drive project involved the conversion of an existing one story under-utilized warehouse into an upscale venue for production space or events such as an Academy Awards party. The existing concrete tilt-up panel warehouse is approximately 30,000 square feet and has a beautiful double barrel wood roof. The roof consists of diagonal sheathing and wood joists spanning between arched glulam beams. The glulam beams were originally supported on perimeter concrete pilasters and a row of interior concrete piers at the center of the building. Tension rods tied the glulam arch ends together to provide for the 80-foot span. A row of columns down the center of the space would not work for the envisioned open production/party space. With that in mind, the client requested that the interior concrete piers be removed, as well as the existing tension rods at the bottom of each arched glulam beam. A steel truss was designed to support the roof and replace the concrete piers. The steel truss of HSS members is 6 feet wide by 9 feet deep and spans 110 feet. The truss is supported on 2 large structural steel columns on each end, replacing the row of 9 existing interior columns in the center of the structure. The truss now acts in two directions by supporting the gravity loads from the roof as well as the horizontal thrust that is induced from the arched glulam beams after the tension rods were removed. The existing concrete pilasters at the exterior walls were strengthened to also resist the horizontal thrust induced by the glulam beams. Additionally, the top of the truss formed a mechanical platform to support new rooftop mechanical units. Previously a warehouse, the need for significantly more parking was key in the conversion to an events venue. In order to create enough parking spaces to accommodate a large scale event, a one story parking area was added below the building. The existing slab on grade was demolished and a large hole was excavated
below the building. The dimensions and sequencing of the excavation were carefully planned to minimize the need for temporary shoring to protect the structure above. The first floor of the warehouse was replaced with a two way slab spanning between drop panels and columns. Due to space requirements and the parking layout, there is one area of the garage where the supports are 33 feet apart. This large span required the two-way suspended slab to be 15 inches thick. Approximately 90 parking spaces were added to the site. Structural Focus worked closely with the contractor to develop a construction sequence that would require only minimal shoring to the existing building. First, two of the existing interior concrete piers were removed and the roof was shored in this area. The footings and two columns, which support the new truss, were placed. The truss was then installed above the existing roof while the rest of the interior concrete piers remained in place. The large truss came in two pieces, was spliced in the middle, and weighed 1 kip per foot. Once the truss was in place, the existing glulam beams were connected to the truss and the interior concrete piers were removed. The total truss deflection did not exceed inch (L/1760) after being fully loaded. The existing slab on grade was then demolished and the subterranean parking area was excavated. The retaining wall locations for the parking were held in from the exterior wall of the building so that the existing wall footings would not be undermined and temporary excavation shoring of the existing building would not be required. The retaining walls were cast, the interior parking area footings and columns were cast, and then the two-way slab was poured. In addition, a new two story office space of approximately 7,000 square feet was added at
the front of the warehouse. The new walls are architecturally finished cast-in-place concrete, and the roof and floors were built with exposed butcher block flooring. Wood members (2x) were stacked side by side to create a mechanically laminated deck. The underside of this deck was left exposed and creates a beautiful ceiling in the space below. The butcher block floor is actually an historic technique that has mainly been used for manufacturing floor systems with heavy loading, and is not typically used in an office application. The buildings lateral system consisted of the wood deck spanning between the cast-in-place concrete shear walls. Due to the diaphragm aspect ratio of the office space and the heavy concrete walls, the building has very high diaphragm shear demands. These demands are resisted by heavy nailing between the 2x joists and by plywood sheathing above. The construction sequence described above allowed for minimal shoring to the building, which saved the owner very significant costs. The construction technique of the butcher block flooring was a cost-effective way to provide a unique and architecturally pleasing floor and roof system. This project met all of the owners requests, exceeded his expectations, and gave life to a once forgotten building. Sara Means, S.E. currently works as a Project Engineer at Structural Focus. Sara is an active member of SEAOSC. Sara can be reached at smeans@structrualfocus.com. David W. Cocke, S.E. is the founder and President of Structural Focus. He is active in numerous professional organizations, including SEAOSC, California Preservation Foundation, Pasadena Heritage, EERI, SEI and many others. David can be reached at dcocke@structuralfocus.com.
STRUCTURE magazine
35
November 2012
EN
GINEERS
NATIONAL
COUNCI L
20
th Annual Conference
The 20th NCSEA Annual Conference featured over three days of education, networking, business and fun at the Hilton Frontenac in St. Louis. For the first time, the keynote speech was available live online. The keynote presentation by Larry Griffis is now also available to watch on NCSEA.com. Educational programs included sessions on ASCE 7 Wind Provisions, Seismic Anchorage, Snow Load Provisions, Strength Design of Masonry, the 2011 Joplin Tornado, and Diaphragms and Wall Anchorage. Exhibitors offered the newest in products and services at the trade show. The Annual Awards Banquet honored engineering achievement, creativity and ingenuity with the NCSEA Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards, and awards were presented for individual achievement and special dedication.
ASS
RAL
OCIATI
STRUCTU
O NS
NCSEA President Tom DiBlasi with Delahay Award honoree Jim Robinson.
NCSEA News
STRUCTURE magazine
36
November 2012
NCSEA News
The Westin La Paloma Resort includes 27 holes of Jack Nicklaus signature golf on property, an Elizabeth Arden Red Door Spa, seven dining options, and five swimming pools, including a private adult pool.
Bronze Level: DiBlasi Associates Euclid Chemical Company Martin/Martin Inc. Wallace Engineering
EN
GINEERS
ASS
RAL
OCIATI
STRUCTU
O NS
NATIONAL
COUNCI L
STRUCTURE magazine
37
November 2012
Pre-conference Seminars
Design of Bridges for Accelerated Bridge Construction The design of bridges that employ Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) technologies is similar to the design of bridges built using conventional means; however, there are certain differences that bridge design engineers should be aware of. The seminar will include information on the current state of ABC in the United States, including the most common technologies and details that are in use. The focus will be in the design development process as it relates to ABC projects. Discussion will include the design of precast concrete deck panels, modular superstructure elements, substructures, foundations, and full scale bridge installations using Self Propelled Modular Transporters and lateral sliding techniques. The basis of the seminar will be a manual entitled Engineering Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems, that is under development by the Federal Highway Administration. New Essentials for Your Sustainability Tool Kit This interactive seminar will provide attendees with a hands-on overview of the new list of essentials that every engineer should have in their Sustainability Tool Kit. The seminar will focus on: how to decipher and use Life Cycle Assessment on a project; exploring how disaster resilience can help you avoid unsustainable rebuilding, both before and after failures caused by natural
Structural Columns
Local Activities
Illinois Valley Chapter
SEI and the Central Illinois Section of ASCE welcome the SEI Illinois Valley Chapter, chaired by Mike McLaren mmclaren@Dewberry.com . The affiliation with SEI will enable the SEI Illinois Valley Chapter to extend services and continuing structural-related education to local members. Recent activities include an inaugural kick-off meeting, two $250 scholarships to Bradley University students to attend Structures 2012 Congress, and serving on the review panel for the steel bridge competition. Plans are underway for the upcoming year. Local groups offer a variety of opportunities for professional development, student and community outreach, mentoring, scholarships, networking, and technical tours. To get involved with the events and activities of your local SEI Chapter or Structural Technical Group (STG), visit the SEI Local Activities Division webpage: http://content.seinstitute.org/committees/local.html. The Nebraska Sections Structural Technical Group hosted a joint dinner meeting in association with the Structural Engineers Association of Nebraska (SEAON) and the Annual Structural Conference in Omaha on Thursday, September 13th. After enjoying some great BBQ, the group of over 40 attendees listened to a presentation by Matt Farber, P.E., S.E. (DLR Group, Lincoln NE) and Michael David (Buro Happold, New York NY). Matt and Michael presented on the Structural Engineering Challenges for the Pinnacle Bank Arena. The 32nd Annual Structural Conference was held the following day, on Friday, September 14th at the Scott Conference Center in Omaha, Nebraska. The conference was well attended again this year, with nearly 240 participants. For the first time in conference history, two $2,500 fellowships were awarded to University of Nebraska students pursuing advanced structural engineer degrees. The Nebraska Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (NEASCE), the Structural Engineers Association of Nebraska (SEAON), the University of Nebraska, and the Peter Kiewit Institute are joint sponsors of the Conference. November 2012
STRUCTURE magazine
38
2 01 3
9/7/12 4:42 PM
Structural Columns
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our publications at www.asce.org/SEI. Click on Publications on our menu, and select Errata. If you have any errata that you would like to submit, please email it to Paul Sgambati at psgambati@asce.org.
39
November 2012
CASE 962-D
A Guideline Addressing Coordination and Completeness of Structural Construction Documents
Since the mid 1990s, owners, contractors, and design professionals have expressed concern about the level of quality of structural construction documents. ey have observed that the quality of these documents has deteriorated, resulting at times in poorly coordinated and incomplete design drawings. Inadequate and/or incomplete design drawings often result in inaccurate competitive bids; delays in schedule; a multiplicity of requests for information (RFIs), change orders and revision costs; increased project costs; and a general dissatisfaction with the project. In an e ort to address these concerns, the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) has prepared a Guideline Addressing Coordination and Completeness of Structural Construction Documents. It discusses the purpose of this guideline, the background behind the issue, the important aspects of design relationships, communication, coordination and completeness, guidance for dimensioning of structural drawings, e ects of various project delivery systems, document revisions, and closes with recommendations for development and application of quality management procedures.
CASE is on LinkedIn
LinkedIn is a great virtual resource for networking, education, and now, connecting with CASE. Join the CASE LinkedIn Group today! www.linkedin.com.
e key to achieving the desired level of quality throughout the profession is for each structural engineering rm to focus on and develop its own speci c quality management plan, and to implement that plan on each project. is guideline will assist the structural engineering profession in achieving that goal. is is consistent with the vision of CASE to be the recognized leader addressing business practices issues for structural engineering rms and its mission to provide information and business practice products that will increase pro tability, improve quality, reduce liability, and enhance management practices, as well as provide an investment in our future.
CASE in Point
40
November 2012
CASE in Point
JOIN CASE!
e Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) is a national association of structural engineering rms. CASE provides a forum for action to improve the business of structural engineering through implementation of best practices, reduced professional liability exposure and increased pro tability. Our mission is to improve the practice of structural engineering by providing business practice resources, improving quality, and enhancing management practices to reduce the frequency and severity of claims. Our vision is to be the leading provider of risk management and business practice education and information for use in the structural engineering practice. You membership gets you free access to contracts covering various situations as well as accessing guidance on AIA documents; free national guidelines for the structural engineer of record, designed to help corporate and municipal clients understand the scope of services structural engineers do and do not provide; free access to tools which are designed to keep you up to date on how much risk your rm is taking on and how to reduce that risk; biannual CASE convocations dedicated to Best Practice structural engineering; AND free downloads of all CASE documents 24/7. For more information visit www.acec.org/case or contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org. You must be an ACEC member to join CASE.
into the category of a duciary obligation may be uninsurable. It is best to check with your insurance company, or delete the language or replace it with something like good faith. Also, in being licensed, the primary duty of an engineer is usually stated as being to the public not the client.
41
November 2012
Structural Forum
Part 3: Reform in Education and Training
By Glenn R. Bell, P.E., S.E., SECB
Undergraduate
In the future, the undergraduate degree will be a pre-professional credential, teaching a broader body of knowledge with less urgency for technical specialization. The bachelor of science degree should assure a solid grounding in the foundational requirements for math and sciences, particularly chemistry and physics. A broad curriculum of engineering fundamentals should be stressed to provide the engineer with analytical and technical problemsolving methods that will be needed throughout his or her career. We should also expand our focus on the humanities and social sciences. This will lay the foundation for soft skills such as general problem-solving, leadership, entrepreneurship, innovation and communication. We are learning that soft skills are best taught when experiential learning leverages classroom techniques.
be exposed to a sufficiently broad set of experiences through a sort of rotation that is coupled with continuing formal education. Similarly, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) defines a comprehensive internship professional development program known as IPD. Engineer Interns would more directly shadow their Professional Engineer mentors, rather than merely acting as their assistants. Mentoring during apprenticeship is a critical means for gaining competency in skills like leadership and project management.
as to be incestuous. A highly productive, creative, value-producing structural engineering profession of the future will engage in a continuous chain where research leads to innovation, leading then to teaching and learning, then feeding back to more research, innovation, and teaching. We need to strengthen the connection between academia and practice through a greater number of practitioners teaching in universities and exposing more professors to practice. Again, we can borrow from the medical profession in this regard.
Continuous Learning
Graduate
Similar to other professions like medicine and law, the graduate engineering degree should be considered the accredited professional degree. This should not only be where technical depth is delivered, but also include continued content on professional practice. I believe that 30 credit hours of graduate education are not enough. We need twice this.
What about education and professional development that is ongoing in the decades of an engineers career after licensure? To understand the magnitude of the challenge this represents, consider that the period of time from the onset of an engineers education in undergraduate school to retirement is around 50 years. That part of those 50 years which ends at attainment of licensure is ten years or less. What about the other 40 years? To bring more structure to the notion of life-long learning, we need to develop bodies of knowledge for continuing education after registration. However, much of the current effort given to developing a body of knowledge ends at the attainment of licensure. There is little for company leaders to draw upon for post-licensure professional development. In my own firm, we invest significant amounts each year in developing and delivering custom-made professional development for our staff and managers. I know many firms in our industry do the same. This is wasteful and ineffective. We need to define our expectations for this critical period of professional development and share resources.
Engineer Internship
Looking beyond formal university education, we have much opportunity in raising our expectations from the Engineer Intern experience. Here we could model some of the better practices of medical residency, such that engineers-in-training would
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, C3Ink, or the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board.
Glenn R. Bell, P.E., S.E., SECB (GRBell@sgh.com), is the Chief Executive Officer at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger in Waltham, Massachusetts.
STRUCTURE magazine
42
November 2012