®

STRUCTURE
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

February 2015 Steel/Cold-Formed Steel

 For over three decades engineers have relied on ENERCALC’s industry leading software to perform
structural design and analysis for low to mid-rise buildings.

• Software for rapid creation of calculations for

components of low to mid-rise buildings
• Covering virtually all design & analysis tasks in We have a very nice
steel, wood, concrete, masonry, load generation
and frame analysis
• Incorporates latest IBC, ACI, ASCE, AISC, NDS and
CBC code provisions
• Flexible licensing, automatic web updates, superb
support, created by experienced engineers
• Celebrating 30 years and 10,000+ users
• Enhanced continuously to meet user requests
and industry standards
Did you know?
addition in the latest
Structural Engineering
Library. We’ve rewritten
the Load Combination
system so that the user now has complete control over stress, reaction, deflection
and stability load combination used by the program. (Prior versions used a single
automatic load combination for non-stress values).
This gives you the flexibility to further control the calculations to fit your needs
and be perfectly code compliant. PLUS we provide IBC 2012, ASCE 7-10 and
many other defined load combination sets to choose from.

800.424.2252 | www.enercalc.com | info@enercalc.com

Evaluation Software: www.enercalc.com/demo

 If you could make
structural steel take any shape
Learn more through our CEU
http://ceu.construction.com/article.php?L=418&C=1269 what would you have it do?
Pioneer Village Station, Toronto
SGA / IBI Group Architects in joint venture with Will Alsop
Cast node photograph: Dieter Janssen www.castconnex.com innovative components for inspired designs
 editorial ProFessional issues
7 Where We Go depends on 32 rainbows only Come
Where We aim after rain
By Barry Arnold, S.E., SECB By Ellen (Chuan-Hua) Kuo, P.E.

lessons learned struCtural rehaBilitation

9 unintentional Corrosion by
structural design
By Julie Mark Cohen, Ph.D., P.E., SECB
enGineer’s noteBook
13 Built-up Cold-Formed steel
44 divine design: renovating
and Preserving historic
houses of Worship – Part 3
By Nathaniel B. Smith, P.E. and
Milan Vatovec, P.E., Ph.D.
STRUCTURE
®

Compression Member design historiC struCtures

February 2015
By Roger LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E. 48 Bollman truss at
harper’s Ferry
Code uPdates By Frank Griggs, Jr., D. Eng., P.E.
17 Changes to the 2015 Wood
Frame Construction Manual insiGhts 34
By John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E., 52 integral Crystalline Feature
Peter Mazikins, P.Eng and Waterproofing Bethel Park
Michelle Kam-Biron, S.E., P.E. By Alireza Biparva, M.A.Sc.
By Jacob Bice, Ph.D., P.E. and Dilip Choudhuri, P.E. In 2005,
a fire gutted the interior of this historic structure, collapsing the
struCtural desiGn eduCation issues interior framing and roof, leaving only the exterior masonry
20 Why it’s Good to be 55 leading the Charge walls in place. The structure sat exposed and abandoned
a lightweight By Uchenna T. E. Okoye, P.E. until 2009, when the City of Houston purchased the property
By Peter Debney, BEng(Hons), CEng and Eric Borchers, S.E. to convert the former church into a community park. Read
about testing of the remaining structural components and
development of strengthening solutions.
Guest ColuMn sPotliGht
24 the nisd difference 59 krishna P. singh Center
By Kerri Olsen for nanotechnology 40
By Brian Falconer, P.E., S.E., SECB Feature
struCtural liCensure
26 100 Years of structural struCtural ForuM
CFs transforms
engineering licensure 66 is structural engineering octagonal structure
By Gregg E. Brandow, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. education sustainable? into elliptical Curve
By Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
By Jeffrey Kreinke, P.E., S.E., Karl Scherzer, P.E. and
struCtural testinG
Jamie John, E.I.T. This new indoor arena is a seven level
28 inside the Bridge concrete structure wrapped in a metal panel and glass curtain
inspection toolbox wall façade. The inner, octagonal concrete super structure
By Roger Roberts, Ph.D. is enclosed by cold formed steel framing, which transforms
corners of a rigid polygonal concrete structure of the outer
shape into a tri-radial ellipse.
On the cover The historic Bethel Baptist Church was destroyed after a fire gutted
the interior in 2005 and severely damaged its masonry walls. The design team co-
created an amazing community park from the ashes of the fire-damaged structure and
in everY issue
successfully restored aspects of its original historic splendor. Walter P Moore conducted
a comprehensive investigation, in-situ testing, and developed a repair protocol that
8 Advertiser Index
strengthened the walls in place. See feature article on page 34. 58 Resource Guide (Bridge)
60 NCSEA News
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
62 SEI Structural Columns
advertisers retain sole responsibility for the content of their submissions. 64 CASE in Point

STRUCTURE magazine 5 February 2015

 Can a structural floor system be easy to
install, cost-effective and green?
5. Concrete Slab (by others)

Yes.
Ecospan is an
innovative, simple, and 4. Concrete Reinforcement
(by others)
economical solution for
elevated concrete floor 2. Vulcraft/Verco Steel Deck

and roof systems. The 3. Shearflex® HD

screw
Ecospan Composite Floor 1. Vulcraft E-Series Steel Joist

System offers all these

advantages and more. A safe,
innovative choice, Ecospan helps reduce
building costs while offering the benefits Ecospan is perfect for

of sustainable building materials that ICF wall framing systems

(Insulated Concrete Forms)
qualify for LEED® certification through the
U.S. Green Building Council.

Ecospan is the natural choice for:

Senior Living and Care Facilities

Apartments
Condominiums
Student Housing
Military Housing
Hotels and Resorts
Medical Facilities
Office Buildings
Mezzanines VUL

B IM
THE

CRA
Schools FT

EVO
LUT
ION

Ecospan Composite Floor System

www.ecospan-usa.com
Nucor Vulcraft National Accounts
6230 Shiloh Road, Suite 140
Alpharetta, GA 30005
(678) 965-6667
888-375-9787

VISIT US AT BOOTH N1752 at the WORLD OF CONCRETE

Editorial Where We Go Depends On Where We Aim
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By Barry Arnold, S.E., SECB

U
nprecedented challenges face the structural engineering
profession in the years to come. Threats from foreign
competition, opposition to structural licensure, dwin-
dling profits, decline in ethics, and increased risk and
expectations are at our doorstep now. It has become obvious that
trying to maintain the status quo will only result in a decline in the
relevance of the profession. An idiom states that there are three types
of people: Those that are in the loop, those that are out of the loop,
and those that don’t know there is a loop. As licensed professionals, it
is imperative that we be ‘in the loop’, actively engaged in advocating
for our profession, and working to forge a meaningful future for all
present and future structural engineers.
There are three ways to approach the future: We can actively plan
and contribute to make the future we want a reality, we can sit idle
and wait and see what happens or, when the future arrives, we can
see what happens and adjust. The first option requires that we plan
and build the future we want, not unlike the planning, calculating,
and construction that goes into building a structure. The second and
third options require no planning, no effort, and no consideration
for the profession or the public.
To position itself to meet and address the present and future con-
cerns of the structural engineering profession, NCSEA has taken
the initiative to create a four-phase strategic planning process.
Phase 1 – Determine Whom You Serve
Marcus Buckingham declared in his book, The One Thing You
Need To Know, that the key to long term success is to know
whom you serve. Knowing why your organization exists, who
your clients are, and what they want, is crucial to your long-term
success. After much thoughtful discussion, it was determined that
NCSEA exists to represent and support the Structural Engineering
Associations (SEAs) in their effort to improve the profession and
protect the public.
Phase 2 – Collect Data
With clarity on whom NCSEA
serves, NCSEA sent a 3-ques-
tion survey to the leadership of
®
structurE
2-day Strategic Planning Session. The input by the SEAs provided
a valuable resource of relevant information considered significant
by the SEAs.
Phase 3 – Develop a Mission
and Vision Statement
Based on the SEAs’ input, NCSEA created new Mission and Vision
Statements which better reflect the purpose and intent of the organization.
NCSEA’s new Mission Statement: NCSEA advances the practice
of structural engineering by representing and strengthening its
Member Organizations.
NCSEA’s new Vision Statement: The National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations will be recognized as the leading advocate for the
practice of structural engineering.
Phase 4 – Form Focus Groups
Four focus groups were formed to undertake the following tasks
and make recommendations to help NCSEA meet its mission
and vision statements: (i) Evaluation of NCSEA’s Organizational
Structure, (ii) Examination of the current NCSEA–MO delegate
model and evaluation of the ways it can be modified and improved,
(iii) Exploration of new ways to improve MO communication
between all components of the organization, including Board,
Staff, Committees, and Member Organizations, and (iv) Assessment
of NCSEA’s financial sustainability, including evaluation of both
opportunities for additional revenue streams and threats to current
revenue streams.
NCSEA’s Strategic Plan is an on-going process, based on feedback
from the SEAs. And because great organizations do more than just
collect feedback, NCSEA is putting the ideas, hopes, and dreams of
the MOs into the strategic plan by addressing their concerns.
NCSEA needs to be strong and aimed in the right direction as
it advocates for the profession. It also needs to be nimble so it
can easily adjust to changes in our world and provide additional
emphasis in areas needing critical attention. NCSEA exists for
the SEAs, and the SEAs exist for their members. Their members,
the structural engineers, exist to protect the public. We are all in
this together. We all need to be in the loop and actively engaged

the SEAs, asking them: First, in this important process.

what are the three most sig- NCSEA should aim high and set goals that will ultimately improve
nificant problems facing your the structural engineering profession and benefit the
a member benefit

member organization? Second, public. NCSEA’s aim must be true, so that the structural
what are the three things you engineering profession will remain relevant and vibrant
believe NCSEA is doing well? as it faces the challenges ahead.▪
Third, what could NCSEA do to
improve its support of your SEA?
Barry Arnold, S.E., SECB (barrya@arwengineers.com), is a Vice
Seventy-five percent of the
President at ARW Engineers in Ogden, Utah. He is a Past President
STRUCTURAL SEAs participated, providing a
ENGINEERING of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah (SEAU), serves as
INSTITUTE total of 291 responses, which
the SEAU Delegate to NCSEA, and is the NCSEA President and a
were reviewed by the 34 par-
member of the NCSEA Licensing Committee.
ticipants attending NCSEA’s

STRUCTURE magazine 7 February 2015

 structurE
®

ADVERTISER INDEX PLEAsE suPPOrt tHEsE ADVErtIsErs

Albina Co, Inc....................................... 37
Alpine TrusSteel .................................... 19
American Concrete Institute ................. 12
Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................. 47
CADRE Analytic .................................. 58
Cast ConneX........................................... 4
Clark Dietrich Building Systems ........... 31
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 11
Design Data .......................................... 16
Ecospan Composite Floor System ........... 6
Enercalc, Inc. .......................................... 3
Fyfe ....................................................... 29
Hardy Frame ......................................... 49
Independence Tube Corporation ............. 2
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 57
Integrity Software, Inc. ................ 8, 27, 42
Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis Sol.... 23
KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 45 ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER
LNA Solutions ...................................... 36 INTERACTIVE SALES ASSOCIATES
NCEES ................................................. 54 sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
New Millennium Building Systems ....... 21 Eastern Sales Chuck Minor 847-854-1666
Western Sales Jerry Preston 480-396-9585
PT-Structures ........................................ 58
RISA Technologies ................................ 68 EDITORIAL STAFF
SidePlate Systems, Inc. .......................... 51
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
Simpson Strong-Tie......................... 15, 39 execdir@ncsea.com
The Steel Network, Inc. ......................... 67
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Structural Engineers, Inc. ...................... 58 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Structural Technologies ......................... 33
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
Struware, Inc. ........................................ 53 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Taylor Devices, Inc. ............................... 25 Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
Tekla ..................................................... 43 graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Wood Advisory Services, Inc. .................. 8 Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org

U R n ame EDITORIAL BOARD

Get YOhis list! Chair Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB

on t Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO

chair@structuremag.org

Visit our website to see what Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB

CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA
advertising opportunities are
John A. Dal Pino, S.E.
right for you! Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, CA

www.STRUCTUREmag.org Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.

Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA

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

ERRATUM Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA

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

Adaptive Reuse Investigation of Roof Framing CCFSS, Rolla, MO

By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., SECB, January 2015 Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA
PROJECT UPDATE:
Brian W. Miller
Since Pennoni issued the report for this facility and submitted the article for publication, the Davis, CA
Property Manager and Owner for Industry City reacted quickly to the recommendations by Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
immediately reroofing all of the buildings that had not already been reroofed at the time of The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Ridgefield, CT
the investigation. The Property Manager also retained Pennoni to design the structural systems Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
associated with mechanical and electrical upgrades located on the roofs of the facility, and to KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA
peer-review a new adaptive reuse project, in order to ensure that these efforts would benefit Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
from the firm’s previous involvement with and knowledge of the facility. The actions of the BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
Property Manager serve to illustrate the proper approach to the ongoing use and renovation John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
of a vital historic facility. American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA

Amy Trygestad, P.E.

Chase Engineering, LLC, New Prague, MN

Attention Bentley Users Wood Advisory Services, Inc.

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

“The Wood Experts”
Have you received your automatic Consultants in the Engineering Use
quarterly invoice from Bentley? of Wood & Wood-Base Composite
Materials in Buildings & Structures
Would you like to reduce or eliminate
• Product Evaluation & Failure Analysis
these invoices?
• In-situ Evaluation of Wood Structures
Use SofTrack to control and manage • Wood Deterioration Assessment
• Mechanical & Physical Testing
Calendar Hour usage of your Bentley
• Non-Destructive Evaluation
SELECT Open Trust Licensing. • Expert Witness Services
Call us today, 866 372 8991 or visit us www.woodadvisory.com
www.softwaremetering.com 845-677-3091
C3 Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
Phone 608-524-1397 Fax 608-524-4432
publisher@structuremag.org
February 2015, Volume 22, Number 2
ISSN 1536-4283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118.
Owned by the National Council of Structural Engineers
Associations and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI
monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to
members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription
rate is $75/yr domestic; $40/yr student; $90/yr Canada; $60/yr
Canadian student; $135/yr foreign; $90/yr foreign student.
For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member
organization(s) or email subscriptions@STRUCTUREmag.org. Note
that if you do not notify your member organization, your address
will revert back with their next database submittal. Any opinions
expressed in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink,
or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board.

STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of

Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of
STRUCTURE magazine 8 February 2015 the publisher.
“Put away your swords. They will get rusty in the dew.”
– Othello, Act 1, Scene 2, by William Shakespeare, circa 1603
C Learned
orrosion has been a problem since
the beginning of the Iron Age, circa
1200 BC. Before the Industrial
Revolution, corrosion was recognized
and respected in hand-produced objects, such
as weapons. After the advent of machinery that
was used to fabricate metal alloys for structural
framing members and components exposed to the
elements, corrosion found new targets. The metal
alloys include but are not limited to wrought
iron, cast iron, hot-rolled steel, and stainless steel.
Corrosion of metals is caused by either a chemi-
cal reaction or electrification, in which the base
metal is changed and eaten away. An example of
chemical interaction is the oxidation of iron in
the presence of water by an electrolytic process
to form iron oxide (i.e., rust). An example of
electrification is a rapid-transit system, in which
stray direct currents (DC) can corrode rails and
nearby metallic infrastructure components, such
as buried pipelines and cables.
Corrosion has eight unique forms, which are
more or less interrelated. These include the follow-
ing in no particular order: (1) uniform or general
attack, (2) galvanic or two-metal corrosion, (3)
crevice corrosion, (4) pitting, (5) intergranular
corrosion, (6) selected leaching or parting, (7)
erosion corrosion, and (8) stress corrosion.
Today, rusted vehicles no longer litter the land-
scape. From this, casual observers and perhaps
some structural engineers may not realize that
these vehicles have been recycled, and that techno-
logical advancements have ameliorated nearly all
rust in modern-day vehicles. Some may also con-
clude that rust and various types of corrosion are
no longer of concern, because they see essentially
no rust in the landscapes; but rust and corrosion
in general have by no means disappeared.
Corrosion, although touted as “a natural but
controllable process,” is an ultra-expensive nem-
esis of steel and reinforced concrete structures.
In 1998, direct corrosion costs were approxi-
mately $276 billion or 3.1% of the GDP. The
costs included but were not limited to utilities,
drinking water and sewer systems, gas distribu-
tion, waterways and ports, and highway bridges.
A recent publication stated, “In the 15 years
that have passed since the [NACE] study was
released, inflation has driven both the direct
and indirect costs of corrosion over $500 billion
annually, totaling over $1 trillion in 2013 …
At 6.2% of GDP, corrosion is one of the largest
single expenses in the US economy yet it rarely
receives the attention it requires. Corrosion costs
money and lives, resulting in dangerous failures
and increased charges for everything from utilities
to transportation and more.”
STRUCTURE magazine
Lessons
This article presents two examples of corrosion
that were unintentional byproducts of structural
designs. The first example, electric power trans-
mission towers constructed from weathering steel,
problems and solutions
describes uniform or general attack corrosion. The
second example, stress corrosion with hydrogen encountered by practicing
embrittlement, entails the design of a cofferdam structural engineers
and its waler bolts.
Example 1
Aesthetics versus Durability: Premature Use
of Weathering Steel
The stage for the first example – a corrosion prob-
lem, specifically the formation of rust within
structural joints – was set circa 1965-1966,
when structural engineers
began selecting weathering
steel for bolted structural
members, typically angles,
Unintentional Corrosion
in electric power transmis-
sion towers.
by Structural Design
Weathering steel is a high-
strength, low-alloy steel that forms a tightly-
adhering “patina” during its initial exposure to By Julie Mark Cohen, Ph.D., P.E.,
moisture and oxygen. The patina, an oxide film of SECB
corrosion by-products, formed early on between
bolted plate elements of the angles and contin-
ued to grow as “pack-out” rust. This rust, which
decreased the cross-sectional area of the bolted
members, forced bolted plate elements apart.
On some occasions, bolts have fractured from
excessive axial tensile stress.
When the transmission towers were designed,
no guidelines existed for bolting weathering steel Julie Mark Cohen, Ph.D., P.E.,
structural members that were exposed to the SECB (jmcohen@jmcohenpe.com),
elements. After corrosion was observed, design is a consulting structural and forensic
guidelines were developed and published. They engineer and published fiction
provided information for bolt spacing, edge writer in Latham, New York. This
distance, and clamping forces to minimize article constitutes a small part of
the possibility of formation of “pack-out” rust her research, entitled Structural
between bolted plate elements, such as angles. Engineers: Constraints on Design
Transmission towers that were adversely affected Decisions and Subsequent, Costly
still exist and/or are being replaced in at least Failures 1950-2014.
Virginia and New York.
Example 2
Caveat Emptor: Misuse of ASTM A722
A second example is the result of U.S. manufac-
turers misusing an ASTM standard. This problem
has gone unrecognized by structural engineers, The online version of this
even though failures have occurred. Specifics of article contains several
nearly all of these failures are not in the public detailed references. Please visit
domain. This example is presented by using a www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
9
fictitious scenario of the design of a marine
structure, specifically a cofferdam. However,
the impetus for misuse is factual, and the risk
of subsequent failures is real.
Design of a Fictitious Cofferdam
Elliot Buyer is a 40-year-old structural engi-
neer who earned a bachelor’s degree in civil
engineering and a one-year project master’s
degree, both with honors, and easily passed
the FE, PE, and SE exams. He works in the
century-old, well-respected firm, Clev-R
Structural Engineers.
In February 2014, Elliot procured a project
from an international corporation to replace a
71-year-old, 650-foot-long cofferdam in the
local ocean harbor. He felt comfortable work-
ing single-handedly, because he had designed
dozens of large, complicated retaining walls
in highly saturated soils, none of which had
ever shown signs of distress.
Recalling that Clev-R worked on another
cofferdam project in the early 1990s, Elliot
searched his office’s library. He ignored an
unlabeled manila folder with a plastic-lam-
inated article entitled “Atoms Villain in
Culvert Collapse” that discussed the failure
of A490 bolts. The failure was attributed to
hydrogen embrittlement, “a phenomenon
occasionally experienced in metallurgy but
never before known to have occurred in
highway culvert construction.” The article
stated that the following three factors must
be simultaneously present for hydrogen
embrittlement to occur: stress, susceptibil-
ity, and a wet environment.
Next to the manila folder, Elliot found a
sheet pile design manual published by United
States Steel. Near the manual, he discovered
a binder, labeled Supplements to the Sheet Pile
Design Manual, that was initialed by RC III.
The binder included examples of waler designs
with top and bottom channels stitched
together, soil gravity loads on walers, and
approximate analyses for continuous walers.
He also discovered calculations for a smaller
cofferdam’s waler bolts and tie-back rods
using ASTM A325 material. In addition, he
observed that the waler bolts were designed
for axial tension plus bending, “just in case
the walers rotate downward.”
Elliot quickly realized that he would need
high-strength steel for the waler bolts and
tie-back rods. He searched the internet and
learned that U.S. manufacturers were sell-
ing ASTM A722 threaded rods with the
option of hot-dip galvanizing. He prepared
a thorough, well-documented calculation
package and requested an in-house peer
review from a more seasoned colleague,
Denis L’Accord. Denis spent two days
STRUCTURE magazine
reviewing Elliot’s work, but had no com-
ments, not even minor ones.
The construction of the new cofferdam com-
menced in mid-summer and was completed
in late fall 2014. A barely measurable out-of-
plumbness was introduced into the sheet piles,
but Elliot was confident that it was within
acceptable levels and that the conservative
waler bolt design was more than adequate.
Cofferdam Failure
At dawn on New Year’s Day, January 2015, the
cofferdam failed: the sheet piles tilted toward
the ocean, and the soil sank behind them. By
10 a.m., Elliot, Denis, and Roger Clevstone
III (RC III), grandson of the founding prin-
cipal, were poring over Elliot’s calculations,
construction documents, reports by an inde-
pendent inspector, and photographs taken
during construction. The manufacturers’
catalogs sat at the bottom of a stack at the
end of the conference room table. The men
were mystified.
Preparation of Deposition Questions
The client, a private corporation, hired Quinn
Santiago, Esq., an attorney who was well-
known for winning lawsuits on failing to
meet the standard of care. In his thirty years
of litigation, he had seen dozens of highly-
trained professionals who did not realize that
they lacked the knowledge to make informed
design decisions.
In turn, Quinn hired Abigail Sorrel, a con-
sulting structural and forensic engineer, who
was well-respected for what others called a
“multi-disciplinary” approach to problem-
solving. She fought against this designation,
contending that any knowledge needed to
solve a particular discipline’s problem is req-
uisite to that discipline.
The reports from three independent metal-
lurgists were telling. From these findings,
Abigail organized information with which she
would assist Quinn in developing questions
for the depositions of Elliot and Denis. Her
preliminary list included the following items:
1. Metallurgists’ consensus: Hydrogen
embrittlement and fracture of
waler bolts.
2. Ocean cofferdam. Salt water
environment.
3. 150-ksi steel, hot-dip galvanized,
threaded bolts and rods.
4. U.S. manufacturers selling ASTM
A722, hot-dip galvanized threaded
rods and bolts.
5. Neither RCSC (2009) nor
AISC (2010) specify ASTM
A722 as a material to be used for
structural fasteners.
10 February 2015
6. An article in a steel industry
publication about specifying proper
materials (Anderson and Carter
2012) does not mention ASTM
A722 for structural fasteners.
However, one of the authors
(Anderson 2011) previously stated,
“To properly use an unlisted material,
one must evaluate its various
characteristics in relation to the
contemplated uses for it ...”
7. ASTM A722/A722M: Standard
Specification for Uncoated High-Strength
Steel Bars for Prestressing Concrete.
a. Originally approved in 1975.
b.Dimensions given for Type I (plain)
bars and Type II (deformed) bars.
No threaded rods.
c. Finished bars shall have a minimum
ultimate tensile strength of 150 ksi.
d. Minimum yield strength given for
Type I and II bars as a percentage
of ultimate strength.
e. Minimum elongation is given for
Type I and II bars, which is much
smaller than for RCSC- and AISC-
accepted A490 steel.
f. Also, AASHTO M 275M/M 275
(same title).
8. ASTM A143/A143M: Standard
Practice for Safeguarding Against
Embrittlement of Hot-Dip Galvanized
Structural Steel Products and Procedure
for Detecting Embrittlement.
a. Originally approved in 1932.
b.“In practice, hydrogen
embrittlement of galvanized steel
is usually of concern only if the
steel exceeds approximately 150
ksi in ultimate tensile strength, or
if it has been severely cold worked
prior to pickling.”
9. ASTM F2329: Standard Specification
for Zinc Coating, Hot-Dip,
Requirements for Application to Carbon
and Alloy Steel Bolts, Screws, Washers,
Nuts, and Special Threaded Fasteners
a. Originally approved in 2005.
b.“For high strength fasteners (having
a specified minimum product
hardness of 33HRC), there is a risk
of internal hydrogen embrittlement.”
10. Before Elliot’s design, Caltrans
issued the following amendments
to the AASHTO LRFD: “...ASTM
A722 bars shall not be galvanized”
and “Galvanization of ... ASTM
A722 bars is not permitted due to
hydrogen embrittlement.”
Abigail also noted that sheet pile, waler
bolt, and tie-back designs followed the
state-of-practice. However, overstrength (a
higher factor of safety) and redundancy were
not considered. She noted that, even if they
had been considered, they were unlikely to
have been helpful, since all of the waler bolts
were equally susceptible to two interdependent
cracking phenomena, tensile stress corrosion
in salt water and hydrogen embrittlement.
Structural Engineers, Their
Knowledge Base and
Design Decisions
Structural engineers hail from two different
professional traditions. First, for centuries,
civil engineers who worked on military and
public works projects required the services
of specialists who would later be known as
“structural engineers.” Second, since the
mid-1880s when architects relinquished
their responsibilities for structural design,
they have required the services of structural
engineers who specialized in building proj-
ects. Regardless of the project type, for well
over a century, structural engineers have
been providing specialized technical services
not strictly through their own profession,
but under the broad umbrella of the civil
engineering profession. In part as a result of
this history, the undergraduate and graduate
educations of these engineering specialists,
mentoring in practice, licensure, and continu-
ing education for licensure are not without
their flaws and deficiencies.
In the United States, ABET (2014)
provides requirements for baccalaureate
engineering education. Although civil engi-
neering has been a long-established and
accredited undergraduate major, structural
engineering has never been recognized as a
separate degree program. Structural engi-
neering courses are offered as a “technical
area” within civil engineering curricula.
ABET’s requirements do not require solv-
ing problems that deal with microscopic
behaviors of steel (e.g., fracture and corro-
sion). Senior-level capstone courses rarely,
if ever, include collaboration with seniors
studying materials engineering. From this,
civil engineering students may receive the
impression that such consultation with
materials engineers is not necessary once
they are practicing.
Structural engineers who receive one-
or two-year master’s degrees in structural
engineering are also at a disadvantage.
One-year curricula tend to focus solely
on structural engineering, often with a
project in collaboration with civil and/
STRUCTURE magazine
or geotechnical engineers. Thesis-based
two-year curricula rarely allow a structural
engineering graduate student to enroll in a
materials engineering course. The curricula
for doctoral students are almost always as
narrowly focused as those for two-year CONSTRUCTION CEMENT
FASTE R
master’s degrees.
Licensure for professional engineers and,
where applicable, for structural engineers,
as well as SECB certification, do not require
that applicants and exam-takers possess
any level of knowledge about corrosion
STRONGER
of steel, or even an awareness of relevant
ASTM standards. Continuing education
MORE DURABLE
courses reflect licensure. Consequently,
structural engineers are asked to solve
practical problems for which their edu-
3000 PSI IN 1 HOUR
cational and practical backgrounds may
be inadequate. They may not be properly
aware of their limitations.
Concluding Remarks
Confucius said, “To know what you know and
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
what you do not know, that is true knowledge.”
In the first example, design criteria were not Specified
developed before a new material, weathering Worldwide
steel, was used for bolted structures exposed
to the elements.
In the second example, the knowledge
base had been well-developed, but was not
recognized by structural engineers. Clearly,
the (fictitious) cofferdam failure described
above could have been prevented if Elliot
and his colleagues had taken a moment
to look up the title of ASTM A722 and
read the words “uncoated,” “bars,” and
“prestressing,” which should have raised
a red flag. Unfortunately, across the U.S.,
structural engineers are specifying hot-dip
galvanized, threaded rods that are sold by ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
manufacturers as compliant with ASTM
A722 for cofferdams, underground pipes, • High bond strength
bridge components, and other structures
whose steel components are exposed to salt • Low shrinkage
water environments. • High sulfate resistance
The intention of this article is to leave the
readers with three questions: • Great freeze thaw durability
1) How does a structural engineer
recognize when his/her knowledge • Long life expectancy
base is insufficient? • 65% lower carbon footprint
2) When should a structural engineer
employ the services of a collaborator,
such as a materials engineer? Available in
3) What, if anything, should be done,
and by whom, to ensure that structural Bags and Bulk
engineers possess an adequate
knowledge base to develop designs
that provide reliable, predictable, and 800-929-3030
durable performance?▪
ctscement.com
11 February 2015
 ACI Seminars—Outstanding Content, Great Value
COMPLETELY
REORGANIZED
GREATER

FOR
EASE OF USE
ACI 318-14: Reorganized for Design
The American Concrete Institute has recently published the newest edition of ACI 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14).”
This edition represents the first major change in Code organization in over 40 years and has been completely reorganized from a designer’s perspective.
This seminar will help you get acquainted with the new organization and various technical changes to the code as quickly as possible and demonstrate
how you can ensure that your design fully complies with the new code.

To learn more about ACI seminars and to register, visit www.concreteseminars.org

Detroit, MI—February 17, 2015
Orlando, FL—February 26, 2015
Phoenix, AZ—March 03, 2015
Charlotte, NC—March 05, 2015
Pleasanton, CA—March 10, 2015
Philadelphia, PA—March 12, 2015
Louisville, KY—March 17, 2015
Seattle, WA—March 19, 2015
Cleveland, OH—March 24, 2015
Austin, TX—March 26, 2015
Anchorage, AK—March 31, 2015
Las Vegas, NV—March 31, 2015
Chicago, IL—April 02, 2015
Kansas City, KS—April 16, 2015
Oklahoma City, OK—April 23, 2015
Milwaukee, WI—April 28, 2015
Salt Lake City, UT—April 30, 2015
Omaha, NE—May 01, 2015
Washington, DC—May 05, 2015
Boston, MA—May 07, 2015
New York, NY—May 12, 2015
Los Angeles, CA—May 14, 2015
Albuquerque, NM—May 19, 2015
Atlanta, GA—May 21, 2015

NEW ACI 318–14 Available Now

Order your
copy today!

Order Code: 31814.SPEC

$249.50 (ACI members $149.00)

www.concrete.org
B EnginEEr’s
uilt-up cold-formed steel compression
members are commonly used as shear wall
chord members, and at openings of doors
and windows (stud packs) to resist the
additional load transferred from an opening header.
The provisions in North American Specification for
the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members,
AISI S100 Section D1.2 are limited to concentrically
loaded compression members composed of two
shapes joined together at discrete points along the
axis of the member. Thus, the AISI S100 provisions
are limited to either an I-shaped cross section or a
box-shaped cross section.
Today there are various assumptions employed
when designing the stud packs. An often employed
assumption by inexperienced cold-formed steel
design engineers is that each stud in a stud pack
has the same tributary area as a typical wall stud.
What this assumption consists of is adding studs
to the stud pack equal to the number of studs
displaced by an opening. Thus, the stud pack is
not engineered but, in fact, is simply assembled to
provide an equal number of studs as if the opening
did not occur. This assumption can be both uneco-
nomical and can result in poor framing designs as
illustrated by Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Another questionable assumption made by
inexperienced cold-formed steel design engi-
neers is that the axial load is shared equally
to each individual member of the stud pack,
and each member’s strength is based on the
behavior as a discrete member. Making this
assumption can lead to a suspect load path or
an uneconomical, design as any synergy of the
individual stud pack members is not accounted
for in the design.
The following discussion introduces design con-
cepts and practical considerations for built-up
member design, for which AISI S100 and AISI
framing standards, AISI S211 North American
Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing – Wall
Stud Design have specific design provisions.
Design Methodology
Built-up compression members interconnected
at discrete points have a reduced shear rigidity
which reduces the buckling stress of the member.
To reflect the reduced shear rigidity, AISI S100
Section D1.2 requires the use of a modified slen-
derness ratio, (KL/r)m as follows:
STRUCTURE magazine
where
( ) √( ) ( )
2 2
KL KL a
= +
r r o ri
notEbook
m
(KL/r)o = Overall slenderness ratio of entire
section about built-up member axis
a = Intermediate fastener or spot weld
spacing
aids for the structural
ri = Minimum radius of gyration of full
unreduced cross-sectional area of an engineer’s toolbox
individual shape (single C-section) in
a built-up member
Note, the modified slenderness ratio is only
applied to the buckling axis that requires the
interconnecting fasteners to transfer shear. For
an I-shaped section, this means the (KL/r)y axis is
the slenderness ratio to be modified. The (KL/r)x
axis is not modified.
When applying the modified slenderness ratio,
the following additional the fastener strength [resis-
tance] and spacing shall be satisfied:
1) The intermediate fastener
or spot weld spacing,
a, is limited such that
a/ri does not exceed
Built-Up Cold-Formed
one-half the governing Steel Compression
slenderness ratio of the
built-up member. Member Design
2) The ends of a built-up
compression member By Roger LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E.
are connected by a weld having a length
not less than the maximum width of
the member, or by connectors spaced
longitudinally not more than 4 diameters
apart for a distance equal to 1.5 times the
maximum width of the member.
3) The intermediate fastener(s) or weld(s) at
any longitudinal member tie location are
capable of transmitting required strength
[factored forces] in any direction of 2.5 Roger LaBoube, Ph.D, P.E.
percent of the available axial strength (laboube@mst.edu), is Curator’s
[factored resistance] of the built-up member. Teaching Professor Emeritus of
AISI S211 requires that if the above criteria are Civil Engineering and Director
not met, the design strength of the built-up of the Wei-Wen Yu Center for
member shall be taken as the sum of the indi- Cold-Formed Steel Structures
vidual members of the built-up section. at the Missouri University of
AISI S100 Section D1.2 imposes stringent connec- Technology. Roger is active in
tion requirements for the ends of built-up members several professional organizations
(requirement 2 above). However, based on research, and societies, including the
the following provision has been adopted for the American Iron and Steel Institute’s
next edition of the AISI framing standards which Committee on Specifications and
will combine the current framing standards into Committee on Framing Standards.
one document, North American Standard for Cold- He also serves on STRUCTURE’s
Formed Steel Structural Framing AISI S240: Editorial Board.
Exception: Where a built-up axial load bearing
section comprised of two studs oriented back-
to-back forming an I-shaped cross-section is
properly seated in a track in accordance with
the requirements of Section C3.4.3, and the
top and bottom end bearing detail of the studs
consists of full support by steel or concrete
13
 components with adequate strength and A design consideration is the spacing of the and bottom, thus by utilizing the
stiffness to preclude differential end slip web connectors which will influence both provision of AISI S240, additional
of the built-up studs, the compliance with load capacity and economics as summarized: fasteners are not required.
the end connection provisions of AISI 3) The intermediate fastener(s) or weld(s)
“a” “Pa”
S100 Section D1.2(b) is not required. at any longitudinal member tie
(inches) (kips)
The current framing standards are a free location are capable of transmitting
24 13.85
download from www.aisistandards.org. required strength [factored forces]
18 14.50
in any direction of 2.5 percent of
12 14.99
the available axial strength [factored
Example Problem The design engineer should carefully consider if resistance] of the built-up member.
Studs – back to back the increased load will provide the most economi- Using No. 12 self-drilling screws, the
cal design solution because of the added labor nominal shear capacity of a screw is
Reinforcing track (no shear expense of providing screws at a closer spacing. 1.29 kips. The available strength of a
connection top and bottom) When creating built-up sections, orienta- screw is 1.29 kips/3.0 = 0.86 kips per
tion of the individual members should be screw. Where 3.0 is the safety factor.
Figure 2. considered. For example, if two 600S162- 2.5% x 13.85 kips = 0.35 kips <
54 (50 ksi) sections were oriented in a box 0.86 kips, Okay!
A typical 9-foot jamb stud as shown consisting configuration (Figure 3), with the toe-to-toe
of two 600S162-54 (50 ksi) sections intercon- welds spaced 24 inches on center, the available
nected by two self-drilling screws 24 inches strength, Pa, is 16.92 kips vs 13.85 kips for
Practical Considerations
on center in the web (Figure 2). The track the I-section configuration. Furthermore, the Specific design methodology for two members
section is not considered to be a structural I-section configuration requires the additional interconnected is presented here, but in many
member to resist axial loads, but is needed to track section for the jamb closure. cases more than two members are used to
create a closure for the opening at the door create a stud pack. The following are design
or window. Weak axis bracing (in the plane thoughts offered by several experienced cold-
of the wall) is provided at 4-foot intervals. Studs – toe to toe formed steel design engineers:
• The design varies from job-to-job
Lx = 9 ft, Ly = Lt = 4 ft
based on the contractor preference
Properties: and politics (e.g. on some union jobs,
Single 600S162-54, ry = 0.5699 inch Figure 3. the cold-formed steel contractor can’t
install HSS thicker than 1/8-inch – iron
Double 600S162-54, rx = 2.2677 inches,
Check the following additional the fastener worker vs carpenter unions).
ry = 0.7042, a = 24 inches (center to center
and spacing requirements: • Where we see a pair of 97-mil,
spacing of web fasteners)
1) The intermediate fastener or spot S200 or bigger studs, our firm starts
KL/r for the y-axis, weld spacing, a, is limited such that thinking HSS. The cost of buying
a/ri does not exceed one-half the two (2) heavy studs and then welding
( ) √( ) ( )
2 2
KL KL a governing slenderness ratio of the them together seldom makes sense
= +
r m r o ri built-up member. when compared to buying a tube.
a/ri = 24/0.5699 = 42.11 • Our firm is not a big fan of triple or
= [(48/0.7042)2 + (24/0.5699)2 ]0.5 = 80.12
0.5(KL/r) = 0.5 (80.12) = 40.06 more built-ups both due to cost and, in
KL/r for the x-axis, Although the a/ri is 5% larger than one- the case of jamb stud packs, the notion
half the governing slenderness ratio of that equal load-sharing is questionable
(KL/r)x = (9 x 12)/2.2677 = 47.63
the built-up member, the 24-inch spac- for the studs away from the opening.
The y-axis slenderness ratio controls the ing is deemed to be acceptable. This • Our firm limits studs to a maximum
axial capacity. criteria is to ensure that the individual of three (3) in a stud pack because of
π2E member will not buckle prior to overall concern that equal load sharing does
Fe = = 45.35 ksi
(KL/r)2 buckling of the built-up member. The not occur as well as the economics of
additional track section, as well as fabricating the stud pack. Our firm
Fy
√
sheathing attached to both flanges of uses a light-weight welded I-section
λc = = 1.05
Fe the individual member, will enhance its whenever three (3) studs are not
buckling strength. adequate. Also, we do not change
For λc ≤ 1.5 2) The ends of a built-up compression the thickness of the stud in the panel
2 member are connected by a weld to create a stud pack. If the panel
Fn (0.658λ c )Fy = 31.52 ksi
having a length not less than the consisted of 6-inch 54 mil studs, we
The effective area, Ae, is computed at f = Fn, maximum width of the member, or limited the stud pack to three 6-inch
Ae = 0.7010 square inches by connectors spaced longitudinally 54 mil studs; we did not up the
not more than 4 diameters apart thickness of the column studs.
Pn = Fn Ae = 31.52 ksi x 0.7010 in2 =
for a distance equal to 1.5 times the Giving consideration to load path and fabrica-
24.93 kips
maximum width of the member. tion costs can help cold-formed steel design
Available Strength, Pa = Pn/Ω = 24.93 kips/ The built-up member will be engineers to develop the most efficient cold-
1.80 = 13.85 kips properly seated in track sections top formed steel wall framing assembly.▪

STRUCTURE magazine 14 February 2015

Get there quicker
with Simpson Strong-Tie CFS Designer™ software
®

When designing cold-formed steel structures, you want a software program that is easy
to use, versatile, and saves time by automating product selection and helping navigate
complicated design provisions of AISI. The new streamlined CFS Designer™ software by
Simpson Strong-Tie does all of that and more. By shifting between design tools, you can
model beams up to three spans and automate the design of wall openings, shearwalls, floor
joists and roof rafters. All models are saved in a single file and output is saved as a PDF.
To test drive CFS Designer, call your local representative at 800-999-5099 or visit
strongtie.com/CFSDesigner to learn more.
©2015 Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. CFSDESIGN14
 introDucing the
Design ConneCtions

HoW/2 SerieS by SDS/2

with SDS/2

true connection DeSign,

not SimpLy connection
veriFicAtion
SDS/2 is the only system that provides true connection
design — for individual members, as well as all interacting
members in a structural joint.

FuLL Joint AnALySiS
Instead of choosing a connection from a library, SDS/2 designs
the connection for you, based on parameters that you establish
at the beginning of a project.
compLete connection
DeSign reportS
SDS/2 provides long-hand calculations
of all designed connections, which sim-
plifies the verification process. Scan the
QR code to view an example of SDS/2’s
automatically generated calculation
design reports.

All connections SDS/2 automatically designs will comply with

the connection design code standards the user chooses.
cLASh prevention
SDS/2 checks for interaction with other connections within
a common joint. That means adjusting connections for
shared bolts, checking driving clearances for bolts, sharing,
adjusting and moving gusset and shear plates when re-

learn more
quired, and assuring erectablity of all members. All adjusted
connections are automatically verified based on selected
design criteria.
Want to see how simple it really is to design
connections in SDS/2? Scan the QR code to
watch SDS/2’s connection design in action.
800.443.0782
sds2.com | info@sds2.com

Figure 1. 2015 WFCM in 2015 IBC/IRC.
T
he 2015 Edition of the Wood Frame
Construction Manual (WFCM) for
One- and Two-Family Dwellings (ANSI/
AWC WFCM-2015) was approved on
October 10, 2014 as an ANSI American National
Standard (Figure 1). The 2015 WFCM was devel-
oped by the American Wood Council’s (AWC)
Wood Design Standards Committee and is refer-
enced in the 2015 International Residential Code
(IRC) and 2015 International Building Code (IBC).
Primary changes to the 2015 WFCM are listed
here and are subsequently covered in more detail:
• Tabulated spans for lumber framing members
now reflect changes to design values for visual
grades of Southern Pine as referenced in the
2015 National Design Specification® (NDS®)
for Wood Construction Supplement: Design
Values for Wood Construction.
• New tables provide prescriptive wood-frame
solutions for rafters and ceiling joists in
response to new live load deflection limits
for ceilings using flexible finishes (including
gypsum wallboard) or brittle finishes
(including plaster and stucco) as adopted in
the 2015 IRC.
• Header spans revised to reflect L/240
live load deflection limits for members
supporting only a roof and ceiling as
shown in IRC and IBC tables.
The WFCM includes prescriptive and engi-
neered design provisions for wood wall, floor,
and roof systems and their connections. A range
of structural elements are covered, including sawn
lumber, structural glued laminated timber, wood
structural sheathing, I-joists, and trusses.
ASCE 7-10 Load Provisions
Tabulated engineered and prescriptive design pro-
visions in WFCM Chapters 2 and 3, respectively,
are based on the following loads from ASCE 7-10
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures (Figure 2):
• 0-70 psf ground snow loads
STRUCTURE magazine
Code
Updates
code developments
and announcements
Figure 2. ASCE 7-10 wind, seismic,
and snow loads used.
• 110-195 mph 700-year return period
3-second gust basic wind speeds
• Seismic Design Categories A-D
Additional information concerning changes to
snow, wind, and seis-
mic loads in ASCE
7-10 compared to
ASCE 7-05 is dis-
Changes to the 2015 Wood
cussed in a paper titled
2012 WFCM Changes
Frame Construction Manual
(STRUCTURE® maga-
zine, August 2014). By John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.,
Peter Mazikins, P.Eng and
Michelle Kam-Biron, S.E., P.E.
Lumber Framing Spans
Tabulated spans for lumber framing members
now reflect changes to design values referenced
in the 2015 National Design Specification® for
Wood Construction Supplement: Design Values
for Wood Construction. Notably, the 2015 NDS
Supplement incorporates new design values for
visually-graded Southern Pine. The American
Lumber Standard Committee (ALSC) Board John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
of Review approved changes to these design is Vice President of Technology
values for all grades and all sizes of visually- Transfer, Peter Mazikins, P.Eng
graded Southern Pine and Mixed Southern Pine is Senior Manager of Engineering
lumber, with a recommended effective date of Standards, and Michelle Kam-
June 1, 2013. Biron, S.E., P.E. is Director of
Education with the American
Rafters and Ceiling Joists Wood Council. Contact Mr.
Showalter (bshowalter@awc.org)
with Brittle Finishes with questions.
Tables for ceiling joist spans/capacities, rafter
spans/capacities, and hip and valley beam capac-
ity requirements have been revised to clarify the
live load deflection basis of these deflection cri-
teria, and to associate live load deflection limits
to cases with “no ceiling attached” and ceilings
with “flexible finishes” and “brittle finishes.”
Tables are added to address deflection criteria
of L/ΔLL=360 for brittle finishes (Figure 3, page The online version of this
18). Flexible finishes are denoted as “(including article contains detailed
gypsum board)” and brittle finishes are denoted references. Please visit
as “(including plaster and stucco).” www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
continued on next page
17
 Header Spans Supporting
Roof and Ceiling
Roof header span tables have been revised to be based
on L/ΔLL=240 instead of L/ΔLL=360. The L/ΔLL=240
deflection limit basis is consistent with deflection limits
for members supporting roofs and ceilings as shown in
IRC Table R802.5.1 and IBC Table 2308.7.2 for rafters
with ceilings attached to rafters and IRC Table R802.4
and IBC Table 2308.7.2 for ceiling joists, respectively.

Applicability to
Non-Residential Structures
New language in IBC 2309 allows for use of the WFCM
for non-residential structures within its scoping limitations:
(IBC) 2309.1 Wood Frame Construction
Manual. Structural design in accordance with
the AWC WFCM shall be permitted for buildings
assigned to Risk Category I or II subject to the lim-
itations of Section 1.1.3 of the AWC WFCM and
the load assumptions contained therein. Structural
elements beyond these limitations shall be designed
in accordance with accepted engineering practice.
WFCM 1.1.3 references Table 1 Applicability Limitations
(Figure 4) which outlines building dimensions and load
assumptions. While WFCM provisions are intended
primarily for detached one-and two-family dwellings
due to the floor live load assumption associated with
those occupancies, many of the WFCM provisions for
specific geographic wind, seismic, and snow loads may
be applicable for other buildings. For example, wind
provisions for sizing of roof sheathing, wall sheathing,
fastening schedules, uplift straps, shear anchorage, shear
wall lengths, and wall studs for out of plane wind loads
are included in the WFCM and are applicable for other
use groups within the load limitations of the WFCM
tables. Similarly, roof rafter size and spacing for heavy
snow, and shear wall lengths and anchorage for seismic,
are applicable within the load limitations of the WFCM
tables. Examples of non-residential applications include
single-story wood structures or top stories in mixed use
structures in Risk Categories I or II.
Applications outside the scope of the WFCM tabulated
requirements, such as floor joist design for floor live
loads greater than 40 psf and design of supporting grav-
ity elements for the additional floor live load is beyond
the applicability of the WFCM and must be designed
in accordance with accepted engineering practice. This
parallels the approach taken in Section R301.1.3 of the
IRC, which permits unconventional elements of one
and two-family dwellings to be designed per the IBC.

WFCM Availability
The 2015 WFCM is currently available for purchase in elec-
tronic format (PDF) only. Once the WFCM Commentary
is updated (which is to be included with the WFCM) Figure 3. Excerpt from 2015 WFCM Table 3.25B2 for common lumber ceiling joist spans.
printed copies will be available for purchase. Once the
WFCM Commentary is complete, those who purchased

STRUCTURE magazine 18 February 2015

electronic versions of the 2015 WFCM will receive
the WFCM Commentary in electronic format at no
additional charge.

Conclusion
With more governmental focus placed on “commu-
nity resiliency,” design tools such as the Wood-Frame
Construction Manual become more relevant. The
Manual equips designers with engineered construc-
tion methods that result in buildings better able to
withstand damage, and protect occupants should
disaster strike. Since the WFCM was first published
in 1995, AWC has been providing a solution for
design of wood-frame structures to resist natural
disasters. Each successive edition of the standard
continues to provide solutions to more severe events
as required by building codes.
The 2015 WFCM represents the state-of-the-art
for design of one- and two-family dwellings for
high wind, high seismic, and high snow loads.
Its reference in the 2015 IBC and 2015 IRC will
allow for its use in those jurisdictions adopt-
ing the latest building code. However, building
officials often accept designs prepared in accor-
dance with newer reference standards even if
the latest building code has not been adopted in
their jurisdiction. IBC 104.11 and IRC R104.11 Figure 4. Reproduction of 2015 WFCM Table 1 Applicability Limitations.
for alternate materials and design provides the
authority having jurisdiction with that leeway.▪
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

TrusSteel Provides Peak Performance

The innovative TrusSteel cold-formed steel truss system offers proven
TM

and reliable solutions for virtually every roof or floor application.

 Delivers strength and stiffness

 Transfers structural loads efficiently
 Facilitates clear spans over 80 ft.
 Provides greater stability for easier handling and installation
 Utilizes integrated software for design flexibility

That’s why it’s the most accepted and specified cold-formed steel truss system available.
Visit www.trussteel.com to obtain a copy of the popular Truss Design Manual
and see why the most demanding building professionals prefer TrusSteel.

The World Leader in Cold-Formed Steel Trusses

(888) 565-9181  www.trussteel.com

STRUCTURE magazine 19 February 2015

Structural
DeSign
design issues for
structural engineers
Why It’s Good to
be a Lightweight
Compression and
Form Finding
By Peter Debney, BEng(Hons),
CEng, MIStructE
Peter Debney, BEng(Hons),
CEng, MIStructE, is a
Chartered Structural Engineer
and software specialist with
experience specializing in
computing applications. He is an
application specialist for Oasys
(www.oasys-software.com),
concentrating on structural and
crowd simulation software.
T
raditional structures are linear, stiff,
restricted, heavy, and inefficient; light-
weight structures, on the other hand
– whether in fabric, cable, timber, con-
crete or stone – are nonlinear, long-spanning,
flexible, highly efficient, and environmentally
friendly. This series shows how, when form follows
force as well as function, the result is a structure
that soars. The first article was published in the
November 2014 issue of STRUCTURE®. This
second article looks at compression structures and
form-finding techniques for getting the optimum
structural form. It will also look at the important
step of optimizing the geometry for lightweight
structures.
Compression Structures
Compression-only structures take the familiar
form of walls, arches, shells and grid shells. Unlike
tension-only structures that deflect to balance the
loads, compression-only
structures do not have this
luxury, as any movement
increases the risk of buck-
ling. This is a major risk
for masonry structures,
as they have little or no
bending capacity other than that provided by the
compression thrust. For the Gothic cathedrals of
old, the soaring columns needed stabilizing with
flying buttresses (Figure 1).
Compare this to the Sagrada Familia cathedral
by the Catalonian architect/engineer Antonio
Gaudí. Here the columns are angled so as to take
the loads in direct compression and thus avoid
the horizontal reactions that would necessitate
buttressing. The end result is something much
more natural-looking (Figure 2).
Arches
The overall forms may be the same, but the com-
pression structure tends to be much thicker than
the tension structure because it also has to resist
buckling; or to put it another way, tension struc-
tures are in a stable equilibrium, but compression
structures are in an unstable equilibrium. This
Figure 2. Sagrada Familia.
20 February 2015
Figure 1. Westminster Abbey.
means that if the compression structure deflects
too much, it will snap, while a tension structure
will adjust itself instead. In a masonry structure,
where the tension capacity is minimal, buckling
is prevented by keeping the line of thrust – which
is the moment divided by the axial load – in the
middle third of the element, thus ensuring that no
part is in tension. Some masonry design guides,
such as The Stone Skeleton by Jacques Heyman
(1995), say that in certain circumstances the
structure is fine as long as the thrust line remains
within the overall section. This implies that there
is considerable tension or cracking in the sec-
tion, but it remains stable. The medieval builders
ensured that this would happen by increasing the
axial load on the buttresses by means of sculptures
and pinnacles; ornamentation can be functional!
(Figure 3) Reinforced concrete or steel structures
on the other hand can resist this with their innate
tension capacity.
While flexible tension structures can readjust
themselves to maintain equilibrium with the
loads, masonry has much less scope to do this,
but more than is commonly realized. Arches can
remain stable even after the joints open as the line
of arching action moves, as long as things do not
move too much (Figure 4).
Note that while the arch is uncracked, the cen-
troid of resistance remains in the middle of the
arch and it behaves in a linear fashion. Once
it cracks, the centroid of resistance moves to
the other side of the line of thrust – assuming
Figure 3. ©J E Gordon, Structures, or Why Things
Don’t Fall Down (1978).
 Figure 5. 1939 Cement Hall.

Figure 4. Thrust lines and collapse mechanism for a masonry arch (Heyman 1995).

a reasonably high stiffness – which actively
resists that thrust. This illustrates a feature
of many nonlinear systems; they are self-sta-
bilizing as long as the perturbation is within
certain limits.
Shells
Incredibly thin arches and shells are achiev-
able when they are geometrically optimised,
such as Robert Maillart’s 1939 Cement Hall
from the Zurich National Exhibition. The
door openings on the bridge indicate both
the scale and the thinness of this reinforced
concrete shell (Figure 5).
When the shell is constructed from a gril-
lage or lattice, often of timber, then it is
referred to as a gridshell. The nature of these
structures enables very organic forms to be
produced; a well-known example being the
Mannheim World Garden Exhibition build-
ing (Figure 6).
Analysis
Masonry can behave differently from other
engineering materials, such as steel and con-
crete. It is both orthotropic and nonlinear with
little tensile capacity, but finite element analysis
can be very useful if employed with care.
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Figure 6. Mannheim World Garden Exhibition.
Courtesy of Arup.
Like all nonlinear analyses, one must remem-
ber to evaluate all load combinations together.
Masonry often resists imposed loads with its self-
weight, so the dead load increases the moment
capacity by reducing or negating the induced
tension. Also, due to its tendency to crack, the
load paths through a masonry structure can vary
with the applied loads and support conditions.
continued on next page

Nationwide Support • Proactive Partner • Accelerated Production Capabilities

Cost Optimization • Engineering and Design-Assist • BIM Expertise

Visit us at
NASCC 2015
Booth #920

A better steel experience. Find out more: newmill.com/getmore

We’re helping America build with our collaborative approach to

commercial steel design and construction. We have the capacity to
meet or accelerate your project timeline. Make us your single source
for proactive steel joist and deck supply.

14-NMBS-18_more-than-struc.indd 1 12/23/14 3:50 PM

STRUCTURE magazine 21 February 2015
 Figure 7
Analysis stage: 2 : fixed
Scale: 1:10.31
Moment, Myy: 1.000 kNm/pic.cm
Torce Lines, -ve thrust (at structure scale)
Case: A4 : Analysis Case 1 [1]

y x

Figure 7. Circular arch.

Figure 9. GSA model of Westminster Abbey. Figure 10. Thrust lines from FEA principal stresses.

Form Finding taut. The engineer must also decide on the

form-finding properties and loads that will
Physical models are still incredibly useful, at least
push or pull the model into shape. These will
for the initial design, as they are very quick to
vary depending on the selected form-finding
give results in a form that is tangible. The author
Figure 8. Flip-Flap arch analysis. method; some might be calculated, and some
has personally found physical models especially
be an initial guess.
useful for tensegrity structures. Physical models
Consider an arch. Here one might model have the limitation, though, that they are dif-
one-dimensional (1D) beam elements to carry ficult to take measurements off and very poor for Force Density Form-Finding
the load, then use the combination of the quantitative analysis. The good news is that there
Force Density is one of the earliest and quickest
bending moments and axial loads to check are now a number of computational methods
of the numerical form-finding methods, but
that the eccentricity is within limits. Some available to determine the geometry such that
it is a little abstract. A 2D element’s area is set
programs include this calculation in the the model can be analyzed. Note that these
proportional to its stress, and a bar element’s
post-processor, possibly described as Thrust methods are called “form-finding,” as they are
length is set proportional to its force. This
or Torce lines. If the Torce line remains within searching for the optimum form, not calculat-
means that a longer element will have a reduced
the middle third of the section, then no ten- ing it; this means that they can sometimes get
force density, and vice-versa (Figure 13).
sion is induced (Figure 7 ). One can improve lost on their journey, and might need guiding
The end result should not only be a balanced
the behavior of the arch through geometric to the desired result.
geometry, but also a set of forces that may need
optimization, also known as form-finding, A close look reveals that the Sagrada Familia
to be scaled to the desired pretension values.
which will be discussed below. (Figure 2) is essentially the same as that of
Like many nonlinear structures, the load Cement Hall, which is the form of a parabola,
path through cracked masonry will change the ideal shape for an arch under uniform
with the load and movement. One can load. This shape was determined in the 17th
model this within an arch by using two- century by Robert Hooke, who realized that
dimensional (2D) elements and what are the perfect arch exactly mirrors the catenary
known as “flip-flap” joints – compression- shape of a hanging chain.
only strut elements – in the arrangement Gaudi made use of this phenomenon
shown in (Figure 8). Like all masonry analy- when designing his cathedrals (Figure 11).
ses, it is important to model the support He determined the overall form by model-
stiffness accurately, as this has a major effect ing the columns and arches with chains and
on the end result. superimposed loads with weights (Figure 12).
For more complex models, such as a cross- Frei Otto used physical models for the Munich
section through Westminster Abbey (Figure Olympic structures prior to numerical analysis.
9), you can use a full 2D mesh to analyze Another famous example is the gridshell for the
the lines of principal force, shown here in Mannheim World Garden Exhibition by Ted
green for compression and red for tension. Happold and Ian Liddell while they were at
This analysis assumes that the masonry is Arup, prior to their forming of Buro Happold.
uncracked, so is only suitable if the stresses Creating a model for form-finding requires
remain low. You can get a good idea of the first establishing the boundary conditions,
line of thrust from the flows of compression which are the fixed points, as well as any fabric
lines, as well as locations of likely cracking edges, which need either a flexible preten-
(Figure 10). sioned cable or solid member to pull them Figure 11. Colònia Güell Crypt.

STRUCTURE magazine 22 February 2015

 Force Density is called Spacers that are there just to ensure that
a quick way to get the nodes are equally spaced out.
results, but it may While the method requires more work than
require some experi- Force Density, the major advantage of Soap
mentation to get the Film is that it specifies the target prestresses
desired form. It is quite rather than the more arbitrary force per length
good for cable nets, but or area, and thus provides a more logical con-
not as good for fabric trol over the final form, as well as probably
structures as there resulting in a structure with less material.
cannot be different Another advantage of Soap Film over Force Figure 13. Force Density form-finding.
prestresses in the two Density when using certain form-finding
orthogonal directions, programs is that one can specify different grid shells, replicating a hanging chain physi-
Figure 12. Antonio restricting the forms warp and fill (weft) prestresses, which is cal model, and for determining locked-in
Gaudi’s hanging chain. that can be achieved. extremely useful for conic fabric structures, stresses from construction sequencing.
as they generally need a relatively higher As an example, Buro Happold’s London
radial prestress, and can be beneficial for 2012 Olympic Main Stadium design used
Soap Film Form-Finding other forms as well. Normal Properties form-finding to analyse
The Soap Film method of form-finding the locked-in construction stresses in the
replicates the minimum surface inclina- Normal Properties compression ring, and then Soap Film form-
tions of soap bubbles, by replacing the 1D finding for the roof cables and infill fabrics.
bars and 2D fabric elements with elements
Form-Finding
that have a constant stress but zero stiffness. Normal Properties form-finding literally uses
Conceptually, this is similar to soap bubbles the normal properties of the elements. This
Conclusion
edged by elastic bands. means changing the structural geometry to Compression structures may not be the most
Because there is no stiffness in the system, the deflected shape, rather than just determin- obvious candidates for lightweight options,
apart from restraint points and beam ele- ing how the given structure will deflect, with but whether tensile or compressive, light-
ments, the nodes are free to move anywhere the possible option of locking in the resulting weight structures can soar over space to create
and so can possibly get in a muddle. This forces and distortions. This means that it is iconic and efficient buildings. It is just a
requires the addition of form-finding elements both an excellent method for form-finding matter of getting the shape right.▪

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

GT STRUDL
®

Structural Modeling, Design & Analysis

Intergraph GT STRUDL is one of the most widely-used,

integrated and adaptable structural analysis solutions in
the world. GT STRUDL has a proven track record in a
variety of applications such as: nuclear and conventional
power generation, on- and offshore facilities, marine,
civil,infrastructure, and more. It can fully model, design
and analyze structures for the following services:

• Nuclear facilities
• Industrial facilities
• Offshore platforms/jackets
• Roof supports
• Power transmission
• High-rise buildings
• Stadiums
• Bridges
• Docks, Locks and Dams
• Radar dishes and facilities
• Construction equipment
• Transportation equipment

www.intergraph.com/go/gtstrudl

© Intergraph Corporation. All rights reserved. Intergraph is part of Hexagon. Intergraph, the Intergraph logo, and GT STRUDL
are registered trademarks of Intergraph Corp or its subsidiaries in the United States and in other countries.

STRUCTURE magazine 23 February 2015

Guest D
esigners, fabricators and other indus-
try partners tend to believe that the
shop detail drawings are all cre-
Column
ated the same. What is often not
understood is that the manner by which the
steel detailers conduct their work, and how their
information is presented on the shop detail and
erection drawings, are what create the difference
dedicated to the dissemination
between shop detail drawings which are easy to
of information from other
use and encourage correct fabrication as opposed
organizations
to those which do neither.
There is a faulty idea in the industry that how
the fabrication information is presented on the
shop drawings does not matter, as long as the
information is correct. It is like saying we don’t
care how the car runs as long as it gets us to where
we are going.
The truth is that the shop detail and erection
drawings are a key element to steel fabrication
and steel installation. Shop drawing develop-
ment, level of completion and detail presentation
is paramount to the success of
every project.
The NISD Difference Industry Professionals
are Unaware
By Kerri Olsen
Steel detailers and steel fabricators with years
of practice may not know about correct shop
detail and erection drawing production and pre-
sentation because they have never been exposed
to the difference themselves. Often, these same
steel detailers and fabricators blame other sources
as the cause of problems, and thus, the cycle is
never broken.
This lack of understanding by both steel fab-
ricators and steel detailers can cause problems
for reviewers in verifying that the shop draw-
ings follow the original intent of the design
Kerri Olsen is the Marketing Chair
drawings. Failure to follow industry standards
of the NISD. She may be contacted
for shop drawing presentation may cause parts
at kerriolsen@steeladvice.com.
to be fabricated and installed incorrectly, even
The NISD may be contacted at
though the information shown on the drawings
www.nisd.org.
may be correct.
Presentation Matters
The manner by which the fabrication informa-
tion is presented in the shop detail and erection
drawings determines the flow of the work for
all who use them. Properly developed shop
detail and erection drawings promote efficiency
for the designers, the shop fabricator and the
field erector, which in turn creates confidence
in their accuracy.
Problematic shop detail and erection drawings
are often a result of the steel detailer’s focus on the
steel fabricator’s wants and needs only. Thus, the
information shown will sometimes be confusing
to others, and may not be complete and accurate
upon the first approval submittal.
24 February 2015
Common Approval
Submittal Problems
Sending out shop detail drawings for approval
prior to checking and not ready for fabrication
is a common industry problem. This is a practice
often caused by the general contractor pressuring
the fabricator to get shop drawings out faster. But,
in fact, it slows down the shop detail drawing
development and approval process altogether.
Further, this practice may prevent the production
of subsequent drawing submittals while the first
batch is being completed and checked.
The contractor’s pressure on the steel fabricator
to produce speedy detail drawing approval sub-
mittals induces the steel fabricator to then force
the detailer to submit the shop detail drawings for
approval unchecked and possibly incomplete. The
steel detailer, with the incomplete and unchecked
drawings out for approval, will then return to
complete the drawing development for those
same sheets. Upon receipt of the engineers’ review
comments, the questions, answers and verifica-
tions will be incorporated. The steel detailer has
now developed the drawings to three completion
levels. The fourth completion level will be the
checking and then the fifth level will be the final
scrub for approval verification.
Forced submittals of partial and incomplete steel
shop detail drawings by the general contractors
and steel fabricators intent upon getting quick
approval, actually slows down the shop detail
drawing production, and is in strong contrast to
the NISD suggested practice.
The Designer’s Problem
The designers are the first to notice the level of
shop detail drawing development while they
struggle during the approval process to see how
the application of their design intent has been
presented. The steel detailer’s questions and veri-
fication requests will be included on the detail
drawings, with the expectation of answers from
the designers on the return approval. Multiple
drawing approval submittals will be required.
Shop fabrication delays may result, erectors may
be delayed by fabrication errors and then produc-
tion schedules are pushed out. This inefficient
process can continue until the last refabricated
piece of steel has been placed.
This is the normal process for many and it does
not have to be so. The National Institute for Steel
Detailers (NISD) was born out of the need for a
better way to produce steel shop drawings. The
NISD continues to support the construction indus-
try by promoting the proper method of shop detail
drawing development and production. The NISD
Industry standard publication provides informa-
tion and encourages sound project management
procedures conducive to successful projects.
 The NISD Mission Statement detail drawings are developed and produced detail views are correct and consistent, elimi-
using a careful review, and correct applica- nating confusion for the reviewers, fabricators
The following paragraph is the mission state-
tion of the design drawings together with and erectors.
ment at the center of the entry web page for
only essential RFI requests. Shop detail NISD members and NISD Certified steel
The National Institute of Steel Detailing:
drawings are not submitted for approval detailers are encouraged to perform every job
Founded in 1969, The National Institute
until the shop detail development is com- with an emphasis on accuracy, clarity in pre-
of Steel Detailing or NISD is an organiza-
plete and the drawings have been checked sentation, consistency in format, and endeavor
tion which fosters a professional approach
and are fabrication ready. to never waiver from that commitment.
to doing business as a steel detailer in the
In most cases, shop detail and erection draw- That is the NISD Difference – using quality
construction industry. The mission of the
ing presentation is provided in a manner that procedures and certified detailers. Such a stan-
group is to create a better understanding of
promotes ease of review using cross reference dard will always increase speed and efficiency
the importance of steel detailing services,
details and notes leading back to the design for all who use NISD produced shop detail
by advocating improved quality, educa-
drawings as appropriate. Section cuts and and erection drawings.▪
tion and certification.
What does this statement mean to NISD
member detailers? What about to those
who are not members? Let’s break this
down by parts and review what is meant YOU BUILD IT.
by each sentence. WE’LL PROTECT IT.
“The National Institute of Steel Detailing
or NISD is an organization which fosters
a professional approach to doing business
SEISMIC PROTECTION
as a steel detailer.” FROM TAYLOR DEVICES
The goal of the NISD is to encourage and Stand firm. Don’t settle for less than the seismic protection
support steel detailers, their fabrication of Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers. As a world leader in
partners and other trades people by pro- the science of shock isolation, we are the team you
moting a professional approach to steel want between your structure and the undeniable forces
detailing. This is achieved through the of nature. Others agree. Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers
active execution of the other half of the are currently providing earthquake, wind, and motion
mission statement.
protection on more than 550 buildings and bridges.
‘The mission of the group is to create a
From the historic Los Angeles City Hall to Mexico’s
better understanding of the importance

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

Torre Mayor and the new Shin-Yokohama High-speed
of steel detailing services, by advocat-
Train Station in Japan, owners, architects, engineers,
ing improved quality, education and
certification.’ and contractors trust the proven
The NISD provides guideline documen- technology of Taylor Devices’
tation, in both CD format and written Fluid Viscous Dampers.
materials, which is information on pro-
viding a professional approach to steel
detailing for their members. These training
CDs, guides and informational materials
all focus on the best business practices
for creating complete and accurate shop
detail drawings following industry stan-
dard procedures.
Advanced steel detailers working on
structural steel buildings and bridges
may be NISD tested and certified. NISD
members and certified steel detailers are
sought out by designers and steel fabrica-
tors wanting complete and accurate steel Taylor Devices’ Fluid Viscous Dampers give you the seismic protection
shop fabrication and erection drawings. you need and the architectural freedom you want.
The Supporting
www.taylordevices.com
Business Practice
The business practice promoted by the
NISD, NISD members and NISD cer-
tified detailers provides a much more North Tonawanda, NY 14120 - 0748
Phone: 716.694.0800 • Fax: 716.695.6015
rigorous process regarding shop detail
drawing approval submittals. Steel shop

TAYOR-004938 Seismic Prot StrctrMag.indd 1 8/29/14 10:15 AM

STRUCTURE TAY24253
magazine YoiurselfFebruary
Brace 25 2015
Ad Structure Magazine October 2009 Half-Page Island 5” x 7.5”
Structural
licenSure
issues related to the regulation
of structural engineering practice
100 Years of Structural
Engineering Licensure
Looking Back,
Looking Forward
By Gregg E. Brandow, Ph.D.,
P.E., S.E.
Gregg E. Brandow, Ph.D., P.E.,
S.E. (brandow@usc.edu), is
Professor of Engineering Practice
at the University of Southern
California in Los Angeles. He is
also a Principal at Brandow &
Nastar, Inc. Structural Engineers.
G
rowing up with a father who was
a structural engineer, I learned at
an early age about the impressive
buildings in Los Angeles that he
was responsible for engineering, but never put
much thought into his professional title, “S.E.”
Following in his footsteps, I quickly learned the
academic requirements, and soon after completed
the examination and experience that it took to put
“S.E.” after my own name. The phrase, “protect-
ing the public,” and the
challenges of designing
structures to withstand
“nature’s fury,” especially
earthquakes in California,
put the responsibility that
goes with holding the title
of “Structural Engineer” into perspective.
My structural engineering practice began as
a kid when I would lay a wooden plank over
the wash to serve as a bridge. Fortunately, the
public did not use my bridges, because some-
times they would fail. Nobody said that I had
to be licensed to engineer my bridge. The same
problem occurred in Wyoming back in 1907,
when water and irrigation required engineering,
and anybody could provide such services. From
this unruly situation came the first state law
to regulate the practice of engineering. Today,
every state has statutes that “protect the public”
by regulating the practice of engineering in the
built environment and the use of the title of
“Professional Engineer” (P.E.).
As I look back and look forward, I realize that
I am part of a profession that is well established
in some states, in desperate need of recognition
in other states, and embraces licensure that varies
significantly from state to state.
Looking Back
The history of structural engineering dates back
to at least the time of the Egyptian pyramids,
where structural form and stable construction
were planned and achieved. For the next 4,000
years, engineers built large and impressive struc-
tures without beam theory, Euler’s equation or
the computer software that we have today. The
20 th-century structural engineer became equipped
with new tools, such as moment distribution, and
26 February 2015
Chicago skyline at sunrise. Courtesy of Daniel Schwen.
began to refine more elegant and taller buildings
and longer bridges.
Illinois Structural Engineers’ Act of 1915
The first efforts to regulate the practice of struc-
tural engineers started in 1908 when the Western
Society of Engineers began negotiations with
the Illinois branch of the American Institute of
Architects and the Illinois Society of Architects
to support and establish a state building code and
provide a licensing law for structural engineers.
The architects had been successful in creating the
1897 Architectural Act in Illinois, which gave
them the exclusive right to design and supervise
building construction. However, in 1913, efforts
to establish a state building code failed to gain
enough support. Architects’ support for engineer-
ing laws waned, and it took another two years of
bitter debate before passage of the new Structural
Engineers’ Act in 1915.
The motivation to regulate the practice of struc-
tural engineering in Illinois was the rapid growth
of downtown Chicago, which resulted in the
construction of “skyscrapers” like the world had
never seen before. These taller, more complex
and higher-occupancy buildings drew the atten-
tion of the state legislature, which saw a need to
regulate the profession responsible for designing
them. As the late Gene Corley related to me, the
legislature was compelled to keep “the fools and
rascals from building unsafe structures.” As we
begin 2015, we celebrate 100 years of structural
engineering licensure that began with the first
Structural Engineers Act in Illinois. The skyline
of Chicago is a testament to the accomplishment
of structural engineers over that century.
California Title Authority of 1931
In California, the cities of San Francisco and
Los Angeles were growing and developing
their own skylines, and the structural engineer-
ing profession was faced with the additional
challenges of building on ground that was
susceptible to violent shaking. The great 1906
San Francisco Earthquake and the 1925 Santa
Barbara Earthquake were very destructive. Civil
engineers managed to get a Civil Engineering
Registration Law passed in the California leg-
islature in 1929, but structural engineers were
unsuccessful in achieving a separate practice act.
They tried to gain the support of architects,
but in 1931 amended the Civil Engineering
Registration Law to include regulation of
the title of “Structural Engineer” or “S.E.”
without restricting any class of buildings to
the exclusive purview of those authorized
to use it.
The 1933 Long Beach Earthquake caused
widespread damage to, and the collapse of,
many masonry school buildings through-
out Southern California. If this earthquake
had occurred during school hours, it could
have resulted in an unimaginable loss of life.
The legislature passed the Riley Act, which
required seismic design, and the Field Act,
which required that school buildings be engi-
neered by licensed Structural Engineers. Years
later, hospitals were added. Even without the
legislative requirement, the vast majority of
California’s significant structures are designed
today by a licensed Structural Engineer.
Progress in enacting legislation recognizing
and regulating structural engineers in other
states has been slow. Only a handful have
structural engineering practice restrictions
within the P.E. practice acts, while a few
have separate structural engineering prac-
tice acts, and a few more have structural
engineering title restrictions.
NCEES Model Law Structural Engineer
In 2001, the National Council for Examiners
for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES,
www.ncees.org), which is the organization
of state licensing boards for engineers and
land surveyors, established the Structural
Engineering Examination/Recognition Task
Force (SEERTF) to address issues regarding
structural engineering licensure. The NCEES
President, Ted Fairfield from California,
saw this national effort as a way to enhance
public recognition of structural engineer-
ing and to standardize the requirements for
professional practice.
The national structural engineering orga-
nizations – SEI, NCSEA, and CASE – and
NCEES have all recognized that structural
engineering lacks national recognition, uni-
formity of requirements, and a means to
facilitate comity and mobility. In addition, the
NCEES national two-day competency exam
for structural engineers was not used uni-
formly – for example, some states used only
the first day – and the states of California,
Oregon and Washington used different addi-
tional examinations.
I served as chair for the SEERTF, and we
recognized that no uniformity existed in
the states that recognized structural engi-
neers. In response, the SEERTF created the
Model Law Structural Engineer (MLSE),
STRUCTURE magazine
a standard for experience, education and
examination requirements. To facilitate
comity and mobility, NCEES established
a Records Program for MLSEs. Structural
engineers can now establish MLSE records
with NCEES, and this information can be
used to apply for comity in states that rec-
ognize structural engineers.
NCEES 16-Hour Structural
Engineering Exam
The SEERTF recognized the need for a
single national exam with the adoption of
the International Building Code (IBC) in
all states. The SEERTF convinced NCEES
to develop a new exam based on the new
IBC, which replaced the three previous
national building codes that had been
adopted in various states. A subsequent
NCEES task force developed a test plan
and exam format, and created and imple-
mented a new NCEES 16-hour exam that
all states agreed would be the standard for
minimum competency for structural engi-
neering licensure. All states that recognize
structural engineers adopted this new exam,
and most of the other states allow engineers
to take this exam.
SELC Unites Structural Engineers
The Structural Engineering Licensure
Coalition (SELC, www.selicensure.org)
was created in 2012 to be a single voice
for structural engineers to advocate the
advancement of structural engineering
licensure. According to its position state-
ment, its goal is protection of the public
through the implementation of minimum
standards for the practice of structural engi-
neering in every jurisdiction by enacting the
national minimum standards (MLSE) and
using the minimal competency 16-hour
NCEES SE exam with a consistent licensure
format in each state.
The SELC is a coalition of SEI, NCSEA,
the Structural Engineering Certification
Board (SECB) and CASE. The SELC rec-
ognizes that the missing piece of the puzzle is
to establish a structural engineering licensure
format – practice restriction, title restriction
or partial practice restriction – that can be
adopted by NCEES as a standard and a guide
for states to use.
Looking Forward
If the structural engineering profession
wants to be recognized nationally and have
consistent licensure requirements across the
states, we need to build support both inside
our profession and among those who have
27 February 2014
historically been opposed to our efforts.
The next 100 years of structural engineer-
ing licensure will depend upon our efforts.
Recent successes occurred in two states,
Utah and Washington, where legislation
was passed for partial structural engineer-
ing practice acts with the restriction that
“significant structures” can only be designed
by licensed Structural Engineers. In both
of these states, provisions for transitioning
Professional Engineers currently practicing
structural design into the new S.E. license
without having to take another exam was
an important aspect of gaining wide sup-
port. Other states are currently undertaking
similar efforts.
With 100 years of history and a lot of pas-
sion, the structural engineering profession
needs to recognize that we are part of a
larger community of Professional Engineers
in many disciplines, all as dedicated as we
are to the protection of the public. We must
keep this in mind as we work with NCEES
to develop a consistent structural engineering
licensure format, especially when interacting
with organizations like the National Society
for Professional Engineers (NSPE), which
for many years was opposed to our efforts
because of their concern about fracturing
the wider engineering profession. We need
to convince them and others that we all have
the same goals of protecting the public, and
that establishing a uniform S.E. licensure
program across the country will enhance the
public’s recognition of all engineers, whether
they call themselves Structural Engineers or
Professional Engineers.
I can now design a bridge across a wash or
a high-rise building, and the public, seeing
a “S.E.” after my name, will be confident
that I meet the minimum qualifications to
be a Structural Engineer. Let us continue as a
profession to promote structural engineering
licensure for our second 100 years.▪
Attention Bentley Users
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Have you received your automatic
quarterly invoice from Bentley?
Would you like to reduce or eliminate
these invoices?
Use SofTrack to control and manage
Calendar Hour usage of your Bentley
SELECT Open Trust Licensing.
Call us today, 866 372 8991 or visit us
www.softwaremetering.com
Structural
teSting
issues and advances related
to structural testing
Inside the Bridge
Inspection Toolbox
Ground Penetrating
Radar Yields Benefits
By Roger Roberts, Ph.D.
Roger Roberts, Ph.D., is a Senior
Software Engineer for Geophysical
Survey Systems, Inc. (GSSI).
Roger’s specialty is using ground
penetrating radar for transportation
infrastructure applications.
The online version of this
article contains detailed
references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.com.
Figure 1. NDT testing procedure, called hammer sounding, using an acoustical representation to identify
areas of delamination.
A
ccording to the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), approximately
25 percent of the nation’s bridges
remain structurally deficient or func-
tionally obsolete. The 2013 edition of ASCE’s
Report Card for America’s
Infrastructure warns that
more than two hundred
million trips are taken
daily across deficient
bridges in the nation’s
largest metropolitan
regions. One in nine of the nation’s bridges are
rated as structurally deficient, and the average
age of the nation’s 607,380 bridges is currently
42 years – many around the country are sixty to
eighty years old.
The report states, “The challenge for federal,
state, and local governments is to increase bridge
investments by $8 billion annually to address
the identified $76 billion in needs for deficient
bridges across the United States.”
Bridge inspection is of fundamental importance
in meeting that challenge. For bridges that were
built in the 1960s, which have been deteriorating
or been repaired throughout the years, how do
responsible authorities prioritize which need to be
repaired and which need to be replaced? How do
they know which can wait until next year? How
do they arrive at appropriate budgets?
The answers lie in understanding and selecting
the right combination of bridge inspection tools,
which can provide information relative to the
condition assessment of the bridge structures.
Range of Bridge Inspection Tools
Inspection methods are usually divided between
destructive methods, like coring and chipping,
and non-destructive testing (NDT) methods –
those that evaluate the properties of a material,
component, or system without causing damage.
There is a wide array of bridge inspection tools
used around the country. Options can be used alone
or in combination. The preferred techniques vary
28 February 2015
from state to state – and different states tend to have
particular biases and preferences. Some states are
progressive, using the latest technology or combina-
tion of technologies. Many states see the benefits
of NDT methods as a way to reduce the amount
of work that is required, and as a way of ensuring
condition assessment data is most accurate.
Here is a quick overview of the pros and cons
of the key inspection techniques engineers have
in their toolbox.
Acoustical techniques are typically performed
using a chain drag or a hammer, where the human
ear discerns changes in the sound or pitch made
by the chain or hammer being moved over the
surface. The goal is to detect delamination, which
refers to the separation of a coating from a sub-
strate or the splitting of a structure into layers.
Delamination in bridge decks is caused by the
corrosion of reinforcing steel bar (rebar) and/or
freezing and thawing. Delamination can often
only be detected by nondestructive tests, includ-
ing hammer sounding or chain dragging.
The advantage of acoustical methods is that
they are inexpensive and easy to do with lim-
ited training. Typically, the worker will locate
areas of deterioration just by the change in
tone and will mark the extents of the area with
spray paint; the areas are then recorded later by
another employee who will take a photograph
or lay out a grid to map them. The technique
is basically designed to get “real time” answers
to delamination locations.
Figure 2. Simplified diagram of how ground
penetrating radar technology works.
 The drawbacks to the method include the fact that it
does not work on bridges with asphalt overlays (built-in
boundary layer), and that different users may provide dif-
ferent delamination maps due to hearing biases. Outside
noise, for example, traffic, can affect the results. It is
not possible to get 100 percent repeatable results with
different people conducting the inspections. Also, the
technique only produces a map of existing delamination,
which occurs after the rebar is significantly corroded.
Deterioration that has not yet led to delamination is
not mapped, rendering the technique inappropriate for
planning more proactive repairs. Figure 3. Data collection using GPR.
Half-cell potential – This is a method of assessing rebar
corrosion by measuring the voltage between
the rebar in the concrete and a reference
electrode placed on the surface of the con-
crete. The advantage of this approach is
that it is more sensitive to rebar corrosion
than acoustical sounding, so it can detect
corrosion before it has progressed to the
point where it has caused delamination.
Unfortunately, this method also cannot be
performed on bridges with asphalt overlays,
as bare concrete is required. In addition, the
method requires closing down the bridge
deck, which can have a negative effect on
traffic. It also requires quite a bit of time
to complete, as discrete measurements are
obtained on a grid pattern. This method is
probably best used when you already know
the bridge deck requires repairs, and you are

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

trying to determine where repairs are needed
and what kind of repair is necessary. It can
help determine if you need to totally remove
the deck or do in-place cut and patch repairs.
Infrared – This method relies on changes
in infrared radiation from the surface of
concrete that are indicative of delamina-
tion. The method can be performed quickly
and with a moving vehicle, minimizing
bridge downtime and maximizing human
safety. However, it requires that data be
obtained at specific times when there is a
large thermal gradient between the bridge
temperature and the ambient temperature.
Once again, this method cannot be per-
formed on bridges with asphalt overlays.
Visual inspection – This “low tech”
method calls for surface mapping cracks,
spalling, and potholes on bridge decks
that can be seen with the naked eye. It
is a straightforward approach that allows
inspectors to map areas that are in imme-
diate need of repair. The down side is that
it is not possible to obtain a condition
assessment of the interior of the concrete.
Visual inspection is also the least efficient
maintenance method, since it addresses
problems only after they have resulted in
damage and cost the most to repair. It is
analogous to a leaky roof or water pipe

STRUCTURE magazine 29 February 2015


Figure 4. GPR software denoting areas of concrete deterioration.
– it is best to repair the roof or pipe before
the leaking water ruins everything around it.
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) – GPR
uses radar pulses to image the subsurface. This
NDT method uses electromagnetic radiation
in the microwave band (UHF/VHF frequen-
cies) of the radio spectrum, and detects the
reflected signals from subsurface structures.
GPR can be used in rock, soil, ice, fresh water,
pavements and structures. The reflected sig-
nals are used to detect objects, changes in
material, voids and cracks. GPR is used for
assessing the quality and uniformity of an
asphalt or concrete highway surface, and
detecting deterioration on bridge decks.
The two most common types of GPR for
bridge surface measurement are ground-
coupled and air-launched. Ground-coupled
systems rely on an antenna that is placed
very close to the roadway/surface while air-
launched systems use directional antennas
aimed at the surface from a height of 12-20
inches. Ground-coupled antennas have a
reputation of being less prone to radio fre-
quency interference (RFI) from cell towers
and TV broadcasting, but typically operate
at very slow speeds that are below normal
highway minimums. Air-launched antennas,
even when travelling at 65 mph, are located
at a safe distance from the surface.
There are a number of advantages of GPR
technology for bridge inspection, and the
method is particularly well-suited to prioritiz-
ing for budgeting purposes. Whereas acoustical
methods are very subjective, GPR data is quan-
titative. Noise does not affect radar technology.
Coring and chipping – Even if NDT meth-
ods are used, a certain amount of coring
(drilling a hole to view the concrete and
rebar condition) and chipping (actually chip
the cover away to be able to view the rebar)
may be required to justify the deterioration
that was mapped using NDT techniques.
Corroborating results of NDT methods with
coring/chipping increases confidence levels.
Cores can also be obtained to measure the
mechanical properties of the concrete – the
compressive and shear strength, as well as the
chemical properties of the concrete – chlo-
ride ion content and presence of alkali-silica
reaction (in conjunction with petrographic
STRUCTURE magazine
examination). All this is useful information
beyond what the NDT methods provide.
Of course, aside from being destructive,
there is a relatively higher cost factor associ-
ated with each core, so the goal is to minimize
the number of cores required to give the
owner assurance that the results are correct.
Using GPR for
Bridge Inspection
As noted, GPR can be an excellent tool and is
used for condition assessment, concrete cover,
and concrete inspection. Typically, a cart-based
system is used, in which data is collected at a
walking pace (or a vehicle traveling about 5
miles per hour). The equipment will include
the antenna and a controller. The radar tech-
nology looks for weakness in the returning
radar signal from the reinforcing steel; the
weaker the signal, the more deteriorated the
concrete. The technology can show the location
and depth of rebar, tie bars, and dowel bars.
Figure 3 (page 29) shows the system being used
in the field on a bridge deck.
Condition assessment can be performed
using both air-launched horn antennas and
ground-coupled antennas. The ground-
coupled antennas provide better horizontal
resolution, which is sufficient to enable imag-
ing of individual rebar in the top mat,
typically not possible with horn antennas.
This is one of the major reasons why ground-
coupled antennas provide higher quality data
than air-launched antennas. Ground-coupled
antennas are used to collect densely spaced
measurements along lines that are oriented so
they cross over the top rebar in the upper mat
at right angles (or close to a right angle if the
rebar are skewed). The amplitude of the radar
wave reflection from each rebar is recorded
versus its location on the bridge. Relative
changes in the rebar reflection amplitudes
are typically indicative of the condition of
the rebar and/or the concrete cover above.
For maximum accuracy, rebar reflections
arriving from rebar positioned at different
depths may need to be corrected, depending
on the depth difference. This can be tricky
as variation in concrete moisture can lead
to the illusion of depth variation. Also,
30 February 2015
there are rules of thumb for choosing the
relative change in rebar reflection, which
is indicative of deterioration that requires
maintenance. Often the GPR practitioner
will map surface defects and map the corro-
sion evident from staining on the underside
of the bridge deck to help fine-tune the
deterioration threshold value.
GPR can also be used for quality assurance/
quality control (“QA/QC”) of the concrete cover
on new bridge decks to determine whether the
depth of the rebar meet the proper specifications.
Concrete cover measurements are most often
obtained during QA of the bridge deck after
it has been poured to ensure the top rebar
mat is at the depth range specified in the
bridge plans. The measurements involve col-
lecting data with a ground-coupled antenna
along one or more profile lines to record the
arrival time of the rebar reflections. Then, a
core is drilled at one of the rebar locations to
measure the rebar depth. This is input into
the processing software, which calculates the
radar wave velocity. This information is then
used to obtain the depths of the rebar.
This is a straightforward procedure that pro-
vides a very accurate measure of rebar depth. The
user should select a rebar near the beginning or
end of the profile line for the calibration core to
ensure that the rebar depth can be matched up
with the same rebar that generated the reflection
detected in the GPR data.
One example of GPR technology used
around the country is the BridgeScan™
system, a structured approach to collecting,
processing and interpreting GPR data for
bridge deck condition assessment, developed
by GSSI. The procedure provides a map of
rebar reflection amplitudes.
As shown in Figure 4, the areas with the
lowest rebar reflection amplitudes (yellows
and reds) correspond to portions of the bridge
deck containing the most distress in terms of
concrete deterioration and/or rebar corrosion.
ASTM standard D 6087 is used to assess the
range of reflection amplitudes that correspond
to expected bridge maintenance. Assessment of
the maintenance requirements indicated by the
GPR data is augmented by visual inspection
and other accessory condition information,
such as previous maintenance records.
Inspecting the Future
Bridge inspection techniques and equipment
have come a long way, and the development
of improved GPR technology has enhanced
inspection results substantially. GPR is grad-
ually becoming a mainstream application
in the toolbox of methods used to evaluate
bridge conditions.▪
 YOU INPUT HOW THE WALL NEEDS TO PERFORM.
[It outputs the products that meet your specs.]
© 2014 ClarkDietrich Building Systems

CLARKDIETRICH WALL TYPE CREATOR™ ADD-IN FOR REVIT.®

By allowing you to specify walls as you’re designing them, our first-of-its kind tool
will streamline your workflow. But beyond saving you time, Wall Type Creator
provides instant access to deeper, richer levels of BIM data. Specifically, build
walls right into your current Revit® project that meet height, STC and UL®
ratings. Download it for free at clarkdietrich.com/creator. STRONGER THAN STEEL. SM

Interior Framing ∙ Exterior Framing ∙ Interior Finishing ∙ Clips/Connectors ∙ Metal Lath/Accessories∙ Engineering clarkdietrich.com
Professional
issues
issues affecting the structural
engineering profession
Rainbows Only Come
After Rain
The Importance of a
Young Members Group
By Ellen (Chuan-Hua) Kuo, P.E.,
LEED AP BD+C
Ellen (Chuan-Hua) Kuo, P.E.,
LEED AP BD+C, is a structural
engineer with Symmes Maini &
McKee Associates in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. She is Co-Founder
of SEAMASS YMG and the
Resource Guide Administrator
of NCSEA YMG Support
Committee. She may be reached
at ekuo@smma.com.
F
orming a Young Members Group
(YMG) has altered my professional
vision and influenced the lives of many
others. In 2010, shortly after attain-
ing my master’s degree, I joined the Structural
Engineers Association of Massachusetts
(SEAMASS) and have been actively involved
ever since. However, I soon noticed that there
were hardly any young registered members or
event attendees. Observing other young profes-
sionals in my network, I noticed that young
engineers lacked a cohesive network of resources
which we could use to seek answers to entry
level questions (which some find difficult to ask
at work), and have our opinions and concerns
addressed through an established avenue.
In 2012, Sofia Zamora and I took the initiative to
establish a Young Members Group of SEAMASS,
with the goal of supporting young engineers in
the Massachusetts structural engineering commu-
nity, particularly in aiding their transitions from
school to professional life.
Establishing a new group
was quite a challenge, but
not nearly as difficult as
justifying the importance
of the YMG to the local
structural engineering
community. We found that this initial position
was somewhat common among other NCSEA
state affiliates. I am sure that there remain some
who believe that a YMG cannot contribute as
much to the profession as senior members, and
it is my goal to change their minds.
As the SEAMASS YMG continued to thrive,
members of the SEAMASS Board applauded our
efforts and achievements, and began to embrace
the germination of a reciprocal relationship. Upon
receiving proposals from the YMG, SEAMASS
has been investing in us, allowing us to explore
different group activities, host creative topics that
are geared toward young professionals, and build
a vibrant community for the future. SEAMASS
YMG creates avenues for young members to grow
in areas outside of the customary technical pre-
sentation setting.
We want to further prepare young engineers
for their careers in many aspects in addition to
technical knowledge. SEAMASS YMG provides
hands-on learning experiences, such as touring
facility plants and construction sites, training
programs and study groups, community out-
reach opportunities, as well as soft-skills building.
Many of the young engineers that come to YMG
events to network and learn in a more casual
environment ultimately become a part of the
team, further benefiting the member organization
(MO). Not only does the member organization
benefit from the increased number of members
and a great contribution of novel ideas from the
YMG, but also senior board members of the MO
32 February 2015
receive new perspectives and creative concepts
that inspire them to reevaluate the longstanding
status quo and organizational approach.
Society is often resistant to change, and some
organizations may be hesitant to implement
new plans – in this case, a new committee
group. In the start-up stage, there are hurdles
that must be overcome by both the established
senior members and the joining young mem-
bers. Convincing others to believe in us and
to fight this uphill battle can be difficult. That
said, we, both senior and junior members, must
be resilient and perseverant if we wish to build
something truly significant.
A Reciprocal Relationship
(Mentorship)
I believe that a reciprocal relationship is just one
of many advantages created from establishing
and maintaining a YMG. In the structural engi-
neering context, reciprocal relationships allow
young engineers to apprise senior engineers of
the latest industry trends and new methods, while
senior engineers continue to foster the profes-
sional development of young engineers in the
traditional mentorship mold. In order to properly
implement reciprocal mentorship, we must first
ask ourselves, “How is the industry different today
from what it was in the past?”
The college curriculum for the LRFD genera-
tion varies considerably from the curriculum of
the ASD generation 20 years ago, when those
who are now the experienced, senior engineers
received their educations. Many experienced
engineers adopted the rule-of-thumb methods
that they learned from their own mentors and
practice with formulas from old codes, short-
ening design times while staying adequately
conservative. However, methods that were once
commonly used are no longer efficient today, or
applicable to modern structural shapes and the
constantly changing codes.
Reciprocal mentoring would help to bridge the
knowledge gap between generations of engineers,
allowing both parties to increase their knowledge
base. Younger engineers could brief the experi-
enced engineers on the latest design technology
options and industry trends, while simultane-
ously learning to ply their trade from the more
experienced minds.
This relationship would lead senior engineers
to consider more factors (such as unforeseen
software constraints and limited resources)
when they estimate project budgets and required
hours. Consequently, accurate projections would
increase the efficiency and competitiveness of
their work. In return, young members will
receive lessons learned from individual senior
engineers and collective structural knowledge
within the MO.
 Planting the Seeds
The focus of nurturing a young commu-
nity, which is oftentimes undervalued or
overlooked, is the key to a better future. It
is very important for experienced engineers
to be aware of the frustration that exists in
the industry today – acknowledging the
dynamic role of today’s young engineers
and the importance of their roles in the
structural community. Planting the YMG
seed is one solution to sustain the growth
of engineers, to increase competency and State-of-the-Art Products
competitiveness in the industry, to develop
STRUCTURAL TECHNOLOGIES provides a wide range of custom
leadership and management skills early,
and to learn what it takes to create and designed systems which restore and enhance the load-carrying
complete a job. capacity of reinforced concrete and other structure types, including
Young members should no longer be masonry, timber and steel. Our products can be used stand-alone or
thought of as just individuals taking up
seats in the structural community; rather, in combination to solve complex structural challenges.
they should be thought of as individuals
with extensive, growing networks who
exchange information and cultivate one V-Wrap™
another to be future leaders. At the 2014 Carbon Fiber System

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

NCSEA conference held in New Orleans,
the regular attendees must have noticed an
obvious change in the NCSEA community. DUCON®
There were 10 times more young profession- Micro-Reinforced Concrete Systems
als attending the conference compared to
just two short years ago. In addition, the
NCSEA Young Members Group Support
Committee was in charge of one of this VSL
year's conference sessions, deliberating External Post-Tensioning Systems
challenges that the industry is facing, rec-
ommending strategies to mitigate them,
and working together to solve problems.
Great things take time and energy to bring
Tstrata™
Enlargement Systems
to fruition. With support and guidance
from the community, this LRFD gen-
eration will soon be capable of assessing, Engineered Solutions
creating, and forecasting new solutions and
Our team integrates with engineers and owners to produce
opportunities for development of a greater
community, and to further improve the high value, low impact solutions for repair and retrofit of existing
practice and the standard of this profession. structures. We provide comprehensive technical support services
By planting the seeds now to germinate including feasibility, preliminary product design, specification
tomorrow’s success, we ask you to help us
grow the YMG network, so that those who support, and construction budgets. Contact us today for assistance
are following in your footsteps can receive with your project needs.
some of the advantages that you can only
wish you had.
The successful launch of the Young Members
Group of SEAMASS was due in large part to the
resources and guidance offered by the NCSEA
Young Members Group Start-Up (Resource)
www.structuraltechnologies.com
Guide. The 2014 version of the NCSEA
YMG Resource Guide, compiled by Heather +1-410-859-6539
Anesta (heather.anesta@stantec.com) and To learn more about Structural Group companies visit www.structuralgroup.com
Ellen Kuo (ekuo@smma.com), can be found DUCON® trade names and patents are owned by DUCON GmbH and are distributed exclusively in North America
by STRUCTURAL TECHNOLOGIES for strengthening and force protection applications.
at www.ncsea.com/resources/documents.
VSL is the registered trademark of VSL International Ltd.
We look forward to hearing your feedback and
suggestions about the Young Members Group!▪

STRUCTURE magazine 33 February 2015

 Restoration of
Historic Fire-Damaged
Masonry Walls

By Jacob Bice, Ph.D., P.E. and Dilip Choudhuri, P.E.

Figure 1.

STRUCTURE magazine 34 February 2015

Figure 2. Figure 3.

B
ethel Missionary Baptist Church was founded in the nine- Determining Basis for Design
teenth century by Reverend Jack Yates, an early leader
The biggest challenge in any restoration project is developing infor-
of Houston’s African American community. Located in
mation about unknown conditions. Once the walls were stabilized, a
Freedmen’s Town, a post-Civil War Houston neighbor-
comprehensive visual condition assessment was performed to docu-
hood founded by freed slaves, the church was the first constructed
ment the distress conditions for repair and understand the wall
by former slaves, with the earliest portion constructed in the 1890s.
construction. Given the fire-damaged state of these walls, under-
The first two church buildings were destroyed, and in 1923 a third
standing the appropriate masonry strength to use in design was
single story church building was erected. In 1950, second and third
fundamental. A combination of flat-jack tests and unit compressive
stories were added. The sanctuary was designed by James M. Thomas,
strength tests were utilized to determine the masonry material capaci-
a prominent architect of African American churches. In January
ties needed for design.
2005, a fire gutted the interior of the historic structure, collapsing
Flat jack testing is a nondestructive technique where masonry com-
the interior framing and roof, leaving only the exterior masonry walls
pressive and shear strengths are evaluated in-situ. When measuring
in place. The structure sat exposed and abandoned until 2009, when
compressive strengths, the test consists of routing out a horizontal
the City of Houston purchased the property to convert the former
mortar joint to allow a calibrated steel bladder to be inserted into the
church into a community park (Figure 2).
joint. For shear strength tests, a vertical joint is tested. Linear variable
The remaining walls consist of two distinct constructions. The 1923
differential transformers (LVDTs) are mounted to wall surface and
single story is a reinforced concrete frame in-filled with structural clay
the bladder then “inflated” hydraulically (Figure 4). The hydraulic
tile with a brick veneer. These walls were present at the base of the
pressure and displacements are measured and a stress-strain relation-
east, west, and south walls. In 1950, when the second and third stories
ship is developed.
were added, the north wall of the building was re-clad with a concrete
The laboratory testing data showed that the historic brick had a
masonry unit (CMU) and brick cavity wall system, and the new north
compressive strength of 1,600 psi. The modern brick in the building
façade was increased to a height of 50 feet. The CMU and brick cavity
had a compressive strength of 2,000 psi, which is consistent with the
walls were also constructed on top of the existing 1923 walls on the
minimum compression strength for Grade S-I, S-II bricks, while
east, west, and south elevations during the 1950 renovation.

Before Restoration, Protection

Walter P Moore of Houston, Texas, was initially retained to provide
nondestructive testing services to evaluate the conditions of the exist-
ing masonry walls and develop strengthening solutions as necessary.
However, once an initial site visit was conducted, the first challenge of
the project became evident; access into the site to evaluate the masonry
walls was nearly impossible due to the collapsed framing and debris that
still remained from the 2005 fire, and a large crack in the 50-foot tall
brick veneer running from the base of the wall to the top was visible at
the northeast corner of the building (Figure 3). The deteriorating façade
immediately adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk posed a potential risk
to public safety. Before any assessment could be performed, the engi-
neering team made recommendations to the City to immediately close
the street to traffic and temporarily brace the existing walls. Emergency
shoring and bracing was designed and installed within a 24-hour period
to protect the public and the structure. Figure 4.

STRUCTURE magazine 35 February 2015

Grade N-1 and N-2 bricks commonly used in modern construction
have a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi.
In historic preservations, the designer always has to specify mate-
rials that conform to, or are as close as possible to, those used in
the original construction. For this project, it was anticipated that
repointing deteriorated mortar joints would be necessary, so a
mortar analysis was performed. Three mortar samples were excised
from the structure and analyzed by acid digestion of the binder
and sieve analysis of the aggregate in accordance with ASTM
C136. This analysis determined the starting proportions for the
mortar specified in the design documents should be 1: 1¼: 5½
(Portland cement : lime : aggregate). In addition, the color and
Figure 5.
gradation of the mortar aggregate were determined, which allowed
the contractor to closely match the original mortar properties and would minimize the extent of replacement in the building veneer. To
aesthetics (Figure 5). accomplish this objective, the design team proposed a galvanized steel
frame that would visually recall the original gabled roof lines of the
church, with new metal panels and poly-resin glass panels installed in
Wall Strengthening in Plain Sight the existing windows and door openings (Figure 1, page 34).
The engineering assessment program determined that the CMU The existing walls would have to be strengthened to span between
back-up walls and structural clay tiles were in poor condition as the girts of the new frame for the loads imposed by the 110-mph
a result of the fire, resulting in a dangerous condition. Significant hurricane wind speeds required by the building code (IBC 2006
cracking was evident throughout the back-up wall system, and large modified with City of Houston amendments). This design require-
portions of the wall were unreinforced, including the 50-foot tall ment alone would be challenging enough for a heavily damaged
north wall. At several locations, the brick ties that anchor the brick masonry structure. However, because the walls themselves would be
veneer to the back-up wall, installed during the 1950 construction, exposed and without interior finishes, strengthening would need to
had corroded and failed. Failure was likely prior to the fire and be “hidden in plain sight” to community park patrons while not vis-
was due to the age of the building, but resulted in veneer that was ibly altering the appearance of the walls. The design team developed
separating from the back-up. a repair solution that consisted of strengthening of the back-up wall
In keeping with the historic nature of the walls, a strengthening solu- and pinning the existing brick veneer to the strengthened back-up.
tion had to be designed that would not alter the existing aesthetics and With this strengthening accomplished, a ferrocement finish was
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Connect Steel to Steel without Welding or Drilling

• Full line of high-strength fasteners
• Ideal for secondary steel connections and in-plant equipment
• Easy to install or adjust on site
• Will not weaken existing steel or harm protective coatings
• Guaranteed Safe Working Loads
• Corrosion resistant

NEW!

FloorFix and Grating We manufacture ICC- FastFit universal kits

Clip secure raised ES certified BoxBolt® for faster and easier
or open floors and for HSS blind steel connections.
grating. connections. A K E E S A F E T Y C O M PA N Y

For a catalog and pricing, call toll-free 1-888-724-2323 or visit www.LNAsolutions.com/BC-2

STRUCTURE magazine 36 February 2015

applied that provided additional strengthening and added to a clean
appearance for the interior of the park.
At the base of the walls in the 1923 construction, a new, rein-
forced CMU back-up wall was constructed to “sandwich” the existing
structural clay tile in-fill; removing this infill could have potentially
compromised portions of the wall supported above it. Stainless steel
helical anchors were then driven through the existing veneer, the
existing structural clay tile, and into the new back-up wall beyond.
In the 1950 construction, the existing CMU back-up walls were
reinforced by removing the interior shell of the CMU and grout-
ing in new vertical reinforcing bars doweled into the existing grade
beams. Large cracks in the existing CMU back-up were reinforced by
routing out the horizontal grout and installing stainless steel helical
ties across the crack. Once this crack reinforcement was installed,
the grout line was re-pointed and the crack itself was then grouted.
Cracks through the exterior brick were also treated in this manner,
and the brick veneer then pinned using helical anchors back to the
Figure 6.
strengthened back-up wall.
A ferrocement coating was then applied to provide lateral rein- While this strengthening ensured that the historic walls would stand
forcement to the CMU back-up wall and provide a uniform finish through the hurricanes that are possible in the Houston area, a number
to the interior of the park walls (Figure 6 ). Galvanized welded wire of other details were required to enhance the appearance of the park
reinforcement was pinned to the interior faces of the walls, and a and preserve key architectural elements of the walls. Cast stone panels
2-inch thick shotcrete coating was applied. At window openings and installed in the north wall required patches to repair spalls and restore
the tops of the walls, the ferrocement coating was extended around these panels. Existing lintels over door and window openings in the
the edges of the openings to provide clean and aesthetically pleasing 1923 construction were removed and replaced since corrosion of the
terminations. The ferrocement was given a drag finish for a relatively original lintels had resulted in rust-jacking and cracking.
smooth wall surface that resembled a stucco wall finish. A cream Once construction began, it became evident that each wall opening
colored elastomeric finish coating was specified by the design team varied from the next. Each new fenestration required special detailing
to brighten the interior finish and contrast against the new multi- to connect to the existing walls. To anchor the new window and door
colored fenestrations. panels, structural clay tile had to be removed between the new CMU
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Toll-Free: (866) 252-4628 12080 SW Myslony St. Tualatin, OR 97062

info@albinaco.com www.albinaco.com

YOUR BENDING EXPERTS

Servicing the Steel
Industry For Over 75 YEARS -Tee
-Angle -Flat Bar -Square Bar -Wide Flange
-Rectangular Tubing -Round Tube & Pipe
-Channel -Square Tubing
-Round Bar -Rail -Plate
Museum of Flight Seattle, WA. Happy Hallow Park & Zoo San Jose, CA. Dry Creek Bridge Denver, CO.

BART Rapid Transit Oakland, CA.

STRUCTURE magazine 37 February 2015

 back-up wall and the existing brick veneer. Helical anchors were then
installed between the brick and the CMU back-up, and the cavity
filled as a part of the ferrocement construction. This provided a solid
substrate into which anchors for the new panels could be installed.
Coordination between the City, the design team and the contractor
was a fundamental component to successfully delivering this project.
Mock-ups of the ferrocement installation, coatings, and window
terminations were constructed at key milestones in the project. These
mock-ups allowed the design team and the Owner to meet, and review
with the Contractor, issues related to aesthetics and constructability
before getting approval by the Owner and design team. In addition,
routine field observations by the design team throughout construc-
tion identified unknown conditions and developed alternate repairs
and details as needed.
All told, the construction lasted just over one year, with the ribbon
cutting for the new park on December 15, 2013. The completed
Bethel Park features concrete and brick walkways, installation of an
artificial turf interior courtyard, and site amenities including raised
fountains, seat walls, benches, lighting, fencing, landscaping and
irrigation. A particular highlight of the park is the historic education
panels mounted throughout the space.

Conclusion
Figure 7.
Severely damaged by fire, abandoned, but not forgotten by its com-
munity and congregation, Bethel Park preserves an important part
of Texas and African-American history. Preserving heavily damaged,
unreinforced masonry walls, protecting the public safety, and creat-
ing a new community space in which the original church walls were
integrated were significant challenges for the design team. The unique
strengthening techniques made it possible to have exposed masonry
walls that contribute to the overall park aesthetic (Figures 7 and 8).
The total project cost with property acquisition, bracing,
design and park development was $4.7 million. The cost
of strengthening the structure was $2.1 million, about
half the total construction cost.▪

Jacob Bice, Ph.D., P.E., is a Senior Associate and Senior

Project Manager in Walter P Moore Diagnostics Group. Dr.
Bice conducts structural health monitoring and nondestructive
evaluations such as GPR, impact echo, impulse response, UPV
and half-cell corrosion potential on existing structures. Jacob can
be reached at jbice@walterpmoore.com.
Dilip Choudhuri, P.E., is a President and CEO of
Walter P Moore Diagnostics. Dilip can be reached at
dchoudhuri@walterpmoore.com.

Project Team
Owner: City of Houston – Parks Department, Houston, TX
Structural Engineer for Masonry Wall Repairs: Walter P
Moore, Houston, TX
Structural Engineer for Structural Steel Framing: Henderson
+ Rogers, Inc., Houston, TX
Architect of Record: PGAL, Houston, TX
General Contractor: JE Dunn, Houston, TX
Masonry Subcontractor: United Restoration & Preservation,
Houston, TX
Landscape Architect: White Oak Studios, Houston, TX
Figure 8.

STRUCTURE magazine 38 February 2015

 Paid Advertisement

Retrofit Solution for

Soft-Story Buildings

Thousands of San Francisco building owners are now required by law
to seismically retrofit multi-unit (at least five) soft-story, wood-frame
residential structures that have two or more stories over a “soft” or
“weak” story.
These buildings typically have parking or commercial space on the
ground floor with two or more stories above. As a result, the first floor
has far more open areas of the wall than it actually has sheathed areas,
making it particularly vulnerable to collapse in an earthquake.
That was the case in both the Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes,
which is why cities in California, including Berkeley and Oakland, have
recently passed similar legislation and many others, including Los
Angeles, are now considering it. San Francisco’s ordinance affects
buildings permitted for construction before January 1, 1978.
Another key advantage of the Simpson Strong-Tie special moment
frame is no field welding is required, which eliminates the risk of fire
in San Francisco’s older wood-framed buildings.“Field welding is not
a good thing, particularly in an existing building because the chance
of fire is just too great. A bolted solution is much safer.”
The special moment frame has been recognized in the construction
industry for its innovation. It was one of only 16 products selected to
win a 2014 Parade of Products@PCBC award, given by the California
Building Association.
For more information about the
Strong Frame special moment
frame, visit the website at
strongtie.com/strongframe.

One solution to strengthen such buildings is the Simpson Strong-Tie® Watch a video about San
Strong Frame ® special moment frame. Its patented Yield-Link™ Francisco’s retrofit ordinance
structural fuses are designed to bear the brunt of lateral forces at strongtie.com/softstory.
during an earthquake, isolating damage within the frame and keeping
the structural integrity of the beams and columns intact.

“The structural fuses connect the beams to the columns. These fuses
are designed to stretch and yield when the beam twists against the
column, rather than the beam itself, and because of this the beams can
be designed without bracing. This allows the Strong Frame to become
a part of the wood building and perform in the way it’s supposed to,”
Soft-story retrofit using
said Steve Pryor, S.E., International Director of Building Systems at
Strong Frame® special moment frame
Simpson Strong-Tie. “It’s also the only commercially-available frame
that bolts together and has the type of ductile capacity that can work
inside of a wood-frame building.”
©2015 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc.
CFS Transforms
Octagonal
Structure into
Elliptical Curve Figure 1. Pinnacle Bank Arena rendering.

Pinnacle Bank Arena, Lincoln, Nebraska

By Jeffrey Kreinke, P.E., S.E., Karl Scherzer, P.E. and Jamie John, E.I.T.

T
hrough the use of cold formed steel (CFS) framing, the
corners of a rigid polygonal concrete structure can be
smoothed and transformed into the gentle curve of an
ellipse, enlivening the architect’s vision and creating a
landmark structure in an up-and-coming neighborhood.

Project Overview
Constructed as part of Lincoln’s West Haymarket Redevelopment
Project, the new Pinnacle Bank Arena was completed August 2013.
The 470,400 square foot multi-use event complex will not only serve
as the new host for the University of Nebraska’s men’s and women’s
basketball games, but also as a venue for year-round entertainment.
Concerts, touring acts, and family productions will utilize the arena’s
three public concourses and seating capacity for up to 15,900 guests.
The new indoor arena is a seven level concrete structure wrapped
in a metal panel and glass curtain wall façade. The inner, octagonal
concrete super structure is enclosed by cold formed steel framing,
which transforms the outer shape into a tri-radial ellipse. The facility
combines “space-frame” panelized walls at the upper collar section
with “stick-framed” walls at the lower collar area. Adjacent CFS
framing with long span sloping walls were also “stick built” due to
size and site constraints. Figure 2. Typical CAD wall section showing “Space Frame” at upper collar.

STRUCTURE magazine 40 February 2015

 Project Challenges/Solutions
Various architectural design considerations, structural requirements,
and construction obstacles had to be addressed throughout the
cold formed steel design process to keep the project on schedule
and on budget:
• Tri-Radial Elliptical Façade
• Panelized Space Frames
• Special Construction Loading Requirements
• Sloping Wall Studs
• Staggered Openings at Bypass Wall Conditions
• Connection Requirements
• Large Duct Opening within Space Frame Panels
The use of cold formed steel space frames was determined to be the
best method to accommodate the changing radius of the elliptical
façade and to address the sloping exterior at the upper collar. Each Figure 3. Staggered stick-framed openings at the west building elevation.
frame was modeled and analyzed at its maximum and minimum
offset distance (from the building super structure) using RISA 3D.
Various load cases and load combinations were applied to the space
frames per ASCE 7-05. Special construction loading considerations
were necessary for this project due to the volume of cold formed
steel framing required, the duration of time to install and enclose
the building, and the limited access to the exterior cold formed
steel façade throughout construction. During the construction
process, the building would only be partially enclosed for a sub-
stantial period of time, making it necessary to engineer the space
frames to withstand the higher wind loads associated with this type
of exposure. Each space frame was designed to support temporary
construction platforms located on the horizontal frame members.
The platforms were necessary to provide access to the outside of
the wall studs until the exterior was completed. The frames were
designed to be constructed into wall panels and lifted into place
by crane (Figure 4 ). As a result, the space frame panels had to be
analyzed with reactions at the crane “pick points,” in addition to
the standard reactions at building supports. Another construction
complication was the large offsets between the concrete super
structure and the outside face of the exterior wall studs. Each space
frame panel was 50 feet tall by 12 feet wide with offsets varying in
depth from 6 feet to 20 feet. Frames were spaced at 16 inches on
center throughout, with of a variety of stud depths and thicknesses
depending upon location (Figure 2).
The lower building collar has portions of curved, sloping walls that
bypass the structure. Within these walls, staggered windows of differ-
ent lengths and elevations require this section to be stick framed in
a more traditional manner, in lieu of panelization. Engineering the
framing around each of these window openings is difficult since the
windows are positioned in locations that do not allow the jamb studs Figure 4. Installed CFS wall panel.
to run continuous from top to bottom; jambs are often interrupted
by another window opening above or below (Figure 3). To accurately stick framed walls at the lower collar, the bypass connections to
engineer the headers, jambs, and sills at these misaligned openings the super structure are made with vertical slide clip connections
requires intricate load trace calculations. Large concentrated loads on at all levels above the main concourse (Figure 2). The vertical slide
headers and sills from adjacent jamb reactions caused the opening clip (VSC) connections allow each level to deflect independently
framing to be heavier than typical when compared to openings in a under gravity loading without any vertical load transfer to the
stacked configuration. attached framing.
The building’s super structure was engineered to laterally support The large facility requires systems of an equal scale to meet its high
the exterior building façade; however, all gravity loads needed to electrical, mechanical and plumbing demands. To avoid possible
be transferred and relieved at the main concourse level. The cold conflicts with various systems’ piping and ductwork, BIM software
formed steel space frame construction at the upper collar allows was used during the design phase to coordinate CFS framing with
for the transfer of gravity loads through trussed sloping members the building systems and provide clash detection prior to instal-
down to the base connection without gravity loading intermediate lation. This extra measure enabled multiple disciplines to work
levels. For both the space frame panels at the upper collar and the together and provide solutions in the early stages of the project,

STRUCTURE magazine 41 February 2015

 Figure 5. BIM rendering of Pinnacle Bank Arena upper seating bowl. Figure 6. “Jig Table” used for on-site panel construction.

preventing delays during the construction
phase. One specific item discovered using
BIM was interference between the space
frames and a large ventilation duct in the
upper seating bowl of the arena (Figure 5).
This discovery resulted in the addition of
structural steel during the design phase,
to allow for CFS space frame attachment
around the ducts, avoiding potential costly
field modifications during construction.
The unique and complex layout of the arena
also had an impact on the construction meth-
ods used. The space frame wall panels were
constructed on a “jig table” during the day,
and lifted into place by crane in the evening. A
concrete slab was poured on-site to create a jig
table large enough to layout four panels at one
time (Figure 6 ). Each panel was constructed
of ten individual frames, which were tied
together with cold rolled channel to create
Attention Bentley Users
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
space frame wall panels. The panels were lifted
by a crane via engineered pick points, clipped
to the super structure and lapped on to previ-
ously installed vertical stud framing. A total
of 96 space frame wall panels were required
to complete the construction of the structure’s
upper collar.
Conclusion
The ideal combination of construction
materials, along with coordination of
multiple disciplines, ensured the Pinnacle
Bank Arena was successfully completed on
time. The use of innovative design concepts
and construction practices were valuable in
addressing a challenging building design
and keeping the project on schedule. The
CFS framing was utilized to accommodate
the ever-changing slopes of the exterior
metal wall panels and the tri-radial curve
of the building’s footprint. Its lightweight
characteristic allowed contractors to more
importance of proper material selection.
When selecting building construction mate-
rials, consideration should be
given not only to achieving the
desired building aesthetics, but
also to project constructability.▪
Jeffrey Kreinke, P.E., S.E., is a project
manager and structural engineer at Excel
Engineering, Inc. in Fond du Lac, WI. He
served as the principal cold formed steel
engineer for the Pinnacle Bank Arena. He
can be reached at jeff.k@excelengineer.com.
Karl Scherzer, P.E., is a principal and
structural engineer at Excel Engineering,
Inc. in Fond du Lac, WI. He can be
reached at karl.s@excelengineer.com.
Jamie John, E.I.T., is a senior technician
at Excel Engineering, Inc. in Fond du
Lac, WI. She can be reached at
jamie.j@excelengineer.com.

easily build and transport large CFS wall

Have you received your automatic
quarterly invoice from Bentley?
Would you like to reduce or eliminate
these invoices?
Use SofTrack to control and manage
Calendar Hour usage of your Bentley
SELECT Open Trust Licensing.
Call us today, 866 372 8991 or visit us
www.softwaremetering.com
assemblies, lending favorably to wall
Project Team:
panelization. As demonstrated during
Owner: PC Sports
construction of the Pinnacle Bank Arena,
Structural Engineer of Record: Buro
specialized and complex panel framing
Happold Consulting Engineers PC
can be constructed in a controlled envi-
Architect of Record: DLR Group
ronment, then lifted, and connected to
Construction Manager: Mortenson
the structure. Benefits of the panelized
Construction
construction method include increased
Specialty Structural EOR for CFS
quality assurance, decreased production
Framing: Excel Engineering, Inc.
time, and overall project safety.
Wall Panel Fabricator/CFS
Innovative designs often require engi-
Framing Contractor: Falewitch
neers and contractors to utilize building
Construction Services, Inc.
materials in new ways, reinforcing the

STRUCTURE magazine 42 February 2015

 Launching Soon

Get ready for analysis & design software

like you have never seen before
That’s a concrete promise
a tekla.com
Structural
rehabilitation
renovation and restoration of
existing structures
Divine Design: Renovating
and Preserving Historic
Houses of Worship
Part 3: Roof Structures
By Nathaniel B. Smith, P.E. and
Milan Vatovec, P.E., Ph.D.
Nathaniel B. Smith, P.E., is a
Senior Project Manager at Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger’s office in New
York City. He can be reached at
nbsmith@sgh.com.
Dr. Milan Vatovec is a Senior
Principal at Simpson Gumpertz &
Heger Inc. He can be reached at
mvatovec@sgh.com.
T
his series of articles discusses some of
the commonly encountered structural
issues during the renovation and res-
toration of historic buildings of this
type, and provides guidance on ways to address
them. Parts one and two of this series focused on
foundation and wall systems, respectively. This
part focuses on roof structures.
General Description of Typical
Timber Roof Systems
One of the most common types of structural roof
systems found in historic houses of worship in
the United States is the heavy timber truss, which
has been used to frame and support the roofs of
these structures for centuries. Over time, many
different truss geometries and configurations have
evolved and were successfully used: king post,
queen post, scissor trusses, hammer beam, as well
as a number of various combinations involving
trusses and other heavy
timber frames. While the
trusses are typically the
main structural support
for the roof, the remain-
der of the roof system is
typically constructed of
wood decking supported
by a system of wood raf-
ters and purlins that span between or parallel to
the trusses. Heavy timber roof trusses typically
bear directly on the exterior masonry walls, and
will either span clear from wall to wall, or rely on
interior columns to provide intermediate support.
Joints and Connections
The type and configuration of connections found
in timber structures are numerous and can vary
significantly depending on the age of the struc-
ture. In older structures, they may include mortise
and tenon joints, shear keys, bolted connections
(with or without external steel hardware), or a
number or other combinations of the above.
Newer timber trusses, post World War I, may
also feature shear plate or split-ring connectors.
Regardless of their type, due to lack of redundancy
and ductility, or their often concealed nature and
susceptibility to deterioration and/or distress,
truss connections are usually the structural weak
link in timber-framed roof systems. Several typical
issues encountered in practice are described below.
Timbers were typically green (moisture content
greater than 19%) when originally installed. As
they dried in service, the associated shrinkage
may have caused the joints to loosen or open
with time. Typical truss maintenance should
therefore include inspection and occasional
tightening of the bolted connections, aimed at
maintaining their serviceability and effectiveness.
44 February 2015
Heavy timber roof framing.
Unfortunately, this level of inspection and
maintenance is commonly overlooked, or not
continuously performed, and may ultimately lead
to ineffective load transfer through the connec-
tions, excessive truss deflections, or redistribution
of loads to other members causing overstresses.
As heavy timbers dry and shrink, checks and
other drying defects may also form. Checks are
commonly mistaken for structural cracks, and
are automatically assumed to be detrimental to
the timbers. Checking is a normal part of the
drying process, and, unless severe, it may not
drastically affect the capacity of the timber ele-
ments. In fact, modern design practices account
for the presence of checks, and design reduction
factors have been established to account for this
phenomenon. Nonetheless, checks and splits,
especially when they extend through the entire
cross-section of the member, will affect member’s
flexural capacity and should be evaluated on a
case by case basis. If a significant reduction in
member capacity is suspected, various reinforce-
ment options are available to restore the needed
capacity (installation of straps, dowels, sister
members, plates, etc.). More critical, however,
is the potential presence of checks or splits near
member ends, where connections are expected
to transfer internal forces through the structure.
Many localized joint failures and slippages, and
sometimes roof-structure collapses, initiate at the
checks or splits, where the dowel-bearing strength
of the bolts can be significantly compromised
(especially if the joint configuration features insuf-
ficient bolt end distance). Gusset plates, external
tie rods, or other joint-reinforcement details are
available as joint strengthening options.
In some cases, slipped (open) joints need to be
closed (tightened) and the resulting excessive truss
deflection “removed” prior to installing the perma-
nent strengthening detail. This can be accomplished
by pulling the members back together using a
system of come-a-longs, pulleys, or by shoring
and jacking the truss upward. However, great
care needs to be taken during this process to
prevent damage to the timbers or to other por-
tions of the structure. This work should only
be performed by an experienced contractor
working with an engineer knowledgeable in
heavy-timber truss behavior. Closing a single
joint on a truss may require manipulating the
adjacent trusses, and a good understanding of
the load paths and the expected behavior of
the structure is paramount. Careful monitoring
of movements needs to be performed to verify
that the structure is behaving as intended.
In general, special expertise and knowledge
of wood behavior is needed to differentiate
between normal checking and severe cracking
that could pose a serious structural concern.
Consulting with a wood-science expert can help
to determine what, if any, repair or strengthen-
ing work may be needed. Proper assessment of
the issue at hand may significantly reduce the
amount of needed remedial work.
Fungal Deterioration
Moisture is probably the single most det-
rimental factor affecting wood structural
members. Moisture-related deterioration of
wood typically begins to occur when the
moisture content of the wood exceeds
20%. This level of moisture, which
provides sufficient resources for wood-
attacking fungal hyphae (rot) to stay active
and cause wood-cell material destruction,
can be achieved by leakage, or by repeated
wetting and drying in service.
As discussed in Part 2 of this series, ends
of timber elements (e.g. roof trusses)
bearing in pockets in masonry walls are
typically the most vulnerable to the effects
of moisture absorbed by the masonry.
To compound the issue, bearing ends of
the roof-structure timbers are typically
in the vicinity of the roof gutters; any
associated leakage or masonry saturation
could further contribute to deterioration
of the roof-structure timbers.
Wood is generally a very ductile material
that behaves well under loading; how-
ever, decay significantly affects the cell
structure of the wood, which causes a
loss in strength and ductility. Significant
deterioration can cause timbers to fail
suddenly, in a brittle manner, without
undergoing large displacements or giving
early warning before the ensuing collapse.
Also, because of the lack of redundancy in
timber trusses and roof framing, failure of
even one member can have catastrophic
STRUCTURE magazine
consequences, including partial or full col-
lapse of the roof structure.
Periodic inspections of roof framing need to
be performed to locate and address areas of
potential deterioration before they become a
significant hazard. Wood-educated inspectors
should have the ability to recognize tell-tale
signs associated with fungal decay and insect
attack, although it is less common in roof
structures. This is especially important in situ-
ations where the most vulnerable portions
of timber members are concealed (e.g. by
masonry), and where the exposed portion of
the member does not exhibit any apparent
or visual signs of deterioration. However, if
the concealed member end is wet, chances
are that the decay process is on-going, and
even the apparently healthy-looking exposed
wood may already have lost a portion of its
strength due to decay. Often inspections must
rely on considering secondary effects of dete-
rioration (e.g. staining of masonry), minute
characteristics of timber grain appearance, or
even sampling and subsequent microscopic
laboratory investigation.
If deterioration is found, some level of repair
or strengthening is typically required. Shoring
may be required as well if deterioration or its
effects are deemed to significantly affect mem-
bers’ abilities to support loads. Because visual
SUPPORTING
INNOVATION
IN ARCHITECTURE
KPFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
www.kpff.com
45 February 2015
Opening of joint due to shrinkage.
and probing inspections alone are often not
enough to fully assess the remaining strength
of the member, appropriate experience with
timber structures and associated ability to
holistically and realistically assess the effects
of decay is often key in such situations. After
safety is assessed and addressed, the next step
should be to determine the source of moisture
and if it is still active. Repairing deteriorated
timber (the symptom) without addressing the
moisture source (the underlying cause) will
not be effective; further deterioration after
repairs are made can be expected. Only once
the moisture issue is addressed and further
exposure eliminated (through appropriate
waterproofing detailing or treatment), reme-
dial or strengthening solutions (discussed in
subsequent sections) will be effective.
continued on next page
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Portland International Airport,
Terminal Access Program,
Portland, OR
Seattle • Tacoma • Lacey • Portland • Eugene •
Sacramento • San Francisco • Walnut Creek •
Los Angeles • Long Beach • Pasadena • Irvine •
San Diego • Boise • Phoenix • St. Louis •
Chicago • New York
Fungal deterioration at truss bearing.
Renovation Effects
Renovations of these types of structures often
include a decision to insulate the ceiling above
the worship space to help reduce costs associ-
ated with heating and cooling. While adding
insulation may help the energy efficiency of
the building (if installed properly), it may
also result in unintended consequences on
the performance of the roof structure.
The majority of historic houses of worship
were not constructed with a significant heat-
ing or cooling source. Often, the only heat
source may have been a single wood or coal-
fired stove. In northern climates, any heat
generated within the building would even-
tually escape through the ceiling and roof,
and help melt any snow accumulation on the
roof; intended or not, this can help keep the
roof snow loads fairly minimal. The addition
of insulation, however, effectively traps the
heat within the worship space and prevents
it from reaching the roof; the exterior roof
surface remains cold, potentially allowing
snow build-up and increasing the snow load.
If not anticipated and addressed, the increase
in snow load can cause overstressing of timber
members and connections, unanticipated
deflections, or in some cases even partial or
full collapse of the roof structure. If adding
insulation to the ceiling of a house of worship
is being considered, consult with a structural
engineer experienced with timber framing and
an engineer experienced in building science
to develop appropriate details.
Renovations may also include changing the
roofing type (e.g. from asphalt shingles to slate
tiles). The slate tiles and any associated water-
proofing will significantly increase the load
on the roof structure, which then needs to be
carefully evaluated to determine if any roof
members or connections need to be reinforced.
Similarly, different roofing materials may pro-
vide for different resistance against snow sliding
STRUCTURE magazine
Truss reinforcement.
(and can result in unintended snow accumula-
tion), also requiring consideration.
Strengthening
In some cases, strengthening of the truss
members may be necessary due to alterations
(addition of insulation, HVAC equipment,
change of roofing type, etc.), or to address
existing distress or deterioration of the
timbers. Strengthening can often be accom-
plished by reinforcing the existing members
with additional wood framing, steel plates,
or channels. The reinforcing is commonly
attached to the existing timbers using through
bolts or lag screws. To arrive at an effective
strengthening solution, compatibility of dis-
placements, load sharing, or any geometric
or other constraints introduced to the exist-
ing structure need to be carefully examined.
Also, if temporary removal of truss elements
is needed, shoring, load transfer sequencing,
and temporary lateral bracing of often tall
and slender masonry walls need to be consid-
ered. Finally, if any change in the overall truss
behavior is introduced (e.g. when tie rods are
added to prevent further spreading of scissor
trusses), all members and their connections
along the load path should be examined to
determine if they are adequate to resist the
new loads (in some cases compression mem-
bers become tensile members, etc.).
Since the dead loads from the roof are
already being supported by the existing truss
framing, the reinforcing is typically designed
to only support the live loads (snow, wind,
seismic) and any new dead loads (HVAC
equipment, catwalks, lighting, etc.). If the
existing structural dead loads need to also
be carried by the reinforcing (e.g. due to the
amount of overstress or due to deterioration),
the existing dead loads will need to be taken
out of the system by a combination of jack-
ing, temporary shoring, and other methods.
46 February 2015
Relieving timber trusses of the existing dead
loads is a significant undertaking. Shoring and
lifting of roof trusses from below can be quite
intensive and in some cases even cost pro-
hibitive due to large ceiling heights (40 feet
or more) and potentially large reaction loads
associated with truss lifting. Shoring systems
will need to be designed by an experienced pro-
fessional to verify that the shoring can support
the intended loads, and will remain stable. The
actual jacking of the loads out of the trusses
(and into the new, supplemental members
such as tie-rods) can be very involved, and may
result in unwanted damages if not carefully
performed and monitored. Similar to closing
slipped truss joints, an experienced engineer
and contractor are needed to perform this work
to determine the appropriate jacking loads,
jack locations, and to monitor the trusses for
movement to help to avoid unwanted damages.
Closure
Trusses and other timber frames have been
successfully used to support roof systems in
houses of worship for centuries, and, with
proper maintenance and repairs, they should
continue to serve as reliable and effective roof
framing systems for years to come. Proper
understanding of the material behavior, struc-
tural characteristics, and system limitations
is needed to enable designers and builders to
develop effective remedial or strengthening
solutions in historic restoration or renovation
projects. While ultimately aimed at address-
ing the changing needs of the congregation,
careful consideration and good implementa-
tion of available restoration options can also
extend the remaining useful service life of
these important buildings.
Future articles will include review of material
and structural performance of architectural com-
ponents in houses of worship (e.g. wood floors,
trim, plaster ceilings, roofing, finishes, etc.).▪
Strong Structures Come
From Strong Designs

With RAM™, STAAD® and ProStructures,

Bentley offers proven applications for:

• Metal Buildings
• Steel/Steel Composite
• Aluminum
• Reinforced Concrete
• Foundation Design
• Steel Connections

Build it with Bentley! Integrated projects, • Structural Drawings and Details

teams and software.

… all easily coordinated with the
Architect and other team members
and their design applications –
Bentley’s Structural Software provides you the tools you need for strong designs and supports such as AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation®
an integrated workflow all the way around. Having all the applications you need for the tasks and more.
at hand, along with the ability to easily synchronize your work with the rest of the project team,
helps you get your job done right, fast and profitably.

Visit www.bentley.com/Structural
to learn more!

© 2014 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley, the “B” Bentley logo, ProjectWise and MicroStation 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.
Historic
structures
significant structures of the past
Bollman Truss at Harper’s Ferry
By Frank Griggs, Jr.,
Dist. M. ASCE, D. Eng.,
P.E., P.L.S.
Dr. Griggs specializes in the
restoration of historic bridges,
having restored many 19th Century
cast and wrought iron bridges. He
was formerly Director of Historic
Bridge Programs for Clough,
Harbour & Associates LLP in
Albany, NY, and is now an
independent Consulting Engineer.
Dr. Griggs can be reached at
fgriggs@nycap.rr.com.
T
he Bollman Truss was the first widely complicating the problem; and the structure is
adopted cast and wrought iron rail- so simple, that all the wrought iron work can
road bridge in the United States. It be executed by the commonest blacksmith. The
was designed and patented by Wendel bridge has been thoroughly tested, and fully
Bollman (STRUCTURE, February 2006) on proves the correctness of the principles upon
January 6, 1852 after he built several on the which it is based.”
B&O Railroad. Richard Osborne built an earlier
In other words, it was just the opposite of
iron bridge in 1845 on the Reading Railroad at
Whipple’s truss that used a lower chord ten-
Manayunk, a portion of which is now on display
sion member to keep the thrust of the arches
at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. It
from spreading the ends, in that he used top
consisted of three cast iron trusses with wrought
chord compression member to keep the tension
iron verticals. James Milholland also built a
ties from pulling the end of the truss inwards.
50-foot long wrought iron riveted girder bridge
Knowing Whipple’s method of determining
for the Baltimore & Susquehanna Railroad at
the force in each member, he could size them
Bolton Station in Baltimore in 1846.
efficiently. Whipple, however, in his book, deter-
As Bollman’s patent application drawing shows, it
mined that the most efficient angle for any tie
could be built either as deck or a through truss. As
in a truss was 45°; Bollman, especially in long
in the Whipple Bridge (STRUCTURE, December
trusses, had some very flat angles on his ties, thus
2014), all compression members were of cast iron
reducing their efficiency.
and all tension members of wrought iron.
Bollman began his bridge building career as a
He called his top compression chord a “stretcher”
carpenter on the B&O Railroad in 1837, work-
that could be
ing on Benjamin Latrobe’s and Lewis Wernwag’s
built of iron or
Harper’s Ferry Bridge (STRUCTURE, August
wood. If of iron,
2014). By 1840, Bollman was named by Latrobe
he recommended
to be “Master of Road” that placed him in charge
hollow tubes. His
of all bridges on the line. Some time late in the
cast iron verticals,
1840s, Wendell looked into the design of an
struts, which had different shapes for the deck
iron bridge. Trussed beams had been utilized
or through versions, had a “shoe” at the bottom
for years but usually consisted of one beam,
under which an eyebolt projected to pick up
one vertical post and a wrought iron bar drop-
diagonal wrought iron bars that ran from the
ping from the ends of the beam down under
bottom of the strut up to each end of the stretcher.
the post. This system created a simple truss.
In addition, he had cross bracing in each panel
Bollman extended this system by adding several
to retain the geometry of his truss. He wrote in
posts to a top stretcher with asymmetric rods
his patent application,
supporting the posts. Robert Vogel, in his fine
“This bridge has the advantage of great paper on Bollman, wrote, “he was perhaps the
strength and perfect security, with very little most successful of the latter class [self taught]...
weight of metal; all the forces can be calcu- He may be said to be a true representative of
lated with absolute certainty, and without the transitional period between intuitive and
Bollman Patent No. 8,624.
48 February 2015
exact engineering Actually, his designing
was a composite of the two methods. While
making consistent use of mathematical
analysis, he was at the same time more or
less dependent upon empirical methods.
For years, B&O employees told stories of
his [Bollman’s] sessions in the tin shop of
the railroad’s main repair facility at Mount
Clair in Baltimore, where he built models of
bridges from scraps of metal and then tested
them to destruction to locate weaknesses. It
seems most likely, however, that the empiri-
cal studies were used solely as checks
against the mathematical.” Bollman
built his first bridge, The Little Patuxent
Bridge, near Laurel, Maryland in 1850
and replaced the Winchester & Potomac
IN SEISMIC AND WIND SOLUTIONS
124-foot span of the Harper’s Ferry
Bridge in 1851. In 1852, he built his
The wrought-iron requires little workman-
ship, the rods from the centre to abutments
having but an eye at one and a screw at
the other end, with a weld or two between
according to length. The long counter-rods
have two knuckles and one swivel for
adjustment of strain and convenience in
welding, as well as in raising the whole.
The cast-iron stretcher is octagonal
without, circular within, and averages
one inch of metal. It is cast in lengths
according to the length of panel, and
THE INDUSTRY LEADER
jointed in the simplest manner; at one
end of each length is a tenon, at the
other a socket. The latter is bored out,
and the tenon and its shoulder turned
off in a lathe to fit the socket; thus, when
thoroughly joined, to form one continu-
ous pipe between abutments. The ends
of the sections of cylinders, inserted to
those contiguous, are slightly rounded,
to allow a small angular movement
without risk of joint fracture…
continued on next page

IS NOW EVEN STRONGER.

third bridge at Bladensburg, Maryland
over the Anacostia River. Many others
followed in the 1850s and 1860s, but this
article will primarily discuss the Harper’s
Ferry Bridge across the Potomac River.
The B&O Railroad and the Winchester
& Potomac Railroad built their cov-
ered wooden bridge directly across the
Potomac River in 1837. Several years
later, the B&O built a “Wye” span to
continue its line to the west. In 1850,
they decided to upgrade the westerly
Nearly two decades ago Hardy Frames created the first steel shear wall
system and revolutionized the residential building industry. Today the
name Hardy Frame® remains the most trusted name in seismic and wind
solutions.
As part of MiTek’s new Builder Products Division, the Hardy Frame®
Shear Wall System, along with USP Structural Connectors® and the
Z4 Tie-Down System, can offer you better, stronger structural solutions.
Contact us today and let us create the right solution for you.

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

span, sometimes called the Washington
Branch, and chose to utilize the
Bollman design, as the Little Patuxent
Bridge had proved satisfactory. It was
a through span to match the existing
wooden spans. They built three masonry hardyframe.com/solutions
towers, rather than cast iron towers, on 800 754.3030
the end pier and the westerly abutment
to support the span. Bollman wrote a
pamphlet on this span entitled, Iron sus-
Hardy Frame®
pension and trussed bridge as constructed Moment Frame
for the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Co.
at Harper’s Ferry, and on the Washington
branch of this road. That was published
Hardy Frame®
by John Murphy and Company in HFX-Series Panel
Baltimore and dated 1852. Bridge engi-
neers used pamphlets in those days as a
means of advertising their designs and
showing their cost effectiveness.
In his pamphlet Bollman wrote,
“This bridge was erected in 1852, from
the designs of Wendel Bollman, C.E.,
Inspector of Repairs, Baltimore and
Ohio Railway. The span is 124 feet
between abutments. The length of cast-
iron in stretcher, 128 feet. The weight of Better Technology. Better Building.SM
cast-iron in the R. R. truss, 65,137 lb.;
of wrought-iron, 33,627 lb.; making a www.mitekbuilderproducts.com/solutions
total weight of cast and wrought iron,
©2015 MiTek, All Rights Reserved
98,664 lb.

STRUCTURE magazine 49 February 2015

Harper’s Ferry Bridge post 1868 from Maryland side,
C&O Canal in foreground. Courtesy of HAER.
This system, perfect in itself, is addition-
ally connected by diagonal rods in each
panel; also by light hollow castings, acting
as struts. The diagonal side rods might
be safely dispensed with, for the peculiar
merit of the truss is its perfect indepen-
dence of such provision. They are therefore
used as a safeguard only in case of the
fracture of any of the principal suspen-
sion rods.
By this combination of cast and wrought
iron, the former is in a state of compres-
sion, the latter in that of tension, – the
proper condition of the two metals. It
unites the principles of the suspension and
of the truss bridges. Each bar performs its
own part in supporting the load in propor-
tion to its distance from the abutment; so
that the entire series of suspending rods
transmits the same tension to the points of
support as would be equally transmitted
from thence to the centre of bridge…”
And after presenting his method of analysis
he concluded,
“This bridge, it will be seen, is composed
of seven independent trusses, which trans-
fer the weight concentrated on each floor
beam directly to the abutments, without
aid from any other connection; and not
from panel to panel, as in general use…
In case of fire, the floor may be entirely
consumed without any injury to the
side truss…
In an experiment undertaken to prove the
rigidity of this structure, three first-class
tonnage engines, with three tenders, were
first carefully weighed, and then run upon
the bridge, at the same time nearly cover-
ing its whole length, and weighing in the
aggregate 273,5501b. or 136 1850/2000
tons nett, being over a ton for each foot in
length of the bridge.
From this test it was found, according to
gauges properly set and reliable in their
STRUCTURE magazine
Bollman Bridge, Savage, Maryland. Courtesy of HAER.
action, that the load did not cover the
entire length of bridge by about 13 feet,
yet the excess of weight in the middle, and
at a speed of about eight miles per hour,
produced no greater deflection than 13/8
inch at the centre post, and 9/16 inch at
the first post from abutment.”
Squire Whipple didn’t like it, writing in the
American Railroad Journal that it was, “a
sort of mongrel bridge, something between
a Suspension Bridge and a truss bridge and
partaking in a measure of the character and
qualities of both...” He had discussed a similar
idea in his 1847 book but concluded, “it was
fully and conclusively demonstrated, that the
main principle and idea involved was utterly
worthless, as it regarded Truss bridges. Not
meaning that a safe and useful bridge cannot
be made in this way; but that it can only be
done at a much greater expense than is required
to make an equally safe and useful bridge, on
other plans and principles.” It was, he wrote, “A
mere fossil of one of Whipple’s discarded prin-
ciples.” Herman Haupt, however, who headed
a committee to report on the bridge, wrote,
“the bridge constructed by Wendel Bollman
possesses every essential requisite of an efficient
structure, and that no arrangement of parts in
general use can be considered superior to it, or
promising more satisfactory results.”
The bridge remained with a single iron span
and 7 wooden spans until June 14, 1861.
when General Joseph Johnston blew up and
burned the wooden spans as he evacuated
Harper’s Ferry early in the civil war. The only
thing remaining was the Bollman Truss and
the piers. The military then built a pontoon
bridge for their use and the B&O built a
wooden trestle for their purpose. In July and
August 1862, the B&O replaced some of the
trestlework with two Bollman spans. Shortly
after, the reb’s burned the bridge again when
retreating from the battle of Antietam on
September 18, 1861. The B&O then built
three Bollman spans in September and
November 1862. On July 20, 1863, the
50 February 2015
Bollman Truss, cast iron columns and top chord,
wrought iron diagonals. Courtesy of HAER.
Yankees burned the bridge when Lee was
invading the north on the way to Gettysburg.
The bridge was rebuilt and in July 1864
General Jubal Early burned it after his failed
invasion of the north that was stopped outside
of Washington after a battle at the Monacacy
River. After the War in 1868, the bridge was
entirely rebuilt with Bollman iron trusses.
The Winchester Span was documented by
the National Park Service’s Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER) (WVA, 19,
HAER, 28) based upon iron retrieved from
the river after the 1936 flood that washed
away the entire bridge, and early drawings
by Bollman. Bollman trusses were used on
many B&O bridges, as well as approach spans
in two major Mississippi River crossings at
Quincy, Illinois and Bellaire, Ohio and at
Clinton, Iowa as a swing bridge. The only
surviving Bollman Bridge is at Savage Station
in Maryland across the Little Patuxent River.
It was originally built in 1869 for the B&O
and moved to its existing site in 1887 and is
used only for pedestrians. It was documented
by HAER in 1985.
Bollman’s plan was widely used as a cast and
wrought iron railroad bridge between 1850
and 1870, especially on the B&O Railroad,
but was generally replaced starting in the late
1870s by Fink and Whipple Iron Double
Intersection Trusses that made a more effi-
cient use of the iron.▪
STEEL STRUCTURES, OPTIMIZED.
TIME AND MONEY, MINIMIZED.

FIELD-BOLTED SIDEPLATE®
MOMENT CONNECTION
SidePlate designs reduce steel tonnage and our bolted

connection saves time in the field on wind and low-seismic

projects. With structural optimization at no charge to the

design team, faster installation and lower construction

costs, now is the time to say no to the status quo.

Toll Free: (800) 475-2077

Telephone: (949) 238-8900

www.sideplate.com/Learn
InSIghtS new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Integral Crystalline Waterproofing
The Future of Concrete Durability
By Alireza Biparva, M.A.Sc., LEED Associate
I
n a building landscape where the
expected lifespan of a structure is longer
than usual, the durability of the materi-
als that encompass the structure become
more critical. Sustainability is key for any
structures viability in today’s construction
world, which means new technologies are of
great value to not only the project teams, but
also the environment.
Concrete is currently the most used human-
made material in the world, used twice as
much as all other materials combined.
Concrete is used so much because it has
a relative low cost, is versatile, has unique
engineering properties and its ingredients are
widely available. This often makes concrete
more attractive to the construction indus-
try than other materials like steel or wood.
Moreover, a key advantage to concrete is that
it can be molded or formed into virtually any
shape when freshly mixed and, when hard-
ened, becomes a strong and durable material
capable of a long lifespan.
In most instances, deterioration of concrete
is due to a lack of adequate durability, rather
than deficient strength. Concrete structures can
become unserviceable due to gradual weaken-
ing arising from concrete deterioration and
steel corrosion. Reducing concrete deteriora-
tion by increasing its durability has become a
challenging problem facing the industry.
In most every case of concrete degradation,
the root cause of the issue is the presence
of moisture or water within the concrete.
The ingress of deleterious substances into
concrete takes place through the pore system
in the concrete matrix, or through micro-
cracks. In order to effectively ensure a concrete
structure’s durability, which leads to a longer
lifespan and a more sustainable building, the
concrete must first be effectively waterproofed.
Surface Applied Membranes
As is the case in business, there are often
several options to choose from; concrete
waterproofing is no different. One of the
options available on the market is an external
surface-applied membrane. The membrane
is installed after concrete has hardened to
prevent the ingress of water into basements,
foundations, walls, and roofs. However,
STRUCTURE magazine
surface applied waterproofing membranes
do have limitations:
• are at risk to puncture damage;
• application takes time and is labor
intensive;
• lifespan of the membrane is usually less
than desired structure life; and
• is difficult to repair since it can be
inaccessible and hard to locate the
failed area.
External membrane failure can occur in a
number of different situations, most as a
result of design errors, installation mistakes,
or material limitations and defects. This is
why simplifying the process by making the
concrete itself serve as the waterproofing bar-
rier can prove valuable for a project.
Integral Crystalline
Waterproofing
Integral Crystalline Waterproofing (ICW)
prevents the movement of water through
the concrete by plugging or blocking the
natural pores, capillaries and micro cracks,
thereby making concrete its own waterproof-
ing barrier. This stands in contrast to more
conventional means of waterproofing, which
usually involves applying a coating or mem-
brane to the concrete surface. The process
is sometimes also attempted through densi-
fication of the concrete. The ICW method
of concrete waterproofing has been proven
effective through successful use in virtually
every country in the world.
The Science
ICW technology is based on principles that
are very similar to the processes that occur
during concrete hydration.
When ICW products are added or applied
to concrete, crystalline chemicals facilitate a
reaction that causes long, narrow crystals to
form, filling the pores, capillaries and hairline
cracks of the concrete mass. As long as mois-
ture remains present, crystals continue to grow
throughout the concrete. Once the concrete
has dried, the crystalline chemicals sit dormant
until another dose of water (such as through a
new crack) causes the chemical reaction known
as crystallization to begin again.
52 February 2015
When reacting with water and cement, an ICW
creates millions of needle-like crystals that block the
ingress of water. Courtesy of Kryton International Inc.
The ability to reactivate in the presence of
water gives crystalline-treated concrete the
ability to improve self-sealing. When cracks
form due to drying shrinkage, settling, seis-
mic activity, etc., water entering through
them causes new crystals to form and grow,
blocking and filling the cracks. Improving the
self-sealing ability of concrete is one of crys-
talline technology’s most unique and useful
features, and can help to dramatically reduce
the long-term maintenance and repair costs
of a concrete structure.
Main Benefits of ICW
ICW contributes many beneficial properties
to a given project, including:
• Continual Protection – One of the
unique traits of an ICW admixture is
its ability to improve the self-sealing
ability of concrete. Due to the potency
of the crystalline chemicals, only a
small portion is required to facilitate
a large amount of crystal growth. The
chemicals lay dormant so when future
cracks occur, triggering new crystal
growth that seals the crack;
• Easy To Apply – ICW comes in a
powder form and is conveniently and
easily added to new concrete at the
time of batching, either in a ready-mix
truck or at the plant. The chemicals
create a powerful water barrier, which
leaves no need for any surface applied
product at the jobsite;
• Sustainable & Reliable – ICW is
a permanent solution to concrete
waterproofing needs. It is impervious
to physical damage or deterioration,
and can reduce shrinkage cracking.
It’s non-toxic, safe for use in portable
water and contains no volatile organic
compounds (VOCs); and
Concrete pores with ICW. Using an ICW improves the matrix of a concrete
mix, blocking the flow of moisture. Courtesy of the University of Seoul.
• Saves time & Money – The use of
an ICW admixture can accelerate a
project’s schedule by eliminating the
need for a traditional surface applied
membrane. Backfilling can begin right
after concrete has set, lowering the cost
of labor and materials. ICW can also
be used with structural shotcrete.
Where Can ICW Be Used
ICW systems have been used in a wide variety
of concrete structures across the world. The
most common applications include:
• Below-grade foundations, parking
garages, elevator pits, basements;
• Bridges & dams;
• Tunnels & pipelines;
• Water containment & Aquatic
facilities; and
• Marine Structures.
ICW has proven to be most effective in areas
exposed to high-hydrostatic pressure, such
as is found in below-grade foundations and
water containment tanks.
What ICW to use?
A number of companies offer integral
waterproofing products for new and exist-
ing concrete structures. These products have
different chemistries and, more importantly,
different levels of performance. When select-
ing Integral Crystalline Waterproofing
products, it is important not to confuse
them with:
• Hydrophobic or water repellent
products; such as, water repellent
soaps, fatty acids (stearates), mineral
oils etc.;
• Finely divided solids known as
densifiers intended to “take up space”
and densify the concrete; and
• Products based on silicates, clays,
bentonite, silica or polymers; these
offer temporary waterproofing at best.
STRUCTURE magazine
Concrete pores without ICW. Courtesy of the University of Seoul.
These products are suitable for damproof-
ing or above grade water repellency, but
not suitable for below grade waterproof-
ing applications.
An ideal concrete waterproofing system
should:
• Reduce the permeability;
• Reduce the chance of cracking; and
• Improve Self-Sealing ability.
Furthermore, the concrete waterproofing
industry redefined their terminology a
short time ago. In fact, American Concrete
Institute’s (ACI) 212.3R-10 Report on
Chemical Admixture document devoted
Chapter 15 to Permeability Reducing
Admixtures that outlines PRAH and PRAN
classifications. Permeability Reducing
Admixture – Hydrostatic Conditions or
PRAH products are sufficiently able to resist
water under hydrostatic pressure penetration
and are suitable for watertight construction.
Conversely, damproofing admixtures are
now referred to as Permeability Reducing
Admixture – Non-Hydrostatic Conditions
or PRAN. PRAN admixtures reduce water
absorption by repellent chemicals (soap, oils)
or partial pore blocking (densifiers). These
admixtures are not suitable for concrete
exposed to water under pressure and cannot
protect in the presence of hydrostatic pressure.
Waterproofing against hydrostatic pressure
is an important distinction that sets PRAHs
apart from PRANs.
Also, select a crystalline waterproofing
supplier who can demonstrate a repeated
history of long term success. The manu-
facturer should offer a long term warranty
and have the company history to back it.
The manufacturer should be able to provide
accredited third party test results and have
achieved industry recognized certifications
for product quality and performance.
Most importantly, because of the ongoing
value of close technical support, be sure to
select a product from a manufacturer who has
demonstrated the willingness and ability to
53 February 2015
provide on-site service and support for major
projects anywhere in the world.
Conclusion
Integral Crystalline Waterproofing is the
future of concrete waterproofing worldwide.
With sustainable building practices increasing
in importance, and the lifespan of a structure
intrinsically connected to this movement, a
reliable waterproofing solution that will last
for the intended life of the concrete structures
becomes very important.▪
Alireza Biparva, M.A.Sc., LEED
Associate, is research and development
manager/concrete specialist at Kryton
International Inc. Alireza oversees several
research projects focusing primarily on
concrete permeability studies and the
development of innovative products
and testing methods for the concrete
waterproofing and construction industries.
He can be reached at alireza@kryton.com.
The online version of this article
contains detailed references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
StruWare, Inc
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Structural Engineering Software
The easiest to use software for calculating
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
CMU or Tilt-up Concrete Walls with &
without openings ($75.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Bms & Joists ($75.00).
Concrete beams with/without torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com
Are you taking the
SE exam in April 2015?

Make sure you have the latest design standards before exam day.
The latest design standards are used to develop and score the SE exam. Download the
list, which is effective beginning with the April 2015 exam, at ncees.org/SE_exam.

Study for the SE exam using the NCEES Structural Practice Exam, available at
ncees.org/PracticeExams. It’s the only practice exam that’s created by the same
experts who develop the actual exam.

Follow us for more exam tips.

 core requirements and lifelong learning for structural engineers
Leading the Charge
By Uchenna T. E. Okoye, P.E., LEED AP and Eric Borchers, S.E.
D
o you remember what inspired
you to become a structural
engineer? Did you love build-
ing blocks and toy construction
sets when you were little? Maybe you had a
relative who was an engineer or an architect.
Maybe you loved problem solving, or you
just wanted to build big things.
However you managed to get involved with
this profession of ours, we remain a relatively
small and unique selection of the general pop-
ulation. Our profession is typically not very
well known or en vogue, but it has a strong
impact on the lives of countless people. It is up
to each of us to grow our profession by help-
ing to mold the next generation of engineers
and leaders within the industry. Without a
strong corps of professionals volunteering
to teach the next generation, it is possible
that we may inadvertently stifle innovation,
suppress fees, and by extension, wages, and
reduce the talent pool due to attrition and
lack of leadership.
Volunteering in schools is a great way to
have a positive impact on students’ lives and
improve the long-term well-being of our
profession. Many engineers are already part
of outreach programs that seek to introduce
students to structural engineering in fun
and meaningful ways. You too can make a
difference in as little as a single classroom
session by using the High School Outreach
Program provided by the National Council
of Structural Engineering Associations
(NCSEA). Engineers Alliance for the Arts
(EAA) and the Architecture Construction
Engineering (ACE) Mentor Program feature
the opportunity for students to learn about
the engineering and design process over a
longer in-depth program. All of these pro-
grams serve as catalysts for us to get involved
in raising the next generation of engineers at
varying levels of personal commitment.
High School Outreach Program
One way to get involved in helping to ensure
the longevity of structural engineering, and to
give back to the community, is to participate in
a High School Outreach Program within your
local NCSEA member organization (MO). This
program is a simple, fun way for design profes-
sionals to engage with students and teachers and,
in the process, demystify structural engineering
STRUCTURE magazine
Education issuEs
EAA finalists display their bridges prior to lead testing. Courtesy of EAA.
and the architecture, engineering, construction
(AEC) industry in general.
The High School Outreach program is
defined by a 1 to 1½ hour workshop put on
by design professionals in local schools during
the school day. The workshop is generally
composed of two parts. The first part is a short
but comprehensive presentation on structural
engineering and the AEC industry. The pre-
sentation may be customized to emphasize
engineering challenges typical to the area,
e.g. earthquakes in California, large snow
drifts in Montana, or hurricanes in Florida.
The second part is a hands-on activity used
to strengthen the students’ understanding of
some of the structural engineering principles
detailed in the presentation. This is usually the
fun part. Example activities include gum-drop
and toothpick towers, and chocolate chip
pudding concrete.
The High School Outreach Program is per-
fectly suited to be created and sustained by
a volunteering committee within your MO.
However, the program excels when a cham-
pion is found to actively recruit schools with
willing teachers, and to organize the volun-
teers. Young Members Groups in several
states have taken on the task of implement-
ing this program with great success, and
many MO’s have adapted the same basic
program for both high school students and
middle school students. The recent article in
the August 2014 issue of STRUCTURE by
Barnes and Dos Santos describes one adapta-
tion for the middle school level.
55 February 2015
The High School Outreach program rep-
resents a relatively short-term program that
can reach multitudes of students and com-
munities with the strength of its volunteer
core. Start one of your own, or contact your
local MO about getting involved. NCSEA
has even created a guide available on the
resources page of their website. The High
School Outreach Start-Up Guide includes a
sample presentation and a step-by-step rubric
for building a base of schools interested in the
program. This guide is available for download
at www.ncsea.com/resources/documents/.
Engineers Alliance for the Arts
Another extraordinary way to engage younger
members of the community is through the
Engineers Alliance for the Arts (EAA) organi-
zation. EAA was founded in 2000 by several
San Francisco Bay Area structural engineers
to introduce engineering concepts specifi-
cally to visual and performing arts students.
This organization seeks to bridge the gap
between art-and-architecture and structural
engineering, thereby aiding in the develop-
ment of well–rounded, unique minds capable
of understanding the world through both an
engineering and artistic framework.
The flagship program within the organiza-
tion is called the Student Impact Project,
in which volunteer engineers teach in a
classroom once per week for ten weeks.
Volunteers are equipped with a curricu-
lum that has been developed by the EAA
Boston area students race against the clock to build the tallest tower during a
High School Outreach program workshop.
curriculum committee and is approved by
several school districts in California. The
curriculum begins with general engineering
concepts, but students quickly dive deeper
into specific structural systems as they build
and test prototype girder, arch, and suspen-
sion bridges. Along the way, students also
learn about efficiency, scale, sustainability,
and presentation skills. The program cul-
minates with a final project – a physical
scale model bridge and presentation that
represents each student team’s entry into a
realistic design competition based on a spe-
cific scenario. A final competition is held in
which students must present their bridge to
a group of design professions and sell their
idea as the best. Projects are judged based on
several factors including structural efficiency,
aesthetics, and student presentation.
The program is held in such high regard
that there is a long wait list for teachers at
multiple schools around the San Francisco
Bay Area. EAA has recently expanded to
other U.S. cities due to overwhelming
demand for programs like this from schools,
teachers, students, and structural engineering
professionals alike. As a 10-week program,
volunteers make strong connections with the
students, but without the commitment of
a full school year. It does take a few hours
out of your workday, but working with stu-
dents in local schools and teaching them the
fundamentals of engineering is a reward-
ing experience. Finally, by volunteering for
this program you get to ensure the future
of our profession while also meeting other
design professionals from your area. Please
do not hesitate to start or participate in an
EAA program near you. Visit EAA’s website,
www.eaabayarea.org, for an overview of the
organization and contact EAA Executive
Director Kelly Bitzer at eaa@eaabayarea.org
for opportunities to participate in your region.
STRUCTURE magazine
Science and craft combine as an EAA bridge begins to take form.
Courtesy of EAA.
ACE Mentor Program
The ACE Mentor Program was founded by
Charles Thornton in 1994 in New York City,
and it has grown into a national program that
every year mentors over 8,000 high school
students who are interested in Architecture,
Construction and Engineering. ACE Teams
consist of 20-25 students and industry mentors
that represent the project owner (client), the
design disciplines (architecture, civil, structural,
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing), and con-
struction managers. Over the course of a school
year, ACE teams develop a design project that
covers all disciplines, and most teams construct a
model of their design project. At the end of the
season, each team gives a presentation explaining
their design to other teams, family members,
teachers, prospective mentors, and ACE Board
Members and company principals.
The ACE Mentor Program has active
Affiliates in most states that each comprise
multiple teams. Each team meets after school
for 2 hours, either weekly or bi-weekly, from
October through May. Many teams have
company sponsors which provide funds for
model materials and refreshments at team
meetings. In addition to developing a proj-
ect, teams take field trips to construction
sites or construction trade apprenticeship
facilities. Finally, many ACE Affiliates offer
college scholarships for promising graduates
of the program who go on to study architec-
ture, construction, or engineering. If you are
interested in volunteering, find a local ACE
Affiliate at the ACE Mentor Program Website,
www.acementor.org.
Find Your Fit and
Fund Your Find
These options, which represent a range of
opportunities and time commitments, have
56 February 2015
each been successfully used by many design
professionals to inspire and develop some of the
bright young engineers in firms throughout the
country today. However, they are by no means
exhaustive. If you have a particularly ambi-
tious venture, note that NCSEA has recently
launched a grant program whereby interested
members can apply for funds to advance the
profession through research, outreach, or other
creative means. Any program that can help
introduce developing minds to the profes-
sion certainly deserves consideration for such
a grant, whether you wish to begin a brand new
program or expand upon any of the oppor-
tunities mentioned in this article. The grant
application can be found at the NCSEA web-
site: www.ncsea.com/resources/documents/.
Applications are due on February 15, 2015,
and grants will be awarded on March 15, 2015.
The actions of engineers like you are what
will lead our profession to new heights. By
volunteering your time and expertise, you will
become the leader that directs our profession
and new leaders for decades to come. You have
more power than you realize. Take action.
Get involved. You will not regret it. It may
even be more fun than running calculations.▪
Uchenna T. E. Okoye, P.E., LEED AP,
is an independent professional engineer
based in San Francisco currently working
with Arup Americas. Uchenna is a
member of the NCSEA Basic Education
Committee. Uchenna may be reached at
uokoye@gmail.com.
Eric Borchers, S.E., is a senior structural
engineer with Arup in San Francisco.
Eric is a member of the NCSEA Basic
Education Committee. Eric may be
reached at eric.borchers@arup.com.
 “ Analysis and desig� are par�
of my ever� day. IES tools
help our engineers to work
faster, yet with accuracy. ”

Intuitive Software for

Structural Engineers
IES VisualAnalysis
Frame and finite element analysis.
Simple. Productive. Versatile.
Accurate results. Excellent value.

IES, Inc.
800.707.0816
info@iesweb.com
www.iesweb.com
Bridge resource guide a definitive listing of major bridge professionals and suppliers

Bentley Systems LNA Solutions, A Kee Safety Company Simpson Strong-Tie

Phone: 919-609-7614
Email: barbara.day@bentley.com
Web: www.bentley.com
Product: LEAP Bridge Steel
Description: Comprehensive 3D steel bridge design
and rating program; offers advanced physical 3D
bridge modeling, design, analysis and load rating of
everyday steel bridges, following AASHTO LRFD
standards. Intuitive user interface and workflow
enables rapid modeling, design and analysis of steel
girder bridges.
Product: LEAP Bridge Enterprise
Description: A powerful modeling and analysis
solution for small to medium-sized concrete bridges
of all types. Comprehensive bridge information
modeling (BrIM) system; geometric modeling,
substructure, and superstructure analysis and design,
and load rating in a single environment.
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corporation
Phone: 800-929-3030
Email: jong@ctscement.com
Web: www.ctscement.com
Product: Rapid Set® Low-P™ Cement and
Type-K Shrinkage-Compensating Cement
Description: With Low-P cement, get better quality,
lasting performance and an in-place cost less than
Portland cement concrete. Type-K Shrinkage-
Compensating cement used in over 800 bridge
decks with reduced permeability, excellent durability,
virtually no cracks and increased concrete life cycle.
Fabreeka International, Inc.
Phone: 781-341-3655
Email: pgoulart@fabreeka.com
Web: www.fabreeka.com
Product: Bearing Pad & Slide Bearing
Description: Fabric reinforced, elastomeric
bearing pad. Used to compensate for construction
irregularities, such as rotation and non-parallel load
bearing surfaces. Can also be provided with a Teflon®
surface for use in expansion and slide bearings.
Phone: 888-724-2323 Phone: 800-999-5099
Email: tdoran@lnasolutions.com Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.lnasolutions.com Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: BeamClamp Product: Simpson Strong-Tie® FX-70® Structural
Description: Beam and girder clamps that connect Repair and Protection System
steel to steel without welding or drilling. BoxBolt Description: Steel pipe and H-piles deteriorate over
blind anchor bolts certified to ICC-ESR 3217 for time. The FX-70 system makes in-place repair of piles
HSS connections. FastFit universal kits to clamp steel possible and practical. By eliminating the need to
to steel. Fasteners to secure open steel gratings or solid dewater repair sites or take structures out of service,
steel plate flooring. FX-70 drastically reduces the overall cost of restoring
deteriorating or damaged structures.
Nemetschek Scia
Phone: 443-542-0638 Strand7 Pty Ltd
Email: dmonaghan@scia-online.com Phone: 252-504-2282
Web: www.nemetschek-scia.com Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Product: Nemetschek Scia Engineer Web: www.strand7.com
Description: Links structural modeling, analysis, Product: Strand7
design, drawings, and reports in ONE program. Description: Structural analysis applications including
Design to multiple codes. Bi-directional links to preprocessing, solvers (linear and nonlinear static
Revit, Tekla, and others. and dynamic capabilities) and postprocessing. Staged
construction, a Moving Load module and quasi-static
POSTEN Engineering Systems solver for shrinkage and creep/relaxation problems.
Phone: 510-275-4750
Email: sales@postensoft.com Western Wood Structures, Inc.
Web: www.postensoft.com Phone: 800-547-5411
Product: POSTEN Multistory X Email: jagidius@westernwoodstructures.com
Description: Designs Tendons and Rebar for Web: www.westernwoodstructures.com
Multistory Buildings. Includes design of Moment Product: Timber Bridges
Frames, Seismic & Wind, Columns, Torsion, and Description: Design and construction of vehicular,
sustainable design (with LEED documentation). pedestrian, golf course, park and residential bridges, using
the highest quality, pressure-treated, glulam timber.
S-FRAME Software
Phone: 203-421-4800 Williams Form Engineering Corp.
Email: info@s-frame.com Phone: 616-866-0815
Web: www.s-frame.com Email: williams@williamsform.com
Product: S-FOUNDATION Web: www.williamsform.com
Description: Complete foundation management Product: Post Tensioning All-thread-bar
solution. Run as a stand-alone application, or utilize Description: Pre-stressing/post tensioning 150 KSI
S-FRAME Analysis’ 2-way integration links for a All-Thread-Bars are high tensile steel bars available in
detailed soil-structure interaction study. Automatically seven diameters from 1 to 3 inches with guaranteed
manages the meshed foundation model and includes tensile strengths to 969 kips.
powerful BIM links.
All Resource Guide forms for the 2015 Editorial Calendar are now available on
the website, www.STRUCTUREmag.org.

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

CADRE Pro 6 for Windows Software and ConSulting

Solves virtually any type of structure for FLOOR VIBRATIONS

internal loads, stresses, displacements,
and natural modes. Easy to use modeling
tools including import from CAD. Element
types include many specialized beams
and plates. Advanced features for
stability, buckling, vibration, shock and
seismic analyses.
CADRE Analytic
FLOORVIBE v2.20 New Release
• Software to Analyze Floors for Annoying Vibrations
• Demo version at www.FloorVibe.com
• Calculations follow AISC Design Guide 11 and SJI
Technical Digest 5 2nd Edition Procedures
• Analyze for Walking and Rhythmic Activities
• Check floors supporting sensitive equipment
• Graphic displays of output
• Data bases included

Tel: 425-392-4309 CONSULTING SERVICES

www.cadreanalytic.com • Expert consulting available for new construction
and problem floors.

Structural Engineers, Inc.

Radford, VA 540-731-3330 tmmurray@floorvibe.com

STRUCTURE magazine 58 February 2015


Krishna P. Singh Center for Nanotechnology
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
By Brian Falconer, P.E., S.E., SECB
Severud Associates Consulting Engineers, PC
was an Award Winner for the Krishna P.
Singh Center for Nanotechnology – University
of Pennsylvania project in the 2014 NCSEA
Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering
awards program (Category – New Buildings
$30M to $100M).
A
s a leader in the emerging field of
nanotechnology, the University of
Pennsylvania has opened a ninety-
two million dollar research and
educational center that will enable researchers
from different disciplines to transcend traditional
boundaries of engineering, medicine, and the
sciences. Weiss/Manfredi designed this cutting-
edge building with Severud Associates, a New
York City-based structural engineering firm.
A number of innovative structural design
solutions were used to create the functional and
aesthetic features of the architecturally complex
Krishna P. Singh Center for Nanotechnology.
The seventy eight thousand square-foot facil-
ity ascends as a spiral to its highest elevation
ending at the forum, a meeting space that can-
tilevers 68 feet over the quad and the building’s
most complex structural design feature. The
forum will be used for lectures, meetings, and
receptions that may include activities such as
dancing, making strength and vibration of
the floor under dynamic human loading the
controlling structural design criteria for this
space. The vibration of the floor beams and
the overall rhythmic vibration of the room
are controlled by the stiffness of the trusses,
the lateral restraint of the braced frame, and
the caisson foundations. Vertical loads are car-
ried by the two triangular cantilevering trusses
with hangers to pick up the floor below, and
horizontal loads are carried by the cantilevering
metal deck diaphragm at the roof and concrete
on metal deck diaphragm at the floor.
The sensitivity of nanotechnology research,
which requires complete isolation from
surrounding elements such as vibration, elec-
tromagnetic interference, and UV light waves,
posed another significant design challenge.
Strict vibration tolerances had to be observed
in order to create a suitable environment for
researchers’ labs, so the building is setback a
considerable distance from the street and the
elevator cores of surrounding buildings. As
the most sensitive of all the equipment, the
STRUCTURE magazine
award winners and outstanding projects
transmission electron microscope (TEM) is
housed in a completely isolated, six-sided box
construction protected by a three-foot concrete
plinth tied into bedrock and an internal float-
ing concrete slab on gravel. This design isolates
the TEM from both vibration and under-slab
drainage. In contrast, the clean room bays and
chase have 52-foot free span beams overhead,
which create a column free space for maxi-
mum flexibility. The general labs are stacked on
framed floors. The 34-foot floor beams used in
the general labs make the space flexible and also
enhance the vibration performance enough to
exceed the articulated design criteria.
Another challenge to constructing the labs
below grade was the groundwater table,
located only eight feet below grade. To address
this issue, a water-tight, concrete structural
tub was employed to resist the hydrostatic
pressure of the groundwater.
The galleria and the monumental stair are
two additional structural features requiring
creative design approaches. The galleria’s
stepping façade – designed as a prefabricated
module system to expedite fabrication and
installation – has a sloping roof on the south
side which slices through the curtain wall
plane in two directions. A horizontal truss
diaphragm is employed at the sloping roof
plane to resist the horizontal wind loads on
the curtain wall. The south side of the hori-
zontal truss is supported by steel columns on
the foundation wall. The north side of the
horizontal truss is more structurally dynamic;
it is supported by cantilevered beams with
hanging columns that suspend the truss from
above. The hangers and columns are all archi-
tecturally exposed structural steel (AESS). In
order to match the construction tolerances
of the AESS, slip connections are provided
where the hangers meet the upper roof steel.
The lower roof between the hangers and the
columns is constructed with AESS tolerances.
59 February 2015
Spotlight
Courtesy of Albert Večerka/Esto.
The monumental stair is unusual because it is
a 55-foot long free span stair stringer supported
by a twenty-four-inch deep, twenty-foot long
cantilever. Though deflection and strength were
considerations, similar to the forum, vibra-
tion parameters controlled the design. Five
twenty-four-inch deep wide flange steel mem-
bers frame the ten-foot wide stair.
The team sought to seamlessly integrate
the architecture and structure together into
a cohesive whole, both aesthetically and func-
tionally. Highly visible public areas such as
the galleria, forum, and monumental stairs
embody some of the most challenging design
elements with major structural components
that are strategically concealed. The more
private laboratory spaces including the char-
acterization, clean room bays, and general labs
had the most stringent structural performance
requirements, including column free spans
and strict vibration criteria.
Early in the design process, architects devel-
oped a three dimensional digital model of the
building, which the structural engineers used
to generate a three dimensional structural
model for analysis and framing. SAP 2000
was used to perform dynamic modeling for
the vibration analysis of the cantilever.
The structurally innovative Center for
Nanotechnology brings together researchers
from both the School of Arts and Sciences and
the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
offering them spaces to interact and share their
knowledge about different disciplines.▪
Brian Falconer, P.E., S.E., SECB, is a
Principal in the firm Severud Associates.
He participates in multiple committees
of the Structural Engineering Institute
and the Structural Engineers Association
of New York. Brian can be reached at
bfalconer@severud.com.
 GINEERS
EN

ASS

2015 NCSEA Membership NCSEA recognizes and thanks its Partnering

RAL

OCIATI
STRUCTU

Organizations and the following companies,

O NS

NATIONAL COUNCI L

organizations, and structural engineering firms

Partnering Organizations for their Associate, Affiliate and Sustaining
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

memberships in 2014-2015. For information on

CASE
Associate Members
AISC
American Wood Council
Bentley Systems, Inc.
Fabreeka International
Five Star Products
SEI (Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE)
Insurance Institute for Business
& Home Safety
International Code Council
Metal Building Manufacturers Assn.
Schuff Steel Company
becoming an Associate, Affiliate or Sustaining
member, contact Susan Cross at 312.649.4600,
ext. 204, or email scross@ncsea.com.
A listing of all of these members, including
contact information, can be found at
www.ncsea.com/members/more/.
Simpson Strong-Tie
Steel Tube Institute

Affiliate Members
AZZ Galvanizing Fibrwrap Construction, L.P. New Millenium Building Systems
Bekaert Headed Reinforcement Corp. (HRC) Powers Fasteners
Blind Bolt Hilti, Inc. Red Seat Software
Cast Connex Corporation Independence Tube Corporation RISA Technologies
Cold-Formed Steel Engineers Institute ITW Commercial Construction SE Solutions, LLC
North America
Construction Tie Products, Inc. SidePlate Systems, Inc.
Lindapter USA
CSC, Inc. Steel Joist Institute
Microsol
DECON USA Strand7
Nemetschek Scia
Design Data Tekla

Sustaining Members
ARW Engineers DiBlasi Associates, P.C. Martin/Martin, Inc.
Ballinger Dominick R. Pilla Associates Omega Structural Engineers, PLLC
Barter & Associates DrJ Engineering R & S Tavares Associates
NCSEA News

Bennett & Pless, Inc. Dunbar, Milby, Williams, Pittman Ruby & Associates, Inc.
& Vaughan
Blackwell Structural Engineers Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
Engineering Solutions, LLC
Burns & McDonnell Sound Structures, Inc.
Gilsanz Murray Steficek
Cartwright Engineers Structural Engineers Group, Inc.
The Harman Group, Inc.
STV, Inc.
Cowen Assoc. Consulting
The Haskell Company
Structural Engineers TGRWA, LLC
Holmes Culley
Criser Troutman Tanner Thornton Tomasetti
Consulting Engineers Kevcor
United Structural Systems Ltd., Inc.
CTL Group Krech Ojard & Associates
Wallace Engineering
DCI Engineers LBYD, Inc. Structural Consultants
Degenkolb Engineers Mainland Engineering Consultants Wheaton & Sprague Engineering, Inc.

STRUCTURE magazine 60 February 2015


Subscription Plan Offers Unlimited Live NCSEA Webinars
Plan your 2015 continuing education hours with NCSEA’s
new Webinar Subscription Plan. For just $750, you can receive
unlimited live NCSEA webinars for one year.
The subscription plan is open only to NCSEA members –
members of NCSEA Member Organizations and NCSEA
Sustaining, Associate and Affiliate members, and membership
status will be verified. It includes live NCSEA webinars only
and has a guarantee that a minimum of ten webinars, and up
to 24, will be offered. A subscription plan can be started at any
time. The one-year plan begins on the first day of the month
in which the subscription application is received.
Each webinar includes speaker slides, notes, and one free PDH
certificate. If others watch the webinar with the subscriber and
wish to obtain a certificate, they may purchase a certificate for
$30 within two weeks of completing the webinar. After two
weeks, additional certificates will not be available.
NCSEA has a proven track record, having offered webinars
since 2006, and structural engineers who sign up for this plan
will receive excellent, and abundant, continuing education.
NCSEA News
3 Reasons to Sign Up
for the NCSEA Webinar
Subscription Plan
1. A flat rate of $750 gives you access to all live
NCSEA webinars over the course of one year. If you
attend just 10, your cost is $75 per webinar, a savings
of over 70%!
2. NCSEA online webinars are targeted, quality
programs, led by experts and leaders in structural
engineering, all from the comfort of your own
computer. All webinars are NCSEA Diamond
approved for 1.5 PDH hours.
3. It’s a member-only benefit of belonging to NCSEA –
only our members can take advantage of this terrific plan!
Sign up today at www.ncsea.com!

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

‘Make Your Mark’ Poster Available
A terrific new student outreach tool is now available from
NCSEA. The ‘Make Your Mark’ poster, produced by the
NCSEA Students & Teachers Advocacy committee, along
with the Structural Engineering Institute, can be used to
encourage students to pursue a career in structural engineering.
Limited quantities of the poster are available to NCSEA
Member Organizations and MO members. Contact Joyce
VanWieren, joyce@ncsea.com, with the quantity you would
like and the shipping information.
Electronic versions of the poster, along with other resources
to promote structural engineering to students, can be found
on the NCSEA website under the Resources tab, including
a sample Outreach Presentation and a new High School
Outreach Start-Up Guide.
SE Exam Review Course set for
February and March
The NCSEA SE Exam Review Course, offered by NCSEA in
conjunction with Kaplan Engineering, will be held in February
and March. The Vertical Course is scheduled for February 8–9,
and the Lateral Course will held March 8–9.
The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and
Surveying (NCEES) recently released a code change, so the review
courses are being updated for the April 17–18, 2015 SE exam.
This targeted review assists engineers in preparing for the SE
Exam and includes:
Over 28 hours of instruction with an emphasis on building
design:
• Including sessions on exam strategy and bridge design
• Key topics of structural code
• Efficient analytical methods
• New material in the 16-hour Structural exam
• Typical exam questions
• Problem solving techniques
• Exam day skills
• 24/7 playback within a 6 month period - study anytime
There are significant discounts available for groups taking the
course. Log on to www.ncsea.com under Education, for more
information and to register for the course.

March 31, 2015

NCSEA Webinars AWC’s 2015 Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic
February 10, 2015 – Overview and Changes from Previous Editions
Practical Solutions to Frequently Asked Michelle Kam-Biron, P.E., S.E., SECB, M.ASCE
Welding Questions
More detailed information on the webinars and a registration
Duane K. Miller, Sc.D., P.E.
link can be found at www.ncsea.com.
February 26, 2015
L

EN
RA

The Structural Engineer’s Role in Building

GIN
TU

These courses will award 1.5 hours of continuing education.

UC

EE
STR

RS

NCSEA GINEERS
EN
G

ON
IN
NU

ATI

Community Resilience
NTI

Approved for CE credit in all 50 States through the NCSEA

UC
CO

ED

Diamond
Reviewed
ASS
RAL

Chris Poland, S.E. Diamond Review Program. Time: 10:00 AM Pacific, 11:00 AM
OCIATI
STRUCTU

Mountain, 12:00 PM Central, 1:00 PM Eastern.

O NS

NATIONAL COUNCI L

STRUCTURE magazine 61 February 2015

 Structures Congress 2015 Technical Sessions
Thursday April 23, 2015

Bridge emerging Trends in Building codes

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Track Bridge PracTice research BlasT and imPacT Technologies educaTion and sTandards
Track Chair Bruce Peterson Cheng Lok Hing Shalva Marjanishvili Colby Swan Sam Kiger Mustafa Mahamid
8:00 AM – Bridge Loads Bridge Assessment and Computational Analysis for Advances in Sustainable The Art and Feel of The State of Design
9:30 AM Health Monitoring Blast Loads Structural Materials Structural Engineering – Loads – a Discussion of
Part 2: Classical Methods ASCE 7-10 Seismic and
of Analysis Proposed Tsunami Loads

10:00 AM – Bridge Analysis Tsunami Structure Validating the Performance Experimental Testing Innovations in Educating What is Next for ASCE
11:30 AM Interaction of Structural Protection with High-Performance Structural Engineers and 7 and ASCE 37?
Against Explosive and Non- Materials Architects
Explosive Threats

2:00 PM – Bridge Design Innovative Bridge Overview of Updates to Emerging Concepts Engineering Education: New Performance-Based
3:30 PM Systems, Analysis “Structures to Resist Effects for Damage-Limiting Innovative Methods Standards for Structures
Techniques and of Accidental Explosions” Seismic Concrete for Preparing the 21st Subject to Fire
Construction UFC 3-340-02, Change 1 Building Systems Century Structural
Methodologies Engineer

4:00 PM – Bridge Replacement and Application of Behavior of Damaged Seismic Centering for Structural Optimization: Verification,
5:30 PM Rehabilitation Remotely Operated Structures Enhanced Resilience From Research/Practice Refinements and
Devices in Assessment to Structural Engineering Background on Codes
of Bridges Education and Loadings

Friday April 24, 2015

concreTe
Bridge disProPorTionaTe emerging comPosiTe and sTrucTural
Track Bridge PracTice research collaPse Technologies cold-formed sTeel
Track Chair Taka Kimura Dennis Mertz Robert Smilowitz  Colby Swan Sarah Vaughan Cook Mustafa Mahamid
8:30 AM – Behind the Scenes: Bridge Seismic Design Case Studies of Performance Based Assessing Risk, Innovative Structural Steel
10:00 AM Design and Construction Disproportionate Design of Structures: Developing Strategies, Seismic-Resisting Systems
of the World’s Longest Collapse Analysis Evolution, State-of- and Improving
Floating Bridge the-art, and Understanding of Older
State-of-Practice Concrete Buildings

10:30 AM – New Bridges in Portland Bridge Seismic Analysis Recent Research Performance-Based Concrete Expectations Advances in
12:00 PM on Resistance to Eng. Approaches for Understanding of
Disproportionate Collapse Mitigation of Single Steel Connections
and Multiple Hazards

1:30 PM –
Structural Columns

Historic Bridge Innovative Low Progressive Collapse Corrosion and The Art and Science of Advances and
3:00 PM Rehabilitation in the Damage Bridge Structural Degradation Composite Construction Applications in the
Pacific Northwest Systems for Accelerated SSRC Guide to Stability
Construction in Design Criteria for
Seismic Regions Metal Structures

3:30 PM – Oregon Bridge Seismic Accelerated Bridge The Philosophy Behind Bridge Corrosion Empowering Next The New AISC Design
5:00 PM Retrofit Program Construction the SEI Disproportionate and Deterioration Generation Sustainable Guide 29: Vertical
Collapse Mitigation Standard System Design in Bracing Connections –
Cold-Formed Steel Analysis and Design
Framed Buildings

Saturday April 25, 2015

Bridge emerging Wind and flood

Track Bridge PracTice research BlasT Technologies loading Wind ToPics
Track Chair Taka Kimura Dennis Mertz Shalva Marjanishvili Colby Swan Brian McElhatten Mustafa Mahamid
8:00 AM – Timber Bridges – Design Bridge Innovative Blast Protection of Bridges Measurement, The State of Design Computational and
9:30 AM and Performance Issues Solutions Identification, Loads – a Discussion of Physical Modeling of
and Assessment of ASCE 7-10 Wind and Non-Synoptic Winds
Structural Performance Flood Loads and ASCE (Thunderstorms)
24 Flood Resistant Design

10:00 AM – Case Studies: Results Bridge Foundations Security FaÇades Fire Resilience of Modeling, Understanding, Wind Loading on
11:30 AM of Practical Sensing, and Soil Interaction Bridge Structures: and Designing for Multi-Layered Building
Identification, and Evaluation and Design Wind Effects Envelope and
Monitoring Projects Roofing Systems

Register early and save. For more information including registration and housing,
visit our website at www.structurescongress.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 62 February 2015


April 23– 25, 2015 – Portland, Oregon
Building case
sTudies
Mark Waggoner  Brian McElhatten
Seismic Design of Building
Structures in the Pacific
Northwest
Portland’s South Waterfront
Redevelopment
Forensic Case Studies
and Considerations
The Art of Steel
Building Design
Building case
sTudies
Mark Waggoner
Steel, Art and Society
Building Case Studies
Challenges and Complexity
of Air-Rights Structures
Innovative Building
Systems, Analysis
Techniques and
Construction
Methodologies
Building case
sTudies
Mark Waggoner
Design and Aesthetics
of Non-Traditional
Structural Materials
Evaluation and Retrofit
of Low-Ductility Steel
Braced Frames
View the interactive Technical Program, including all presenters
and abstracts at www.structurescongress.org
Wood ToPics
Pacific Northwest
Timber Topics
Technology Advances and
Potential Opportunities for
Wood Structures
Design Practice and
Serviceability Concerns
for CLT
Seismic Response of
Timber Buildings
Building ToPics
Brian McElhatten
Vibrations Serviceability
Advances in Composite
Beams, Floors, and
Diaphragms
Reduction of Carbon
Emissions from
Building Structures
Innovative Technologies for
Sustainable Tall Buildings
masonry ToPics
Brian McElhatten
New Techniques and
Trends for Seismic Design
and Retrofit of Masonry
Masonry Quality
Assurance – Inspection and
Testing Requirements and
Recommendations
Tall Buildings
and analysis
ToPics
Paul Mlakar
Optimization in
Tall Buildings
Tall Building Systems
Analysis and Design
Considerations and
Techniques
Challenging Issues in Non-
Linear Seismic Analysis – A
Panel Discussion
case sPring risk
managemenT
convocaTion
Paul Mlakar
Addressing Hidden Risks in
Today’s Design Contracts
How to Succeed Without
Risking it All!
Lessons Learned from
Structural Cases
in Litigation
SE Practice for Quality
and Profitability
exPanding The
sTrucT. engineer’s
role in socieTy
John Tawresey
The Role of Structural
Engineers in Sustainable
Development and
Poverty Reduction
The Inherent Conflicts of
Litigation and Engineering
STRUCTURE magazine
Business and
Professional
PracTice
John Tawresey
Career Paths for Young
Professionals and Students
ATC-115. Integrating High
Strength Reinforcing Bar
into ACI 318 Bldg. Code;
Bringing ACI 318 Bldg.
Code into the 21st Century
Understanding the
Alternative Deliveries:
Discussion of Design/Build
and P3 through Case Study
Evolving Subjects for the
Structural Engineer
Business and
Professional
PracTice
John Tawresey
How the Future of
Structural Engineering
Sees the Future of
Structural Engineering
Advancing Structural Eng.
through Better Integration
of Practice, Education,
and Research
I am a Structural Engineer –
Now What?
Ethics in Structural
Engineering – Design and
Construction Inspection
Business and
Professional
PracTice
John Tawresey
Structural Engineering
Licensure for the Next
100 Years
Introduction to a New SEI/
ASCE Standard for Load and
Resistance Factored Design
63 February 2015
Structural Columns
www.structurescongress.org
non Building
sTrucTures &
naTural disasTer non sTrucTural
and resilience comPonenTs
John Silva  Greg Soules
Preparing for Natural Innovative Special
Disasters Structures: Art in
Engineering Design
The Oregon Resilience Advancing Design
Plan – From Legislation to Approaches for Wind
Action Plan Energy Structures
Building Community Structural Design of
Resilience Using Renewable Energy Systems
Performance-Based
Engineering – Part 1
Building Community Wind Loads on Solar Panels
Resilience Using
Performance-Based
Engineering – Part 2
non Building
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
sTrucTures and
naTural disasTer non sTrucTural
and resilience comPonenTs
John Silva Greg Soules
Structure and Infrastructure Design Considerations for
Resilience: Can It Be Structures Crossing or Close
Quantified? to Fault-Rupture Zones
Resilient Design Using Foundations for
Performance-Based Eng. Nonbuilding Structures
and Advanced Information
Technologies
Risk-Based Methods in Performance of
Structural Design and Ceiling Systems
Evaluation: Current
Practices and Perspectives
Challenges and Solutions Curtain Walls
Towards Risk-Based
Structural and Infrastructure
Performance Assessment
and Decision Support
non Building
sTrucTures and
naTural disasTer non sTrucTural
and resilience comPonenTs
John Silva Greg Soules
Performance-Based Design Analysis and Testing of
for Extreme Events Nonstructural Components
Fire Following Earthquake: Floors and Partitions
A Sequential Hazard
Approach
 Donate to the CASE Scholarship Fund!
The ACEC Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE)
is currently seeking contributions to help make the structural
engineering scholarship program a success. The CASE scholar-
ship, administered by the ACEC College of Fellows, is awarded
to a student seeking a Bachelor’s degree, at minimum, in an
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
ABET-accredited engineering program.
We have all witnessed the stiff competition from other dis-
ciplines and professions eager to obtain the best and brightest
young talent from a dwindling pool of engineering graduates.
One way to enhance the ability of students in pursuing their
dreams to become professional engineers is to offer incentives
in educational support.
CASE Risk Management Tools Available
Foundation 1: Culture
Create a Culture of Managing Risks & Preventing Claims
Tool 1-1: Create a Culture for Managing Risks and
Reducing Claims
The most comprehensive CASE tool provides sample templates
and presentations that aid in creating a culture of risk manage-
ment throughout the firm.
This tool was updated in 2013 to include:
• Revised PowerPoint presentations, scripts, and sample
statements that allow users to modify for their own use.
CASE in Point
• Case studies that highlight best practices and procedures
to manage liability and limit risk.
Tool 1-2: Developing a Culture of Quality
This tool was developed to identify ways to drive quality into
a firm’s culture. It is recognized that every firm will develop its
own approach to developing a culture of quality, but following
these 10 key areas offer a substantial starting point. The tool
includes a white paper and customizable PowerPoint presenta-
tion to facilitate overall discussion.
All of these tools and more are available
at www.booksforengineers.com.
Follow ACEC Coalitions on
Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.
STRUCTURE magazine 64
In addition, the CASE scholarship offers an excellent oppor-
tunity for your firm to recommend eligible candidates. If your
firm already has a scholarship program, remember that potential
candidates can also apply for the CASE Scholarship or any other
ACEC scholarship currently available.
Your monetary support is vital in helping CASE and ACEC
increase scholarships to those students who are the future of
our industry. All donations toward the program may be eligible
for tax deduction and you don’t have to be an ACEC member
to donate! Contact Heather Talbert at htalbert@acec.org
to donate.
Foundation 2: Prevention & Proactivity
Act with Preventative Techniques, Don’t Just React.
Tool 2-1: A Risk Evaluation Checklist
Don’t overlook anything! A sample itemized list of things you
should look for when evaluating a prospective project.
Tool 2-2: Interview Guide
Getting “the right people on the bus” is one of the most impor-
tant things we can do to mitigate risk management and yet we
never learn about interviewing skills in school. The tool will
help your firm conduct higher quality interviews and standardize
the process among all your staff.
Tool 2-3: Employee Evaluation Templates
This tool is intended to assist the structural engineering office in
the task of evaluating employee performance. The evaluations
provide a method to assess employee performance and serve as
an integral part of the company’s risk management program.
Tool 2-4: Project Risk Management Plan
This plan will walk you through the methodology for managing
your project risks, along with a few common project risks and
templates on how to record and track them.
Tool 2-5: Insurance Management: Minimize Your
Professional Liability Premium
This tool is designed as a guide to help you provide critical
additional information to the underwriter to differentiate your
firm from the pack.
February 2015

NEW!! Standard of Care
White Paper
The CASE Guidelines Committee has developed a white paper
on Standard of Care now available for free on the CASE website:
www.acec.org/case/news/publications/.
Many engineers are licensed and practice in many states;
what is customary in one, may not be so in another. Codes
and standards are becoming more standardized and national
in nature, meaning more uniformity and perhaps a higher level
of engineering skills across the country. Gone may be the days
when an engineer can really say that “we don’t do that around
here.” Having a good understanding of your legal responsibili-
ties is more important than ever!
ACEC Business Insights
Best Management Strategies in Business of
Design Consulting Course
March 18 – 21, 2015 Dallas, TX
ACEC’s highly regarded Business of Design Consulting course
is a unique playbook for building leadership and managing your
firm at the most effective levels. The 3½-day agenda is taught by
an experienced faculty of industry practitioners and highlights
current strategies for a wide array of critical, need-to-know
business topics that will keep your business thriving despite a
churning business environment. Topics include how to manage
change and build success in performance management, strategic
planning and growth, finance, leadership, ownership transition,
contracts and risk management, marketing, and more!
For more information and to register for the course,
www.acec.org/calendar/calendar-seminar/business-of-design-
consulting-dallas-2015/.
CASE Risk Management Convocation in Portland, OR
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in
conjunction with the Structures Congress at the Doubletree
by Hilton Downtown Hotel and Oregon Convention Center
in Portland, OR, April 23-25, 2015. For more information and
updates go to www.seinstitute.org.
STRUCTURE magazine
CASE in Point
WANTED
Engineers to Lead, Direct, and Get
Involved with CASE Committees!
If you’re looking for ways to expand and strengthen your busi-
ness skillset, look no further than serving on one (or more!)
CASE Committees. Join us to sharpen your leadership skills
– promote your talent and expertise – to help guide CASE
programs, services, and publications.
We have a committee ready for your service:
• Risk Management Toolkit Committee: Develops and
maintains documents such as business practices manuals
and policies for engineers under CASE’s Ten Foundations
for Risk Management.
Expectations and Requirements
To apply, you should
• be a current member of the Council of American
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
Structural Engineers (CASE)
• be able to attend the groups’ two face-to-face meetings
per year: August, February (hotel, travel reimbursable)
• be available to engage with the working group via email
and conference call
• have some specific experience and/or expertise to
contribute to the group
Please submit the following information to htalbert@acec.org
• Letter of interest
• Brief bio (no more than 2 paragraphs)
Thank you for your interest in contributing to your profes-
sional association!
The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to
take place on Friday, April 24:
7:00 AM – 8:15 AM
CASE Breakfast: The Future of Structural Engineering
Sue Yoakum, Donovan Hatem
8:30 AM–10:00 AM
Addressing Hidden Risks in Today’s Design Contracts
Speakers – Rob Hughes, Ames & Gough;
Brian Stewart, Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart
10:30 AM – 12 Noon
How to Succeed Without Risking It All!
Moderator – John DalPino, Degenkolb Engineers
1:30 PM – 3:00 PM
Lessons Learned From Structural Cases in Litigation
Speaker – Jeffrey Coleman, The Coleman Law Firm
3:30 PM – 5:00 PM
SE Practice for Quality and Profitability – Panel Discussion
65 February 2015
Structural Forum
Is Structural Engineering Education Sustainable?
By Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
W
ithin the broad field of
civil engineering, struc-
tural engineers have perhaps
been among the slowest to
embrace and adopt the concepts of sustain-
ability in the built environment. Many sit by
with mounting frustration as architects, other
types of engineers, and urban planners have
defined “green” agendas for their disciplines,
and successfully embraced and marketed them.
The reasons for this, which are perhaps
understandable, can be traced to the way
in which structural engineers are educated,
as well as to the fact that it has been dif-
ficult to identify an appropriate vision for
incorporating sustainability principles into
our practice. In order to define the appropri-
ate vision for the future of our profession,
we need to understand how sustainability
emerged from the environmental movement,
where it currently is in terms of global devel-
opment, and how structural engineers can
restructure and develop opportunities in this
new sustainable world.
According to the Department of Labor, there
are approximately 258,000 civil engineers in
the United States today. The total memberships
of NCSEA, CASE, and SEI suggest that about
40,000 are structural engineers, and most of
those have a license to practice civil engineering
as a Professional Engineer (PE). A few states
require an additional license to practice as a
Structural Engineer (SE). SEI’s report on A
Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering
and Structural Engineers: A Case for Change
suggests that there is considerable angst in the
SE community regarding the future.
The structural engineering curriculum
typically consists of courses in engineering
mechanics and linear structural analysis. These
are often taught using textbooks first published
in the 1960s (or earlier) and are based on the
theory of structures from the late 18th century
to the early 20th century. There is usually only
one course in materials. Design of steel and
concrete structures is taught from textbooks
from the 1950s and is based on the AISC and
ACI codes, respectively. The emphasis is on
framed multi-story buildings and short-span
bridges. Other commonly used materials may
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and
construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA,
CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE® magazine Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE magazine
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
or may not be covered. There is some exposure
to computer codes, but very little use of the
design features of these codes.
The master’s degree typically covers more of
the same, except in somewhat greater detail
(e.g., nonlinearity, seismic design, more clas-
sical mechanics) and perhaps an independent
study or thesis. The doctorate is research-
based and typically deals with advanced topics
of the same type (steel and concrete frames)
in great depth and of little immediate value
to the practicing engineer.
In 1987, sustainable development was defined
by committee in the United Nations (UN)
Brundtland Report, Our Common Future,
as “development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.”
Less known is the latter part of the definition
that “contains within it two key concepts: the
concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential
needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding
priority should be given; and the idea of limita-
tions imposed by the state of technology and
social organization on the environment’s ability
to meet present and future needs.”
Since then, sustainable development and sus-
tainability science have proceeded along two
distinct paths – one focused on the first key
concept, sometimes referred to as the “brown
agenda,” including population, pollution,
public health, poverty, and property rights; and
the other focused on the second key concept,
sometimes referred to as the “green agenda,”
including the Triple-Bottom-Line, P3, and
LEED. Today these two streams are expressed
in the UN’s Millennium Development Goals
(MDG) and Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
In the US, sustainability in structural engi-
neering has focused primarily on the second
key concept and has worked toward the green
agenda. On the materials side, this has typi-
cally been manifested in life-cycle assessment
(LCA) and embodied energy; decreasing
greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from
cement production; and using recycled mate-
rials, primarily steel. On the structural side,
the main effort has been the optimization of
framing systems to use less material.
66 February 2015
Neither of these approaches is likely to
contribute significantly to sustainable devel-
opment. The embodied energy in materials
is a small fraction of the energy consumed
over a building’s lifetime, which in turn is
only a small fraction of the commercial value
of the property, not to mention the income
and health costs of the building occupants.
The cost of the structural system in a build-
ing is perhaps 15% of the initial construction
cost, so optimization is unlikely to yield great
sustainability benefits. In addition, there has
been significant consolidation in consulting
firms over the last two decades, leading to less
need for specialized designers for what are
now “routine” multi-story building frames.
One vision for a sustainable future for struc-
tural engineering is to align our teaching,
research, and practice with the first key con-
cept of sustainable development; i.e., reorient
our curricula to focus on the knowledge and
skills needed to address the needs for safe and
resilient infrastructure and housing for the
three billion people earning less than five US
dollars per day, many living in informal and
even illegal settlements. It is disgraceful that
we as structural engineers do not yet know
how to provide meaningful input to solve
these human catastrophes that are a direct
function of the built environment.
Such a focus will, of course, require a signifi-
cant reprioritization and rethinking of every
part of the curriculum. It will require courses
in social sciences, environmental sciences,
geography, world cultures, and economics.
However, it will bring back to the profession
– and especially to students – a sense of mis-
sion and purpose, akin to those now studying
environmental engineering and sustainability
sciences of various types. It will make us rel-
evant again.▪
Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
(lbank2@ccny.cuny.edu), is a professor
in the Department of Civil Engineering at
the City College of New York. This article
is based on the 2014 Landis Lecture in
Structural Engineering at the University
of Pittsburgh.