STRUCTURE

NCSEA | CASE | SEI MARCH 2019

Wind Seismic
/

INSIDE: Story of a Survivor 34

San Francisco Soft-Story Ordinance 8

Performance-Based Earthquake Design 32
Seismic Design and Embodied Carbon 44
 SYC
Scorpion Yielding
Connector
Ductile Connection

HSC
High Strength
Connector
SCBF and OCBF

CBB
Cast Bolted
Bracket SEISMIC-
SMF and IMF
RESISTANT
SOLUTIONS
 LeMessurier Calls on Tekla Structural
Designer for Complex Projects
For over 55 years,
LeMessurier has
provided struc-
tural engineering
services to architects, owners, contractors, developers
and artists. Led by the example of legendary structural
engineer and founder William LeMessurier, LeMessuri-
er provides the expertise for some of the world’s most
elegant and sophisticated designs while remaining
true to the enduring laws of science and engineering.
Known for pushing the envelope of the latest tech-
nologies and even inventing new ones, LeMessurier
engineers solutions responsive to their clients’ visions
and reflective of their experience.
An early adopter of technology to improve their de-
signs and workflow, LeMessurier put its own talent to
work in the eighties to develop a software solution that
did not exist commercially at the time. Their early appli-
cation adopted the concept of Building Information
Modeling (BIM) long before it emerged decades later.
While LeMessurier’s proprietary tool had evolved over
three decades into a powerhouse of capability, the
decision to evaluate commercial structural design
tools was predicated on the looming effort required to
modernize its software to leverage emerging
platforms, support normalized data structure integra-
tion and keep up with code changes.
After a lengthy and thorough comparison of commer-
cial tools that would “fill the shoes” and stack up to the
company’s proprietary tool, LeMessurier chose Tekla
Structural Designer for its rich capabilities that ad-
dressed all of their workflow needs. According to Derek
Barnes, Associate at LeMessurier, ” Tekla Structural
Designer offered the most features and the best inte-
gration of all the products we tested. They also offered
us the ability to work closely with their development
group to ensure we were getting the most out of the
software.”
One Model for Structural Analysis & Design
From Schematic Design through Construction Docu-
ments, Tekla Structural Designer allows LeMessurier
engineers to work from one single model for structural
analysis and design, improving efficiency, workflow,
and ultimately saving time. “Our engineers are working
more efficiently because they don’t need to switch
between multiple software packages for concrete and
steel design. Tekla Structural Designer offers better
integration of multiple materials than we have seen in
any other product,” said Barnes.
LeMessurier engineers use Tekla Structural
Designer to create physical, information-rich models
that contain the intelligence they need to automate the
design of significant portions of their structures and
efficiently manage project changes.
TRANSFORMING THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS
“Tekla Structural Designer has streamlined our
design process,” said Craig Blanchet, P.E., Vice Presi-
dent of LeMessurier. “Because some of our engineers
are no longer doubling as software developers, it allows
us to focus their talents on leveraging the features of
the software to our advantage. Had we not chosen
to adopt Tekla Structural Designer, we would have
needed to bring on new staff to update and maintain
our in-house software. So Tekla Structural Designer is
not just saving us time on projects, it is also saving us
overhead.
Efficient, Accurate Loading and Analysis
Tekla Structural Designer automatically generates an
underlying and highly sophisticated analytical model
from the physical model, allowing LeMessurier engi-
neers to focus more on design than on analytical model
management. Regardless of a model’s size or com-
plexity, Tekla Structural Designer’s analytical engine
accurately computes forces and displacements for use
in design and the assessment of building performance.
“Tekla Structural Designer offers better
integration of multiple materials than
we have seen in any other product.”
“Tekla Structural Designer gives us multiple analysis
sets to pull from, which gives us lots of control. Most
programs don’t have the capability to do FE and
grillage chase-down. For the design of beam supported
concrete slabs, Tekla Structural Designer allows us to
separate the slab stiffness from the beam stiffness, so
if we choose to we can design the beams without con-
sidering the influence of the slab. In the same model
we can use a separate analysis set to review the floor
system with the beams and slab engaged,” said Barnes.
Barnes also shared similar benefits with concrete
column design. “Tekla Structural Designer does
grillage take-downs floor-by-floor, finds the reactions
and applies them to the next floor. This allows us
to view column results both for the 3-dimensional
effects of the structure as a whole and from the more
traditional floor-by-floor load take-down point of view.
Doing both has always required significant manual
intervention, but Tekla Structural Designer puts it all in
one place.” “We reduce the possibility for human error
because with Tekla Structural Designer less user input
is required,” said Barnes. “Tekla Structural Designer
automatically computes many of the design parame-
ters, such as column unbraced lengths. The assump-
tions made by the software are typically correct, but we
can easily review and override them when necessary.”
Interoperability and Time Saving Tools
Tekla Structural Designer was developed specifically
to maximize collaboration with other project parties,
including technicians, fabricators and architects. Its
unique functionality enables engineers to integrate the
physical design model seamlessly with Tekla Structures
or Autodesk Revit, and to round-trip without compro-
mising vital design data.
“We’re able to import geometry from Revit, design in
Tekla Structural Designer and export that information
for import back into Revit. If an architect makes
geometry updates or changes a slab edge, we’ll send
those changes back into Tekla Structural Designer, re-
run the analysis and design, and push updated design
information back into Revit.”
Tekla Structural Design at Work:
The Hub on Causeway
Positioning a large scale mixed-use development next
to an active arena, a below grade parking garage, and
an interstate highway, and bridging it over two active
subway tunnels makes planning, phasing and
engineering paramount. Currently under construction,
The Hub on Causeway Project will be the final piece in
the puzzle that is the site of the original Boston Garden.
Despite being new to the software, LeMessurier
decided to use Tekla Structural Designer for significant
portions of the project. “Relying on a new program for
such a big project was obviously a risk for us, but with
the potential for time savings and other efficiencies, we
jumped right in with Tekla Structural Designer. It forced
us to get familiar the software very quickly.”
“Tekla Structural Designer allowed us to design the
bulk of Phase 1 in a single model,” said Barnes. The proj-
ect incorporates both concrete flat slabs and compos-
ite concrete and steel floor framing. “Tekla Structural
Designer has the ability to calculate effective widths
based on the physical model which is a big time saver,”
said Barnes. “On this project, the integration with Revit,
along with the composite steel design features enabled
us to work more efficiently. Adding the ability to do con-
crete design in the same model was a bonus because
we had both construction types in the same building.”
“Tekla Structural Designer helped this project run more
efficiently, and in the end it was a positive experience,”
said Blanchet.
“Tekla Structural Designer provided the best fit
for our workflow compared to other commercially
available software.”
Want to Evaluate
Tekla Structural Designer?
tekla.com/TryTekla
 ADVERTISER INDEX Please support these advertisers
STRUCTURE ®

American Concrete Institute ........................ 37 KPFF ...................................................... 15 MARKETING & ADVERTISING SALES
Canadian Wood Council .......................... 41 MAPEI Corp ............................................ 59 sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

Cast Connex ............................................. 2 Nucor Tubular Products .............................. 48 Joe Murphy

Clark Dietrich Building Systems ................... 11
CoreBrace, LLC ........................................ 67
Fyfe ....................................................... 39
GeoDesign, Inc........................................ 44
Geopier Foundation Company.................... 25
Hardy Frame ........................................... 27
Hayward Baker, Inc .................................. 31
Hohmann & Barnard, Inc ........................... 45
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc ............ 51
jmurphy@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-254-9595
Nucor Vulcraft Group ................................ 17
Denis O’Malley
RISA ...................................................... 68
domalley@STRUCTUREmag.org; Tel: 203-356-9694, ext. 13
Simpson Strong-Tie ...............................12-13
Structural Engineering Institute ..................... 55 EDITORIAL STAFF
StructurePoint ............................................. 6 Executive Editor Alfred Spada
aspada@ncsea.com
Struware, Inc ........................................... 57
Publisher Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Subsurface Constructors, Inc ....................... 53 csloat@STRUCTUREmag.org
Taylor Devices, Inc. ................................... 43
Associate Publisher Nikki Alger
Trimble ..................................................... 3 nalger@STRUCTUREmag.org

Integrity Software, Inc .................................. 4 USG Corporation ..................................... 23 Creative Director Tara Smith
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

EDITORIAL BOARD

YOUR OPINION MATTERS! Chair John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

FTF Engineering, Inc., San Francisco, CA
chair@STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine is always looking for Structural Forum (opinion) articles and Jeremy L. Achter, S.E., LEED AP
ARW Engineers, Ogden, UT
Letters to the Editor. We preserve a page at the end of the magazine to print these types Erin Conaway, P.E.
AISC, Littleton, CO
of articles, as space permits. Please send your pieces to publisher@structuremag.org.
Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E., SECB
And don’t forget – post questions or comments on the digital versions of articles on the TimkenSteel, Canton, OH

STRUCTURE website. STRUCTURE looks forward to hearing from you! Linda M. Kaplan, P.E.
Pennoni, Pittsburgh, PA

Charles “Chuck” F. King, P.E.

Urban Engineers of New York, New York, NY

Emily B. Lorenz, P.E.

Bentley spending ® Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL

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

Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, New York, NY

out of control? Jason McCool, P.E.

Robbins Engineering Consultants, Little Rock, AR

Brian W. Miller
Davis, CA
• Prevent Quarterly and Monthly Overages
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

• Whitelist allowed applications, block all others „ SofTrack controls
• Control all Bentley® usage, prevent overages
• Block use of all un-owned Bentley® applications
• Automatically queue users when access is
blocked, notify when license ready
• Give users visibility of who is using licenses now
• Warn and optionally terminate idle usage
• Historical Usage Reporting of all applications
• Introducing: Bentley CONNECTIONS Visa
®
(desktop) per-user control
CALL US TODAY:
(866) 372 8991 (USA/Canada)
(512) 372 8991 (Worldwide)
The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Danbury, CT
Bentley® usage by
Product ID code and
John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
counts (pipe, inlet,
Eytan Solomon, P.E., LEED AP
pond, and all others)
Silman, New York, NY
and can actively
block unwanted STRUCTURE® magazine (ISSN 1536 4283) is published monthly by
product usage The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (a nonprofit
Association), 645 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 540, Chicago, IL 60611
312.649.4600. Application to Mail at Periodicals Postage Prices is
Pending at Chicago, IL and additional mailing offices. STRUCTURE
„ SofTrack reports and magazine, Volume 26, Number 3, C 2019 by The National Council
of Structural Engineers Associations, all rights reserved. Subscription
optionally controls
usage of all Autodesk®
services, back issues and subscription information tel: 312-649-4600,
or write to STRUCTURE magazine Circulation, 645 N. Michigan
products by Version,
Avenue, Suite 540, Chicago, IL 60611. The publication is distributed
to members of The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Feature Code, and through a resolution to its bylaws, and to members of CASE and SEI
paid by each organization as nominal price subscription for its members
Serial Number!
as a benefit of their membership. Yearly Subscription in USA $75;
$40 For Students; Canada $90; $60 for Canadian Students; Foreign
$135, $90 for foreign students. Editorial Office: Send editorial mail
to: STRUCTURE magazine, Attn: Editorial, 645 N. Michigan Avenue,
„ SofTrack reports and
©
controls ESRI® ArcMap
Suite 540, Chicago, IL 60611. POSTMASTER: Send Address changes
to STRUCTURE magazine, 645 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 540,

www.softwaremetering.com concurrent and single

Chicago, IL 60611.

STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of the National Council of Structural

use license activity Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be reproduced in whole
© 2018 Integrity Software, Inc. Bentley is a registered trademark of Bentley Systems, Incorporated
or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

4 STRUCTURE magazine
 Contents MARCH 2019

34 THE STORY OF A SURVIVOR

By John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

Hurricane Michael made a direct hit on Mexico Beach,

Florida, in October 2018. Almost all the homes along the
beach were destroyed. One building, dubbed the Sand
Palace, remained standing, alone in a field of devastation.
The owners had employed performance-based design
concepts to design and build a truly sturdy building that
satisfied their goals for performance and longevity.

46 Historic Structures
38 ADDING A PARKING BASEMENT AFTER-THE-FACT Thames River Bridge
By Carol Hayek, Ph.D., and Tony Salem
By Frank Griggs, Jr., D.Eng., P.E.
The picturesque Beacon Hill conservation area in Boston was the challenging location
for a project involving the creation of a parking basement for a renovated property 49 Professional Issues Disruption is
by excavating beneath two townhouses while preserving the existing above-ground Coming to the Building Industry
structures. The solution – top-down, post-tensioned concrete. By Steven Burrows, P.E.

Columns and Departments 52 Risk Management Jobsite Safety

By Randy Lewis

7 Editorial Unleashing the Profession 24 Codes and Standards 54 InSights The Future – BIM
By Anne M. Ellis, P.E. Code Requirements for By Tom Winant, P.E., and Alan Jeary, Ph.D.

8 Lessons Learned The San Residential Roof Trusses

Francisco Soft-Story Ordinance By Brent Maxfield, S.E. 56 Business Practices
By John A. Dal Pino, S.E., and James Enright, P.E. Building Your Leadership Legacy
28 Structural Practices By Jennifer Anderson
14 Structural Performance Floor Design Considerations
Does Accidental Torsion By Frank Woeste, P.E., and Peter Nielsen 66 Structural Forum
Prevent Collapse? Art of Approximation
By David (Jared) DeBock, Ph.D., P.E.,
32 Northridge – 25 Years Later By Dilip Khatri, Ph.D., P.E.
Conrad (Sandy) Hohener, P.E, S.E., Performance-Based
Earthquake Design
and Michael Valley, P.E, S.E.
By Chris D. Poland S.E.
In Every Issue
18 Building Blocks Innovative 4 Advertiser Index
Materials to Improve Bridge 42 Structural Testing 57 Resource Guide – Software Updates
60 NCSEA News
Seismic Resiliency Moisture and Mass Timber
62 SEI Update
By Jed Bingle, P.E., S.E. By Evan Schmidt
64 CASE in Point
20 Structural Systems Reaching 44 Structural Sustainability
Higher with Cold-Formed Steel Structural Design and On the Cover Satellite image of a hurricane
approaching the U.S. (Elements of this photo were
Framing for Podium Structures Embodied Carbon
supplied by NASA.)
By Robert Warr, P.E. By Chris Horiuchi, S.E., and Nicole Wang, P.E.

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

M A R C H 2 019 5
 EDITORIAL
Unleashing the Profession
How Performance-Based Design Will Shape Our Future
By Anne M. Ellis, P.E., FACI, F.ASCE
M eeting and getting to know leaders of
our profession – authors of textbooks,
chairs of committees, ENR newsmakers – is
one of the many perks of SEI engagement.
In sharing insights from recent conversations
with leaders helping to shape our future, I
intend to inspire you to join in.
Performance-Based Design (PBD) is a power-
ful approach anticipated to shape the future
of the structural engineering profession. PBD
turns the traditional design paradigm upside
down as required performance is the starting
point for the design. Ron Klemencic, P.E.,
S.E., Hon.AIA, F.SEI, F.ASCE, Chairman and
C.E.O. of Magnusson Klemencic Associates
and Director of the Charles Pankow Foundation
(CPF), emphasizes that “Innovation in the
building industry is many times hampered by
prescriptive code provisions, which are arcane
and based on technologies and methodolo-
gies decades old. Performance-based design
unshackles the engineer, encouraging creative
thinking enabled by the tools and technolo-
gies of today.”
Is PBD the answer? Is the profession ready?
Per Don Dusenberry, P.E., SECB, F.SEI,
F.ASCE, Consulting Principal of Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc. and Chair of the
SEI Committee to Advance PBD, attests,
“Engineers have the tools to perform the nec-
essary analyses and the imperative to design
reliable structures that provide economy,
serviceability, sustainability, and robustness.
PBD is the means to accomplish these goals.”
Dusenberry notes SEI initiatives presently
underway will coordinate the activities of
the many organizations that are advancing
PBD and provide frameworks and guidance
resources that engineers can use to pursue
PBD. He predicts, “We will build structures
with established reliability, are responsive to
the goals – beyond life safety – that are impor-
tant to our clients and society.”
However, do our model codes allow PBD?
Ron Hamburger, S.E., P.E., SECB, F.SEI,
Senior Principal of Simpson Gumpertz &
Heger Inc. and Chair of ASCE 7 responds,
“Like most contemporary design specifica-
tions, the industry loading standard ASCE 7,
STRUCTURE magazine
Minimum Design Loads and Associated
Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,
has been performance-based for many years,
meaning that adherence to its design rec-
ommendations, and those of its companion
reference standards, is intended to meet cer-
tain performance standards. This includes
a defined notional probability of failure, as
well as protection of service performance for
routine loadings. While these performance
goals had been present for many years, they
remained invisible to much of the practicing
profession.” He further explains that clearly
included PBD methodology – starting with
ASCE 7-10 and continuing with ASCE 7-16
– provides an alternative to traditional design
approaches, includes performance goals asso-
ciated with the operability of critical service
equipment, and PBD design criteria associ-
ated with tsunami loading and fire resistance.
Experts agree, PBD is needed, many tools
are established, and there is a precedent for
use. So, what comes next? SEI in partnership
with CPF is leading efforts to enable PBD for
wind and structural fire engineering.
Performance-based
Wind Design
Donald Scott, P.E., S.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE,
Vice President, Director of Engineering, PCS
Structural Solutions and Chair of the ASCE
7-22 Wind Loads Subcommittee, is Principal
Investigator of the ASCE/SEI Pre-standard
for Performance-Based Design for Wind. Scott
shares, “As the use of PBD has advanced for
seismic design, and in certain areas of the
country, utilizing prescriptive, code-based
wind loading provisions tends to ‘fight
against’ the benefits of the PBD seismic provi-
sions, resulting in overall poorer performance
for these buildings.” Scott believes, “the Pre-
Standard currently being developed will allow
the designer more flexibility and creativity in
the design of the lateral force resisting system
for the building and advance the require-
ments for the design of the components and
cladding systems that protect the building
interior. The provisions will provide for the
same reliability for the building as if it were
designed per the existing code requirements.”
Structural Fire Engineering
Structural fire engineering is another area in
which using PBD can make a difference. As
Kevin LaMalva, P.E., M.ASCE, Senior Staff
at Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger and Chair of
the SEI Fire Protection Committee, explains,
“Structural fire protection has not appreciably
changed in a century, and there is little to no
synergy between structural design and applied
fire protection. Conversely, PBD structural
fire engineering involves the rational alloca-
tion of resources to achieve an acceptable
level of intrinsic structural fire performance.”
Structural Fire Engineering may be a new
topic to many of us; however, according to
LaMalva, “structural fire engineering (SFE)
is about 90% structural engineering, so the
bridge that a structural engineer needs to
cross in order to practice structural fire engi-
neering is shorter than most think.” To this
end, LaMalva is leading an SEI/CPF effort to
develop SFE exemplar designs based on actual
buildings following the PBD framework of
ASCE 7-16 Appendix E.
Both projects will be completed this year
and available for free from SEI and CPF.
Thanks to these leaders, SEI members shar-
ing expertise, and SEI with financial support
from ACIF, AISC, ArcelorMittal, and MKAF
via CPF, we will catapult forward. As stated
by Ron Klemencic, “We are advancing our
profession’s quest for better ways to design
and build, and performance-based design is
key to this advancement.”
Join us at Structures Congress, April
24-27 in Orlando, to learn more from these
experts and about these initiatives during
the panel session titled, Unleashing
the Profession, on April 26.
www.structurescongress.org■
Anne M. Ellis is the Executive Director of the
Charles Pankow Foundation. Anne is also a
Board Member of the SEI Futures Fund and
Chair of the SEI Global Activities Division.
M A R C H 2 019 7
 lessons LEARNED
The San Francisco
Soft-Story Ordinance
By John A. Dal Pino, S.E., and James Enright, P.E., LEED AP
I n 2013, the City of San Francisco embarked on an ambitious
and groundbreaking endeavor: the mandatory seismic retrofit
of its wood-framed soft-story apartment buildings. The 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake caused considerable damage to such buildings
in the Marina District (Figure 1) and exposed the vulnerability of
buildings with soft and weak first stories. Yes, even wood-framed buildings, thought by most engineers to be the most naturally
earthquake resistant type of structure due to their lightweight nature and reserve strength, can collapse under the right (or
perhaps wrong) circumstances. According to a 2016 report by the Association of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco had
6,700 soft-story buildings, far more than the rest of the region combined.
San Francisco, despite its downtown of steel and concrete high-rises,
is really the land of wood structures – long, narrow, multi-story build-
ings with zero side setbacks. There is almost universally nose-to-tail
parking on the ground level and most of the oldest buildings, built
before the automobile era, have been modified to allow for parking
too. Linear parking configurations make transverse shear walls impos-
sible, and the result was thousands of weak and soft-story buildings.
The intent of this article is not so much to describe the San Francisco
Ordinance but to provide insights for other communities that intend
to implement mandatory seismic programs. This article is based on
the authors’ experiences at a San Francisco firm that has retrofitted
over 80 such buildings.
The San Francisco
Soft-Story Ordinance
The Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program (Ordinance No. 66-13) was
established by the City of San Francisco in April 2013. The Ordinance
addresses wood-framed buildings three-stories or taller, or two-story
Figure 2. Retrofit fair.
8 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 1. Soft-story building collapse in the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.
buildings over a basement or crawl space, with five or more dwelling
units, constructed under a permit dated before January 1, 1978, and
with no seismic strengthening.
The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (SFDBI)
published Administrative Bulletins 106 and 107, outlining the
technical requirements of the retrofit ordinance. Buildings were
grouped into four Tiers, with the largest and most vulnerable in
Tier 1 (special, institutional, and educational), then Tier 2 (15 or
more units), then Tier 3 (5 to 14 units), and then Tier 4 (buildings
with ground floor commercial spaces) (Table 1).
The Ordinance requires retrofit work in the weak/soft or “target”
story only. The target story is considered weak/soft if the number of
walls and the wall layout are significantly different from the typical
stories above. San Francisco’s residential buildings commonly have
identical or nearly identical plan layouts in the upper stories with
a large number of interior walls around small rooms, and open
ground levels consisting of undeveloped crawl spaces or developed
ground levels with large unobstructed areas used for parking or
storage. The lateral force resisting system in the target story must
be wood framed elements to be subject to the Ordinance.
Community Outreach
and Owner Education
The City undertook a rigorous community outreach campaign. The
campaign began by informing owners of buildings that were believed
to be part of the program and continued with a number of additional
notices and media outreach. The SFDBI website also provided a good
description of the program, with links to all important documents.
The City’s Office of Resilience and Recovery team worked with
stakeholders to develop and host several financing workshops,
annual Earthquake Retrofit fairs attended by over 3,000 people,
and a postcard-noticing program (Figure 2). Working directly
with SFDBI, the Office of Resilience and Recovery also hosted
several public information meetings, giving the public a chance
Table 1. Wood-frame seismic retrofit program compliance timeline and tier.
Submittal of Permit Completion of Work
Compliance Application with and Issuance of
Tier Plans for Seismic Certificate of Final
Retrofit Work Completion
1 September 15, 2015 September 15, 2017
2 September 15, 2016 September 15, 2018
3 September 15, 2017 September 15, 2019
4 September 15, 2018 September 15, 2020
to speak directly with SFDBI staff, experts in disability access and
structural engineering, and Rent Board staff (most of the buildings
are rent controlled) directly about their questions and concerns.
These outreach efforts were intended to educate building owners
from a “zero” starting point regarding the Ordinance and to put
them in contact with engineers and contractors who were focus-
ing on these projects.
Based on recent data from SFDBI (Table 2), compliance has been
excellent for the Tier 2 buildings, the construction for Tier 3 buildings
should be complete by September 2019, and Tier 4 is just underway.
Compliance was also aided by an “Earthquake Warning” placard
(Figure 3) affixed near the building entrance that alerted tenants and
owners alike to the fact their building was out of compliance.
The outreach programs could be improved for future ordinances by
more effectively focusing on specific educational needs: selecting the
right engineer, selecting the right contractor, financing, and dealing
with commercial tenants.
Project Costs
Retrofit costs were initially estimated to be $10,000 to $20,000 per
unit. This cost was approximate given the varying sizes of individual
units, overall building configurations, and the levelness of the site
(San Francisco is very hilly). Due to many factors, including the
strength of the regional economy, those costs are very low today.
Straightforward projects cost $20,000 to $25,000 per unit, more
complicated ones more. In hindsight, it would have been better to
estimate the cost of construction on a square foot basis, with annual
updates that include current market costs, and let the individual
owners calculate their own cost per unit.
The Right Engineer
Skilled building owners and their professional representatives
have trouble enough evaluating engineering proposals, but the
average apartment building owner is not equipped, even after
outreach, to make a reasonable decision. In the beginning, the
“early bird” owners selected from a handful of engineers based
on interviews and qualifications. Fees were adequate to do proper
engineering and the results were good. Over time, more engineers
entered the market as the number of
buildings requiring retrofit grew. The Table 2. Current status of compliance.
impact of outreach seemed to fade and Tier Buildings
inexperienced owners started to select
engineers based almost exclusively on 1 6
design fee. Design fees fell as a result 2 508
of the competition, making it harder 3 3398
to do a proper job. Owners could not
tell what they were getting. 4 985
The Right Contractor
Most of the contractors were small residential contractors and new
firms formed specifically to serve the soft-story retrofit market. Work
quality varied widely; unfortunately, many contractors do not under-
stand enough about seismic retrofit issues. Costs can vary widely and
detailed bid break-out was not always provided, even when requested.
Building owners got sticker shock if the original cost figures were
cemented into their thinking and therefore selected their contrac-
tor based on cost without a basis to do otherwise. Owners needed
educational outreach to review contractor competence along with
guidance from their engineer.
Financing and Cost Recovery
The City offers public financing through Alliance NRG/ Counterpointe
Sustainable Real Estate. If used, the NRG financing approach permits
the entire cost of the retrofits (100%) and the cost of the financing
to be passed on to tenants as approved by the City’s Rent Board (for
rent controlled properties). If the owner chooses to self-finance or get
a loan from a bank, there are more restrictions on what costs can be
passed on to the tenants. Even when the interest rates were lower on
a bank loan, the NRG program might have been the better option,
but many owners did not grasp this, focusing on the interest rates
alone. Some owners were also squeezed by the inability to pass on
rent increases to renters who claimed economic hardship. A takeaway
is that legislators need to understand the ability of building owners
to make the projects work financially and show them how to do it.
Commercial Tenants
The Tier 4 buildings are properties with commercial tenants. These
tenants cannot survive in business during the disruption created by
extended construction projects. A significant amount of planning and
negotiation is necessary to create a workable retrofit approach that
addresses temporary relocation and phasing and maintains tenants.
Many building owners are not prepared for these tasks, but the projects
cannot proceed until these issues are addressed. The Ordinance also
triggered ADA upgrades. Finding qualified ADA specialists who are
willing to work on small projects has proven to be difficult, although
SFDBI has developed a list of such firms.
Technical Provisions
There are three analysis and design methodologies that can be used:
California Existing Building Code (2016 CEBC Appendix 4), FEMA
P-807, and ASCE 41-13.
• CEBC Appendix 4 – Chapter A4, Earthquake Risk Reduction in
Wood-Frame Residential Buildings with Soft, Weak or Open Front
Walls, was written to address the soft-story retrofit program.
The design is based on 75% of design base shear for a new
building. One caveat is that any existing strength contributions
from plaster and gypsum board walls within the target story
are to be ignored.
Permits Completed Non-Compliant
3 3 3
508 508 0
3254 1306 144
518 203 NA
M A R C H 2 019 9
 • FEMA P-807 – FEMA P-807, Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Multi-Unit
Plan Review Process
Wood Frame Buildings with Weak First SFDBI data shows that approximately
Stories, is a performance-based approach 3,700 building permits of all kinds were
for the seismic evaluation and retrofit issued in 2016 for projects with individual
of wood-framed “soft-story” buildings. estimated construction costs exceeding
The downside to this method is that the $100,000. To date, approximately 3,300
software requires some degree of experi- soft-story permits have been issued from
ence (by both engineer and plan checker), 2015 to 2017, or about 1,100 per year.
and judgment is needed in deciding on Assuming the 2016 data is a reasonable
the final retrofit scheme. estimate of annual permit activity, the soft-
• ASCE 41-13 – This is a great tool, but story program has increased the workload
it is not often used because of its greater on plan reviewers by 30% per year. That is
complexity compared to the other two a significant increase, and the SFDBI staff
methods and engineering fee constraints. should be commended for their efforts.
Over time, it became evident that the SFDBI reviews projects by formal submit-
technical requirements were not as clear tal and also by using an over-the-counter
as hoped, which led to a problem with procedure with review time limited to only
the consistency in the application of the one hour. If one hour is not enough, formal
program’s technical provisions. The SFDBI submittal is required. Most owners and
looked to the Existing Building Committee engineers try the over-the-counter process
of the Structural Engineers Association of first. However, this puts the plan reviewer
Northern California (SEAONC EBC) for in a difficult position because there is con-
guidance, which improved the situation but siderable pressure to approve the projects
did not eliminate inconsistencies. in one hour. Inevitably, some inadequate
• Strength of the Story Above – The Figure 3. Non-compliance placard. designs may slip through the cracks despite
“strength of the story above” is calcu- the reviewer’s best efforts.
lated by determining the lengths of interior and exterior walls Having greater plan review staffing during the life of the Ordinance,
above the target story and multiplying by their shear strength. an increase in the time allotted for over-the-counter reviews, and
Most buildings have interior wood lath and plaster finishes and creating special checking procedures for soft-story projects would be
exterior wood siding, sometimes with stucco. Strengths are listed beneficial options to consider. Over-the-counter reviews are likely to
in California Historical Building Code. In most cases, the total shear become more problematical when the Tier IV buildings are submitted
strength added up to much more than the 75% design base shear. because they are structurally more challenging and involve ADA issues.
As a result, the design base shear was insufficient to eliminate the
soft- or weak-story condition.
• Multiple R-Values – The retrofits usually involve multiple sys-
Lessons Learned
tems with different R-values. Plywood shear walls are almost 1) There can never be enough education focused on key issues and
always used (R=6.5) but, due to the parking issues, ordinary decisions that building owners will need to make. The audience is
steel moment frames (R=3.5) and cantilevered column systems diverse and largely uninformed on technical and financial topics.
(R=2.5) are common. After much debate, R values could be The task is difficult and, when the end result does not cover the
considered on a line by line basis for an A4 analysis, largely needs of all stakeholders, the effectiveness of the program may
because of the assumption of flexible diaphragms. This is allowed suffer. Only studies of building performance after the next large
by P-807 and ASCE 41. earthquake will show the overall result.
• Cantilever Column Systems – To maintain parking clearance, 2) The Ordinance writers attempted to consider as many issues
engineers designed inverted one-story moment frames with tube and factors as possible but, understandably, overlooked some
columns and concrete grade beams. The SFDBI considered these things. Moreover, there will always be differences in interpretation.
frames as cantilever column systems, which have a low R-value An entity implementing an ordinance needs to have a dedicated
because the CEBC envisions tall columns standing up through advisory panel to educate engineers, engage questions, stimulate
multiple stories. After debate, the SEAONC EBC and SFDBI discussion, and refine technical requirements to achieve a result
Structural Subcommittee recommended the R-value correspond consistent with the ordinance goals.
to the R-value for an equivalent moment frame system when the 3) A mandated ordinance affecting a large number of buildings will
columns carry no gravity load and are connected by a concrete put a burden on the plan review organization. Increased
grade beam designed to yield the column in flexure. So, even after staffing and training are required (internal or external), with
clarification, it was still up to the engineer to designate the R. procedures tailored to the unique aspects of the program.▪
• Foundations – Continuous footings below the wood bearing walls
are commonly unreinforced concrete. Some are brick. Although there
was no consensus, standard practice was not to replace or strengthen John A. Dal Pino is a Principal at FTF Engineering and is a current member of
the foundations unless there was a large overturning moment that the the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board. (jdalpino@ftfengineering.com)
existing foundations could not resist. Providing new foundations to James Enright is a Project Engineer at FTF Engineering and an Adjunct
resist overturning moments or to address ACI anchor bolt provisions Lecturer at San Francisco State University. (jenright@ftfengineering.com)
would increase construction costs astronomically.

10 STRUCTURE magazine
BLAZEFRAME® GOES TO WORK
SO SCORCH DOESN’T.
Foes like Scorch harm property and people. That’s why our
strong head-of-wall system integrates a strip of intumescent
material, which expands up to 35 times its original size in the
event of fire, to slow the spread of smoke, fumes and flames.
Get details at clarkdietrich.com/blazeframe.

© 2019 ClarkDietrich Building Systems

 Maximize
your
openings

©2019 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SPFS19

Try our free Strong-Wall

Bracing Selector app. Strong-Wall® site-built portal frame system — all the hardware you need in one box.
 Minimize
your
costs

The new high-strength Strong-Wall® site-built portal frame system (PFS)

is not only simple and quick to install, it’s a cost-effective alternative to
IRC braced-wall solutions. Ideal for designers, builders and contractors
in prescriptive markets, the PFS is one of the easiest and most convenient
ways to achieve code-compliant wall bracing for narrow-wall conditions.
To learn more, visit go.strongtie.com/pfs or call us at (800) 999-5099.
 structural PERFORMANCE
Does Accidental Torsion Prevent Collapse?
How Collapse Potential is Affected by the Method of Considering Accidental Torsion
By David (Jared) DeBock, Ph.D., P.E., Conrad (Sandy) Hohener, P.E, S.E., and Michael Valley, P.E, S.E.

S tructural Engineers have long observed that torsional

building response is an indicator of earthquake collapse
risk. The Building Code’s explicit treatment of torsion dates
back at least to the 1961 Uniform Building Code (UBC), which
introduced the requirement of adding 5% eccentricity to any
inherent torsion when distributing lateral earthquake forces to
the vertical seismic force-resisting elements. Although today’s
code includes additional penalties for torsionally irregular struc-
tures, the treatment of “accidental torsion” remains much the
same. This often-maligned but critically important provision Figure 1. Plan views of the baseline and generic archetype configurations. Thickened
prohibits the design of cruciform-type structures without any lines represent lines of lateral resistance. Courtesy of FEMA P-2012.
torsional strength. It also offers increased collapse protection by
indirectly accounting for the non-uniform degradation of the verti- The second method “explicitly” accounts for accidental torsion by
cal seismic force-resisting elements that occur in the true non-linear physically offsetting the mass in a three-dimensional model, thereby
response of structures. modifying the dynamic characteristics of the structure and the direct
results of the eigenvalue analysis. ASCE/SEI 7-16's Commentary (as well
as ASCE/SEI 7-10 with Supplement 1) implies that the second method
State of Practice is preferred: “The advantage of this approach is that the dynamic effects
Much of today’s linear design, particularly on the West Coast, employs of direct loading and accidental torsion are assessed automatically,” while
the use of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) to proportion the same commentary notes that the, “[…] ...practical disadvantages are
the vertical seismic force-resisting elements in a structure. ASCE/SEI the increased bookkeeping required...” However, today’s commercially
7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (as well available software (notably RAM Structural System and ETABS 2017)
as ASCE/SEI 7-16), allows practitioners to use one of two methodolo- include functions that automate this process. If we know that accidental
gies to account for accidental torsion when conducting MRSA. The torsion is an important consideration in linear design, why would we
first method is similar to how one would consider accidental torsion not use this “direct” method in all of our MRSA designs?
in an Equivalent Lateral Force analysis; apply a static accidental torsion The supposition that underlies the “dynamic mass offset” method of
moment to the results of a concentric eigenvalue analysis scaled to the considering accidental torsion is that “repositioning the center of mass
response parameter of interest. This method is automated in many increases the coupling between the torsional and translational modal
structural design software and is commonly used for MRSA designs. responses, directly capturing the amplification of the accidental tor-
sion.” While this supposition is
correct in many cases, it is not true
if the structure has a high degree
of torsional irregularity as a result
of high torsional flexibility rela-
tive to translational flexibility. In
such structures, minimal coupling
occurs between the translational
and torsional responses, and the
torsional response is virtually lost
in the modal combination of the
translational response; this obser-
vation has been made by de La
Llera and Chopra (1994) and
more recently in FEMA P-2012
(FEMA, 2018), Assessing Seismic
Performance of Buildings with
Figure 2. Maximum lateral seismic design forces for a Figure 3. Maximum drifts for a symmetric 2:1 aspect
Configuration Irregularities.
symmetric 2:1 aspect ratio building with varying degrees ratio building with varying degrees of torsional flexibility.
To illustrate this phenomenon,
of torsional flexibility. Torsional to lateral period ratios at Torsional to lateral period ratios at the ASCE/SEI 7-16 consider the archetype build-
the ASCE/SEI 7-16 thresholds for torsional irregularity and thresholds for torsional irregularity and extreme torsional ing plans shown in Figure 1. The
extreme torsional irregularity (for this particular configuration) irregularity (for this particular configuration) are overlaid baseline building is as torsionally
are overlaid for reference. for reference. regular as possible – square in plan

14 STRUCTURE magazine
Table 1. Differences in strength and stiffness required when the dynamic mass offset method (i.e., 5% CM offsets) probabilities of collapse given large earth-
are used in lieu of static accidental torsion moments for torsionally irregular symmetric archetype buildings (in the quakes. Consequently, while the previous
more critical direction). Courtesy of FEMA P-2012. example indicates that the dynamic mass
Plan Required Strength Relative to Baseline Required Stiffness Relative to Baseline a offset method can produce substantially
Aspect TIR
weaker designs than the static method, it
Static acc. 5% mass Static acc. 5% mass could still be a valid design method if it
Ratio Difference Difference
Tors. offsets Tors. offsets produces designs that achieve the collapse
1.31 1.15 1.12 -3% 1.05 1.05 0% reliability intended by ASCE/SEI 7.
1 1.56 1.66 1.40 -16% 1.47 1.00 -32% Recently, a study conducted by the Applied
Technology Council (Project 123, FEMA
2.25 2.71 1.41 -48% 4.42 1.00 -77%
P-2012) used the FEMA P-695 incremental
1.22 1.14 1.45 27% 1.00 1.40 40% dynamic analysis approach (FEMA, 2009)
2 1.53 1.35b 1.20b -11% 1.42 1.20 -15% to quantify the effect of various irregularities
on the collapse performance of structures.
2.04 2.27b 1.14b -50% 3.74 1.12 -70%
With respect to torsional irregularity, the
1.26 1.17 1.55 32% 1.00 1.50 50% FEMA P-2012 study evaluated the collapse
4 1.60 1.43b 1.24b -13% 1.65 1.30 -21% resistance of more than 2,000 archetype
buildings with varying degrees of torsional
2.09 2.37b 1.17b -51% 3.99 1.20 -70%
irregularity with the intent of recommending
a
The stability coefficient and story drift of the baseline are 0.07 and 1.2%, respectively, so the required stiffness code design provisions that produce designs
does not increase immediately as torsional irregularity is introduced. with consistent probabilities of collapse. This
b
Design forces are determined using a redundancy factor ρ = 1.0, per the proposed FEMA 2012 torsion design research explicitly included torsionally flex-
provisions, rather than ρ = 1.3, as required by the ASCE 7-16 torsion design provisions. ible buildings designed using the dynamic
mass offset method versus the static method
with lines of lateral resistance at the perimeter – and is proportioned per to observe whether these weaker designs produce structures with
ASCE/SEI 7-16 rules that permit torsionally regular structures to be greater collapse rates.
designed neglecting accidental torsion. For the strength and stiffness of Design results showing the strength and stiffness of structures pro-
the lateral systems to be directly comparable, the generic building has portioned using the dynamic mass offset method for accidental torsion
the same seismic mass as the baseline building, but with variable plan compared to the static torsional method are shown in Table 1. These
aspect ratio and variable locations of the lines of lateral resistance. Figures designs include symmetric archetypes with plan aspect ratios of 1:1,
2 and 3 show the maximum wall shear
and displacement demands at the most
PHOTO BY EDMUND BARR
critical location, relative to the baseline
version, when accidental torsion is applied
to the generic model by the two methods –
static accidental torsion moment versus the
dynamic mass offset method (i.e., 5% CM
offsets with MRSA). The results shown
in Figures 2 and 3 are for 2:1 aspect ratio
archetypes that are symmetric in plan (i.e.,

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

α = β = γ = δ in Figure 1) and have first-
mode translational periods in the constant
velocity portion of the response spectrum.
The most critical locations for wall shear
demands are in resistance lines 3 and 4,
and the critical locations for displacements
are at the left-hand and right-hand edges
of the building. Figures 2 and 3 show that
the dynamic mass offset method amplifies
the accidental torsion effect when the tor-
sional and translational building periods
are similar, but the amplifying effect is lost
Saugus High School Performing Arts Center
when the torsional period separates from Santa Clarita, CA
the translational period.

Effect of Dynamic
Mass Offset
AIA
AWARD 2018
SAN
FERNANDO
VALLEY Seattle
Tacoma
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Des Moines
St. Louis
Lacey Long Beach Chicago
Portland Irvine Louisville
Different design methods produce dif- KPFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer Eugene San Diego New York
ferent results, and the intent of ASCE/ www.kpff.com Sacramento Boise
SEI 7 is to produce designs that have low

M A R C H 2 019 15

Figure 4. Collapse performance of symmetric archetypes proportioned with
static accidental torsion moments. Courtesy of FEMA P-2012.
Figure 5. Collapse performance of symmetric archetypes proportioned with
the MRSA “dynamic mass offset” method (i.e., accidental torsion applied
directly through offsetting the mass ± 5% of the perpendicular building
dimension in the structural model). Courtesy of FEMA P-2012.
2:1, and 4:1 (refer to Figure 1 for archetype layouts). The archetype
buildings reflected in Table 1 have translational periods on the order
of two seconds, placing them in the constant velocity portion of the
response spectrum. MRSA results are scaled so that base shear is 100%
of the equivalent lateral force procedure base shear per ASCE/SEI
7-16 requirements. Torsional irregularity is quantified by a Torsional
Irregularity Ratio (TIR), which is the ratio of the maximum story
drift at a building’s edge to the average story drift, given a lateral force
with 5% eccentricity; this is identical to the ratio used for determin-
ing the presence of torsional irregularity in Table 12.3-1 of ASCE/
SEI 7-16 (TIR > 1.4 means extremely torsionally irregular). Table 1
shows that a significant discrepancy in the force and displacement
design parameters develops as torsional irregularity increases. As the
symmetric-in-plan buildings become highly torsionally irregular, the
force and displacement demand parameters actually decrease rather
than increase when the dynamic mass offset method is used. This
finding is consistent with the trends observed in Figures 2 and 3 and
by de La Llera and Chopra (1994).
Figures 4 and 5 summarize the collapse resistance of symmetric
archetype buildings proportioned with MRSA using the static tor-
sional method and the dynamic mass offset method for accidental
torsion. Collapse performance is quantified as the ratio of the median
spectral acceleration that causes the building to collapse to the median
spectral acceleration causing collapse of the baseline (regular) build-
ing (Collapse Resistance Relative to Baseline). Figure 4 shows that the
static accidental torsion method is somewhat conservative, leading to
16 STRUCTURE magazine
designs that have greater collapse resistance than the baseline (regular)
building; values above 1.0 indicate collapse resistance greater than
the baseline. In contrast, Figure 5 shows a steady decline in collapse
resistance for extremely torsionally irregular buildings proportioned
with the dynamic mass offset method. Ironically, the dynamic mass
offset method amplifies accidental torsion demands where they are
least needed, causing a spike in collapse resistance at low levels of
torsional irregularity. However, the method fails to amplify accidental
torsion where it is needed most (at high levels of torsional irregularity),
resulting in significant declines in collapse resistance for buildings
that are extremely irregular. Therefore, building systems that meet
the ASCE/SEI 7 collapse reliability criteria when they are torsionally
regular cannot generally be expected to still meet the collapse reli-
ability criteria when they are extremely torsionally irregular if they
are proportioned with the dynamic mass offset method.
Future Code Provisions
Several code change provisions stemming from the work done on the
FEMA P-2012 project are planned for ASCE/SEI 7-22. While a full
examination of the FEMA P-2012 recommendations, the associated
code changes, and an explanation of the research justifying those code
changes are beyond the scope of this article, it should be noted that
current torsion design provisions generally produce designs that meet
ASCE/SEI 7’s collapse target standard. The 5% accidental eccentricity
is around to stay, and the structural designs that are conducted in the
8 years between now and when ASCE/SEI-22 is adopted into the
building code will generally be “safe.”
There is a notable exception to “safe” designs arising from the cur-
rent code provisions that are examined in this article. This article
highlights that the dynamic mass offset method for simulating
accidental torsion with modal response spectrum analysis can
lead to unsafe designs for buildings that are extremely torsionally
irregular. When the same structural layouts are proportioned using the
static application of torsional moment, the resulting design meets the
collapse reliability intended by ASCE 7, as demonstrated in Figure 4.
Consequently, an emergency Supplement #2 to ASCE/SEI 7-16 is
planned that will prohibit the use of the dynamic mass offset method
for extremely torsionally irregular structures. Before the adoption of
ASCE 7-16, and in jurisdictions that do not adopt supplements to
ASCE 7, engineers are strongly encouraged to use the static method
of applying accidental torsion when conducting modal response
spectrum analysis on any building that is extremely torsionally
irregular. As engineers, it is incumbent on all of us to understand
the implications of what today’s analysis software allows us
to do with ease. Just because we can check the box does not
always mean we should.■
The online version of this article contains references.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
David (Jared) DeBock is an Assistant Professor at California State University
Chico. He is also a team member at Haselton Baker Risk Group.
(ddebock@csuchico.edu)
Conrad (Sandy) Hohener is an Associate with Degenkolb Engineers.
(shohener@degenkolb.com)
Michael Valley is a Principal with Magnusson Klemencic Associates.
(mvalley@mka.com)
 Put
Vulcraft 3N Deck

Yourself
In a
New
Dimension.
Introducing N deck
that’s eight inches wider.
With an extra eight inches in coverage,
the wider 3N deck from Vulcraft will still
meet all of your design needs.
The extra eight inches gives you:
• Faster installation
• Fewer bundles to lift
• Fewer sheets to spread
• Fewer sidelaps to connect
• Compatible with Hilti, Pneutek,
Simpson and other fasteners
Available versions (FM and UL Listed)
3NL-32 Nestable sidelap
3NI-32 Interlocking sidelap
®
3PLN-32 PunchLok II system

V U LC R A F T G R O UP
Learn the advantages of our new wider deck
vulcraft.com/decks
 building BLOCKS
Innovative Materials to Improve Bridge
Seismic Resilience
By Jed Bingle, P.E., S.E.

T he current seismic design philosophy for bridges in high

seismic risk areas is prescribed by nationally accepted
design standards that have been based on laboratory testing
since the 1960s. For ordinary bridges that are expected to
experience strong seismic ground motions, this philosophy
prescribes structural details that have been shown to provide
a low probability of collapse.

To construct a modern, economical bridge that meets this criterion, it

is acceptable for elements of the structure to suffer significant damage. A column cage ready for erection with SMA bars spliced in the plastic hinge region.
As long as the bridge does not collapse and users can safely get off
the structure, the design is considered successful. Using conventional (SMA), and conventional concrete can be replaced with engineered
construction methods to construct a bridge without significant damage cementitious composite (ECC).
is typically considered to be uneconomical.
The typical energy dissipation mechanism for modern economical
multi-span bridges is to allow plastic hinging. For bridges, the plastic
Shape Memory Alloy
hinge is designed to be a short portion of the length of the steel rein- Shape memory alloys (SMA) have historically been used in robotics,
forced concrete column, where the column connects to the crossbeam automotive, biomedical, and aerospace applications. Superelastic
and where the column connects to the foundation. shape memory alloys for this type of bridge application are a special
The plastic hinge mechanism using conventional materials requires type of metal that is manufactured from a combination of nickel and
permanent damage to elements that are critical to the serviceability titanium. The metal is shaped into smooth round bars that replace
and stability of a bridge. A bridge experiencing the ground motions longitudinal steel rebar in the plastic hinge region of bridge columns.
of a design earthquake may experience permanent damage, such as Conventional steel rebar used in bridges will return to its original
yielding of the longitudinal steel reinforcement in the plastic hinge and undeformed shape if not stressed beyond its yield point. Rebar is
region and crushing or spalling of the conventional concrete. This sized for strength and service limit states to remain below this limit. If
type of damage may lead to restricting the types of vehicles that can stressed beyond the yield point, conventional rebar will exhibit residual
use the bridge or require complete closure. The damage may require deformation after unloading. Deformation of the conventional rebar
costly repair or replacement of the column, and may even require beyond the yield point is essential to dissipate energy during a seismic
replacement of the bridge. event. The challenge of relying on deformation beyond the yield point
With research support from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) is that the structure will not be operational after a seismic event.
– one of the top earthquake engineering laboratories in the U.S. – For SMA, the alloy will deform like steel beyond the yield point,
the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) but it will return to its undeformed shape. This means the alloy
has constructed a first real-world is superelastic. Energy can still be
pilot project bridge. The project dissipated by stretching the SMA
incorporated innovative materi- and, once the earthquake motions
als in the plastic hinge region that subside, the SMA will return to its
will not only eliminate the need for original shape.
permanent damage of the structure Superelastic shape memory alloys
but also provide a necessary energy undergo crystalline structure phase
dissipation mechanism. transformations, between the aus-
Replacing conventional materi- tenite and martensite phases when
als in the plastic hinge region with stressed. When the alloy is loaded
innovative materials can improve in the austenite phase, the material
the seismic resilience of bridge will behave linearly, similar to steel
structures. Conventional steel rein- up to the yield point. The alloy will
forcement can be replaced with a transform into the twinned, mar-
superelastic shape memory alloy Superelastic shape memory alloy stress-strain diagram. tensite phase as loading continues.

18 STRUCTURE magazine
The first seismic resilient bridge in Seattle, WA to incorporate SMA and ECC.
In the twinned state, the crystalline structure is oriented to allow the
microstructure to shear without breaking molecular bonds when
stressed. As loading continues beyond the yield point, the martensite
will begin to de-twin, allowing the alloy to behave plastically. When
unloading follows, the martensite will transform back to austenite
and the material recovers to its original undeformed shape.
The SMA is only needed for energy dissipation in the plastic hinge
region. Therefore, the SMA is not needed for the entire height of the
column or elsewhere in the bridge. As compared to conventional steel
rebar, SMA alloys are expensive, so the SMA is only used in the plastic
hinge regions of the column. Due to the difficulty of machining this
specific alloy, headed couplers have been shown to be the only feasible
means to couple the SMA to steel rebar.
Engineered Cementitious Composite
Engineered cementitious composite (ECC) is a cement-based mixture
that is similar to conventional concrete used in modern reinforced
columns. A typical ECC mix contains water, cement, fine sand,
polyvinyl alcohol fibers, and chemical admixtures. The key difference
between conventional concrete and ECC is that the coarse aggregates
are replaced with fibers to provide improved ductile performance.
The inclusion of the fiber gives ECC the ability to have a tensile
strain capacity as high as six times that of conventional concrete.
The high tensile and compressive strain ductility cause ECC to not
spall like conventional concrete. The ductility, tensile strength, and
unique cracking behavior make ECC a much more resilient material
compared to conventional concrete.
First Implementation
Together, these innovative materials work to provide an energy
dissipation mechanism similar to that which is incorporated into
modern bridges, but will significantly reduce the risk of damage to
the structure and eliminate respective repair costs. This will create
a bridge that is more likely to remain serviceable after significant
earthquake ground motions and reduce or eliminate the need for
repair or replacement.
M. ‘Saiid’ Saiidi, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, at UNR, has performed
extensive research and testing to validate the use of these innovative
materials in bridges. There have been several levels of testing com-
pleted, including small scale testing of the SMA and ECC to establish
material properties, testing of individual columns for specific plastic
hinge performance, and full-scale multiple-span bridges subjected to
Bridge column with SMA and ECC. Courtesy of Washington State Department of
Transportation.
earthquake motions from the shake table equipment in the Earthquake
Engineering Laboratory at UNR.
WSDOT decided to incorporate SMA and ECC into a new bridge
that is part of the State Route 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement
project in the Sodo district of Seattle, WA. The primary overall goal of
this mega-project is to replace the seismically damaged and compro-
mised Alaskan Way Viaduct structure with a single-bore tunnel under
the core of the city (See the tunnel article in the January 2019 issue of
STRUCTURE ). This bridge is one of many in the vicinity of the south
portal of the new tunnel. It will serve as a northbound off-ramp that
will span over two roadway alignments providing access to the tunnel.
The bridge is a three-span, 400-foot long structure carrying two
lanes of traffic and has a roadway width of 30½ feet. The bridge
superstructure consists of two lines of prestressed, precast concrete
tub girders. The abutments have a semi-integral end diaphragm and
are founded on 8-foot diameter drilled shafts.
The superstructure type and foundation type of this specific bridge
is not necessary for the SMA and ECC to improve seismic resilience.
Generally, these materials can be used where any conventional plastic
hinges are currently being used.
To encourage new research technologies to be incorporated into
practical projects, the Federal Highway Administration created the
Innovative Bridge and Research Deployment (IBRD) program. This
program granted funds in the amount of $400,000 for this WSDOT
project. These funds were intended to cover the costs of lab testing at
UNR, procuring the innovative materials, and project documenta-
tion costs.
After the completion of construction of the bridge, the Transportation
Research Board published NCHRP Research Report 864: Seismic
Evaluation of Bridge Columns with Energy Dissipating Mechanisms. This
report provides guidelines for quantitative analysis and design methods
and construction procedures to incorporate SMA and ECC in columns.
By incorporating shape memory alloy and engineered cementitious
composite in a typical highway bridge, WSDOT has demonstrated
that bridges in high seismic regions can be improved upon with a small
investment in new innovative materials. Bridges subjected to earth-
quakes can perform without the need to rely on permanent damage
to dissipate energy. This means that new bridges can remain
operational and useful after an earthquake without costly
repair or replacement.■
Jed Bingle is a Senior Bridge Engineer with HDR Inc. in Vancouver, WA
and was the Engineer of Record for this project while employed with the
Washington State Department of Transportation. (jed.bingle@hdrinc.com)
M A R C H 2 019 19
 structural SYSTEMS
Reaching Higher with
Cold-Formed Steel Framing
for Podium Structures
By Robert Warr, P.E.

B uilding designers are often challenged with an increasing demand

for high-density, combined-use buildings in urban locations. The
most common scenario is a base structure, commonly referred to as the
podium. The base structure is generally used for parking or retail space,
with an upper structure that is of another use, such as apartments, dorms,
senior living, hotels or other private spaces. This upper structure lends
itself well to individually framed walls and floor systems. Figure 1. Concrete podium with CFS above.

With this increased density comes the need to provide a safe, non- limitation, continuity of firewalls, type of construction, and number
combustible framing system that is also strong to achieve the desired of stories. This provision only applies when four criteria are met:
overall building height. Combining non-combustible materials such 1) A horizontal assembly separates the building portions with a
as cold-formed steel with concrete and hot-rolled steel results in higher minimum three-hour fire resistance rating;
building heights for these structures at an economical price. Building 2) The building below is of Type IA construction and is protected
height limits also affect building material selection, the treatment of throughout with sprinklers;
fire safety, sound considerations, architectural unit space planning, 3) Shafts, stairways, ramps, and escalator enclosures penetrating the
and egress. Cold-formed steel provides an ideal solution for all of horizontal assembly have a two-hour fire resistance rating; and,
these design challenges. 4) The maximum building height above grade is not exceeded.
Starting with the last point, Type IA, IB, IIA and IIB types of con-
How High Can struction require non-combustible
materials within a fire-rated assem-
Cold-Formed Steel Go? bly, except for IIB which does not
The International Building Code have a minimum fire rating for the
(IBC) requires the upper and lower non-combustible material. However,
structures to be separated for fire with each increase in fire protection,
and other safety reasons. There are the building is allowed to be taller and
three sections in IBC 2015 Chapter have a greater number of stories. For
Five pertaining to podium designs example, residential occupancy clas-
that describe permissible building sification ranges from five stories to
heights and story limits and are criti- unlimited stories and heights ranging
cal to understand when designing from 75 feet to unlimited heights for
cold-formed steel upper structures non-combustible materials in these
over a concrete podium to maximize construction types. This is achieved
the benefits of non-combustible steel by providing a fire protection system
construction. for the bearing walls that meets an
The first provision, Section 510.2, hourly rating between one and three
allows an upper structure of any con- hours. For cold-formed steel, there are
struction type to be built over a lower various UL assemblies as outlined in
podium where the two structures A Guide to Fire and Acoustic Data for
are treated as separate and distinct Cold-Formed Steel Floor, Wall and Roof
structures. This permits a separate Assemblies (www.steelframing.org).
and distinct determination of each of The most common range for
the areas based on the allowable area Figure 2. CFS over parking structure podium. mid-rise non-combustible building

20 STRUCTURE magazine
materials is five to twelve stories and 85 feet to 180
feet. These heights are associated primarily with Type
IIA and IB, which require one-hour and two-hour
fire-rated assemblies, respectively. For example, by
using the residential occupancy and cold-formed
steel framing over the top of retail space, one could
get the maximum stories of floors and still be under
the overall building height limitations when cou-
pled with a multi-story podium. Figure 1 shows an
example of a concrete podium for retail use below
a multi-story cold-formed steel framed residential
upper structure.
The second provision, Section 510.4, is not used as
often as 510.2 but offers a similar opportunity for
stacking buildings and gaining the ability to add an
additional floor. Specifically, for buildings with park-
ing below (S-2 occupancy) and any residential group
occupancy above, this section allows a podium of
Type I construction but only requires a two-hour fire
separation that can be further reduced to a one-hour
separation if sprinklered per Table 508.4. Assuming
a parking level meeting Type I construction (either Figure 3. Nested jamb with studs and track.
IA or IB), the limiting height would be based on the
cold-formed steel framing assembly above. Using the
construction type that limits the height the most, a
building is allowed to be 75 feet with sprinklers which
could be seven stories with this provision alone. Figure 2
depicts this provision where a cold-formed steel super-
structure is positioned atop a parking structure below.
The third provision, Section 510.6, governs Group
R-1 and R-2 buildings of Type II-A construction.
It presents a rare opportunity for a nine-story,
100-foot-tall, Type II-A building when there is at
least a 50-foot lot line separation. This provision
does not require a podium level separation but
does require a 1½-hour fire-rated first elevated floor
system. Below-ground parking would still require a Figure 5. Overlapping shear straps
three-hour fire separation. This design would likely Figure 4. Nested LDM with steel plate. for lateral resistance.
be most cost-effective when the building has no need
for a parking deck and ample space in the lot on which it is being built. elements as MWFRS (www.aisistandards.org). Section B1.1 allows
for live load reduction of the framing along with a check for combined
MWFRS loading and axial loading. Separately, there is a bending
Seismic and Wind Load Considerations check for components and cladding loading without the effect of
Most podium buildings are designed for seismic loads using the axial loading. This helps to clarify the use of the framing element
Two-Stage Analysis Procedure described in Section 12.2.3.2 of ASCE as both the main frame of the building and a component. This is a
7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The unique and necessary check for cold-formed steel as it often receives
two-stage analysis procedure recognizes the unique performance exterior components connected directly to it, unlike other structure
characteristics of a lightweight and flexible superstructure over a stiff types that provide a skeleton frame with in-fill framing where clad-
base which is ten times stiffer than the superstructure. This analysis ding is attached to the in-fill framing only.
procedure treats the upper and lower portions of the structure as two For the lateral force resisting system, shaft assemblies constructed
distinct structures, with the base shear of the superstructure applied to from CFS could be the best option. Shaft assemblies are typically
the base in a second analysis. The lightweight nature of cold-formed placed in the central core area of a building and are inherently strong
steel provides a direct benefit for seismic design (less mass) but also due to the construction and fire-rating requirements. However, they
offers a significant benefit since the inherent stiffness of cold-formed alone may not be capable of providing the torsional resistance due to
steel makes it easy to comply with the ASCE 7-10 requirement that their dimensions and location within the building’s footprint. When
the fundamental period of the entire structure not be greater than this is the case, cold-formed steel shear walls can be used to supple-
1.1 times the period of the upper structure alone. ment or even provide the entire lateral force resistance. If the shear
For wind loading, the cold-formed steel framing is the building’s walls are non-bearing walls, the seismic forces may be significantly
main frame and therefore the primary wind force resisting system higher than gravity loads. This is where cold-formed steel is uniquely
(MWFRS). In this case, AISI S240, North American Standard for qualified. Since it is relatively thin, many members can be nested
Cold-Formed Steel Structural Framing, allows for the design of these together, overlapped, or even built-up to form an efficient assembly

M A R C H 2 019 21
 to resist the loads. Figure 3 (page 21)
depicts an example of creative overlap-
Designing with Steel
ping of thin cold-formed steel lateral When specifying a construction mate-
strap bracing. In this situation, the rial, the engineer should be prepared
design called for more lateral resist- to educate the client on the posi-
ing elements than what was available tive attributes of the recommended
in open wall locations, so an over- materials. Cold-formed steel framing
lapping method was employed. This provides many benefits for construc-
is achievable with cold-formed tion teams and building owners.
steel. As seen in Figure 4 (page 21), An essential benefit of cold-formed
connections to the podium can range steel is its flexibility, giving architects
from post-installed anchors to welded the opportunity to be creative in their
embed plates. More discussion on this designs. Cold-formed steel can be
topic is found in AISI D110-16, Cold- curved and offers many options for
Formed Steel Framing Design Guide, indoor space planning.
2016 Edition (www.steel.org). Steel is also a sustainable material.
It is the only building material rec-
Connection and Detailing ognized by LEED as having a default
minimum value of 25 percent recycled
Considerations content and is 100 percent recyclable.
Unlike other building materials, cold- Figure 6. Steel embed in concrete at podium to CFS wall above. Steel is routinely collected in aggre-
formed steel framing is unique in its gate quantities from construction and
strength-to-weight ratio and connection to other steel and concrete demolition sites and is recycled into new steel products.
via traditional commercial building methods, which allows it to marry Steel is a resilient material too. Resiliency is the measure of a build-
well with other trades, tools, and techniques already employed in ing’s ability to serve its intended purpose with minimal disruptions.
commercial applications. Cold-formed steel framing is dimensionally Cold-formed steel framing meets these requirements of a resilient
and geometrically stable, which can be a major consideration when building material – safety in the face of a natural hazard; security in
evaluating the longevity and durability of a mid-rise building. a man-made event; energy efficiency; reduction in environmental
Often, it is the detailing and concentration of load into a single impacts over the life of the building; durability resulting in a long life
isolated connection that creates the greatest challenge for the designer. with minimal maintenance and resistance to deterioration, predictable
It is easy to achieve uniform loading that is evenly spaced, and many performance, serviceability, repairability and adaptability.
materials can handle this load scenario. Unlike some alternates, Cold-formed steel framing has a proven track record of providing
cold-formed steel can also resolve concentrated loads into singular cost-effective benefits over the entire construction cycle due to lower
or closely grouped resisting elements when appropriately detailed. insurance rates, shorter project cycles, predictability and accuracy of
As discussed in CFSEI Tech Note G200-15, Chase the Loads: Load components, and design efficiency.
Path Considerations for Cold-Formed Steel Light-Frame Construction, For additional information on cold-formed steel framing, visit
the goal of every framing system is to provide a concise and direct www.cfsei.org.
load path (www.cfsei.org).
Another challenge is the design of gravity framing around stacked
openings like doors and windows. The loading from a single floor
Conclusion
can be handled by the header over the opening. However, in Cold-formed steel framing has both the strength and non-com-
framed walls, it is the jamb that transfers the forces vertically from bustible attributes to support the increasing need for denser urban
floor to floor. Jambs can accumulate quite large forces in taller housing construction typified by podium building construction.
buildings when openings align. With cold-formed steel framing, Cold-formed steel allows for tall buildings, high capac-
there are many ways to keep the framing concentrated into an ity elements, efficient connections between the base and
area that is relatively narrow in the wall without dimensional superstructures, and durable, quality construction.■
build-up that occurs with other materials. This allows more room
for electrical, plumbing, and other necessary items that occupy
The online version of this article contains references.
the wall cavity. Figure 5 (page 21) shows an example of nested
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
studs and tracks to form a compact jamb condition. Once the
jamb load reaches the podium level, it can be transferred via a
base plate or other assembly to transfer the force to the podium Part 1 of this series on podiums, Mid-Rise Wood Frame Buildings,
efficiently. If the podium is concrete, then an embed plate is a ran in the February, 2019 issue of STRUCTURE.
common way to transition the force to the concrete. Likewise,
with hot-rolled steel beams and columns, a plate can be employed Robert Warr is the Managing Principal at Frameworks Engineering, LLC
and welded into place for a steel-to-steel connection. Figure 6 in Marietta, GA, where he practices cold-formed steel framing structural
shows a nested wall top, called a load distribution member, with engineering design. (rwarr@frameworksengineering.com)
a steel plate inside to stiffen the elements.

22 STRUCTURE magazine
USG
Structural
Solutions

DO YOU KNOW WHAT’S

HIDING IN YOUR FLOORS?
Discover a better alternative to poured concrete at
usg.com/structuralpanels

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

The trademarks USG, the USG logo, the design elements and colors, and related marks
are trademarks of USG Corporation or its affiliates.
 CODES and standards
Code Requirements for Residential
Roof Trusses
By Brent Maxfield, S.E.
This article outlines the related 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) and the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) requirements
for residential truss engineering and delivery.
T here are many roles played in the design and delivery of residential
wood roof trusses. Engineers can play various roles in this pro-
cess, and it is essential to understand which role you play. This article
discusses the scope of work required of the various roles as defined by
the various codes and standards for residential roof truss. If a building
falls within the IRC, all roles can be played by non-engineers, unless
the jurisdiction requires the construction documents to be prepared
by a Registered Design Professional.
Code Requirements
The International Residential Code (IRC) is the governing code for
one- and two-family dwellings. It is a prescriptive code. For those ele-
ments that fall outside of the prescriptive criteria, engineering design
(i.e., using the IBC) is required (See IRC R301.1.3). The IRC does
not have prescriptive provisions for the design and installation of
prefabricated wood trusses, but they are allowed per Section R801.10.
The applicability limits for trusses are found in Section R802.10.2.1.
These must be followed in order to stay within the purview of the
IRC. The limits that apply when snow loads control the design are:
• Building width not greater than 60 feet perpendicular to the
truss span
• Truss span not greater than 36 feet
• Minimum roof slope of 3:12
• Maximum roof slope of 12:12
• Maximum design wind speed of 140 miles per hour (63 m/s),
Exposure B or C
• Maximum ground snow load of 70 psf (3352 Pa), with roof
snow load, computed as 0.7pg
The IBC becomes the governing code for the truss design and
associated load paths if the structure falls outside of these limits (See
IRC R301.1.3).
The following is a summary of the IRC requirements for wood Trusses
(capitalized terms are defined by ANSI/TPI 1-2014, National Design
Standard for Metal Plate Connected Wood Truss Construction, Section
2.2, published by the Truss Plate Institute (TPI)):
• Wood Trusses shall be designed in accordance with accepted
engineering practice, and the design and manufacture of
metal-plated wood Trusses shall comply with ANSI/TPI 1
(R802.10.2). A read-only version of the full ANSI/TPI 1 docu-
ment can be downloaded for free at https://goo.gl/j7cK9E.
• The Truss Design Drawings shall be prepared by a Registered
Design Professional where required by the statutes of the juris-
diction in which the project is to be constructed in accordance
with Section R106.1 (R802.10.2). Note that under the IRC,
both the residence and the wood Truss design could be per-
formed by persons who are not Registered Design Professionals.
24 STRUCTURE magazine
There may be times when the Building Official will require
the Truss Design Drawings to be prepared and stamped by a
Registered Design Professional even though the structure was
not. The key to this IRC provision is that if the jurisdiction
requires the Construction Documents to be prepared by a
Registered Design Professional, then the Truss Design Drawings
shall also be prepared by a Registered Design Professional.
• Truss Design Drawings shall be provided to the Building
Official and approved prior to installation (R802.10.1).
• Truss Design Drawings shall be provided with the shipment of
the Trusses delivered to the job site (R801.10.1).
• Truss Design Drawings shall include the following
information:
o Slope or depth, span, and spacing
o Location of all joints
o Reaction forces and required bearing widths
o Top and bottom chord uniform and concentrated loads
o Joint connector type and description such as size, thickness,
and the dimensioned location of each joint connector
o Lumber size, species, and grade for each member
o Adjustments to lumber and connector design values for
conditions of use
o Connection requirements for Truss to girder and Truss
ply-to-ply
o Calculated deflection ratio and/or maximum description
for live and total load
o Information to allow the Building Designer to design the
size, connections, and anchorage of the permanent con-
tinuous lateral bracing
o Required permanent Truss member bracing locations
• Truss bracing requirements are found in Section R802.10.3.
This section requires Trusses to be braced to prevent rotation
and to provide lateral stability. It allows the bracing require-
ment to be specified in the construction documents or on
the individual Truss design drawings. It also states, “In the
absence of specific bracing requirements, Trusses shall be
braced in accordance with accepted industry practice such
as the SBCA Building Component Safety Information (BCSI)
Guide to Good Practice for Handling, Installing & Bracing
of Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses.” See the Building
Component Safety Information Book (BCSI), which has the
above reference guide as a section. (https://goo.gl/phc1gj or
https://goo.gl/c9YWGb)
The requirements for wood Trusses in the IBC (2303.4) are very
similar to the IRC. Some of the differences include:
1) The IBC specifically addresses environmental design criteria
such as wind, rain, snow, and seismic.
 2) The IBC requires the consideration of drag strut loads and
other lateral loads.
3) The IBC requires specifically listing maximum uplift loads
with the reaction forces.
4) The IBC not only requires the Truss Design Drawings to
show the location of permanent individual Truss member
restraint locations, but it also requires the method and details
of restraint/bracing to be used (2303.4.1.1.14).
5) The bracing requirements of IBC Section 2304.1.2 specifi-
cally allow the use of T-reinforcement or L-reinforcement,
and proprietary reinforcement, so that the buckling of any
individual Truss member is resisted internally by the indi-
vidual Truss. (These are also in ANSI/TPI 1 and the BCSI
document.) The IBC also allows a project-specific permanent
bracing design by any Registered Design Professional.
6) Trusses spanning 60 feet or more require a Registered Design
Professional to design the temporary installation restraint/
bracing and the permanent individual Truss member restraint/
bracing (2303.4.1.3). Special inspection of the Truss member
bracing is also required where a Truss clear span is 60 feet or
greater (1705.5.1).
7) IBC Section 2303.4.5 specifically requires written concur-
rence and approval of a Registered Design Professional before
Truss members and components can be cut, notched, drilled,
spliced, or altered.
ANSI/TPI 1 is the Standard required by both the IRC and the
IBC. It establishes the minimum requirements for the design and
construction of metal-plate-connected wood Trusses. Chapter 2 of
this Standard defines the roles and responsibilities of the various
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
GEOPIER IS GROUND IMPROVEMENT®
players (Owner, Building Designer, Truss Manufacturer, and Truss
Designer), and it is essential to know which role you are playing.
Section 2.2 defines the Building Designer as, “Owner of the Building
or the Person that contracts with the Owner for the design of the
Building Structural System and/or who is responsible for the prepara-
tion of the Construction Documents. When mandated by the Legal
Requirements, the Building Designer shall be a Registered Design
Professional.” Under the IRC, if the jurisdiction does not require the
Building Designer to be an engineer, an Owner or a non-engineer
may play the role of the Building Designer. This could be problematic
because there are technical responsibilities placed on the Building
Designer by ANSI/TPI 1. The Truss Designer is defined as, “Person
responsible for the preparation of the Truss Design Drawings.” When
the Truss Designer is required to be a Registered Design Professional,
the Truss Manufacturer engages this engineer. ANSI/TPI 1 also refer-
ences the BCSI document noted above. It is important to understand
the bracing details in this document. A few key elements of ANSI/
TPI 1, with reference sections in parenthesis, are listed below:
1) The Owner is required to engage a Building Designer in pre-
paring the Construction Documents and reviewing the Truss
Submittal Package (2.3.1.3).
2) The Owner or Owner’s representative shall be responsible for
ensuring that the Truss Submittal Package is reviewed by the
Contractor and the Building Designer (2.3.1.5 and 2.3.4.2).
3) The Construction Documents shall show in detail that they
conform to the Legal Requirement, including the Building
Code (2.3.2.1).
4) The Construction Documents shall list the Truss design as a
Deferred Submittal, and the Building Designer shall review the
GEOPIER GROUND
IMPROVEMENT CONTROLS
STRUCTURE SETTLEMENT
GIVE YOUR STRUCTURE
STABILITY
Work with Geopier’s geotechnical
engineers to solve your ground
improvement challenges. Submit
your project specifications to receive
a customized feasibility assessment
and preliminary cost estimate at
geopier.com/feasibilityrequest.
800-371-7470 • geopier.com
info@geopier.com
M A R C H 2 019 25
 Truss Submittal Package for “compatibility” and “general confor-
mance” with the design of the Building (2.3.2.2 and 2.3.2.3).
5) The Construction Documents shall provide information
sufficiently accurate and reliable to be used for the design
of the Trusses and shall provide among other things “…
the location, direction, and magnitude of all dead, live,
and lateral loads applicable to each Truss, including …
snow drift and unbalanced snow loads” (2.3.2.4.d). (Note
that ANSI/TPI 1 puts the burden of calculating the load
on each Truss, including the snow drift load, on the
Building Designer.)
6) The serviceability criteria shall be included in the
Construction Documents (2.3.2.4.g).
7) Permanent Individual Truss Member Restraint/Bracing shall
be per the BCSI unless the Building Designer specifies a
project-specific bracing design (2.3.3.1.1, 2.3.3.1.2, 2.3.3.1.3,
and 2.3.3.2).
8) Several requirements must be met by the Contractor,
including reviewing the Truss Submittal Package and then
forwarding it to the Building Designer for review. The
Contractor shall not proceed with the Truss installation
until the Truss Submittal Package has been reviewed by the
Building Designer (2.3.4.2 and 2.3.4.3). The contractor must
also check the Trusses for damage both prior to installation
and after installation (2.3.4.6, 2.3.4.7, 2.3.4.8, and 2.3.4.9).
9) The Contractor shall provide to the Truss Manufacturer
a copy of all Construction Documents pertinent to the
Building Structural System and the design of the Trusses,
including the name of the Building Designer if not noted on
the Construction Documents (2.3.4.1).
10) Where the Legal Requirements mandate a Registered Design
Professional for the Building, each individual Truss Design
Drawing shall bear the seal and signature of the Truss
Designer (2.3.5.3). An exception allows only the Cover/Truss
Index Sheet to be stamped.
11) The Truss Designer is only responsible for “individual”
Trusses, not the roof system. Section 2.3.5.2 states, “The Truss
Designer shall be responsible for the design, in accordance
with this Standard, of each singular Truss depicted on the Truss
Design Drawing.” It is critical to understand that, per the TPI
Standard, the Truss Designer does not have the responsibil-
ity to calculate loads for individual Trusses, nor does the Truss
Designer have the responsibility for the roof system.
12) The Truss Submittal Package consists of each individual
Truss Design Drawing, the Truss Placement Diagram, the
Cover/Truss Index Sheet, Lateral Restraint and Diagonal
Bracing details, and any other structural details germane to
the Trusses (2.2).
13) The Truss Placement Diagram is only an illustration identify-
ing the assumed location of each Truss. It does not need to be
stamped because it does not have engineering input (2.3.5.4).
Implementation
1) Building Officials, Contractors, Owners, and Building
Designers should be cognizant of and enforce the require-
ment that the Contractor and the Building Designer review
the Truss Submittal Package prior to the installation of the
Trusses. Building Officials should establish procedures to
ensure that this code requirement is followed.
26 STRUCTURE magazine
2) Many engineering drawings have general notes that require
the Trusses to be designed and stamped by a registered
engineer. It is important to understand that the stamp is for
individual Trusses and not for the Trusses acting together as
a system. Many engineers falsely assume that this stamp is
for the individual Trusses as well as for the roof system.
3) Truss web bracing locations are provided on the Truss
Design Drawings in the Truss Submittal Package. The BCSI
document usually provides the bracing details. Many Truss
webs do not align with adjacent Trusses, making continuous
Lateral Restraint bracing impossible to install. In these cases,
T or L bracing will be required. Construction Documents
should provide details and instructions for when T or L
bracing is required.
4) Truss web bracing is critical to the stability of the roof system,
yet very few residential projects have engineering observation
of completed roof systems. Unless the Truss spans 60 feet or
more, special inspection of the Truss web bracing installation
is not required. This is an area where the code requirements
could be improved.
5) Many projects have general notes that state that snow drift
and unbalanced snow loading are required to be considered
in the Truss design, but the Construction Documents do
not provide the actual values of the snow drift loads and the
unbalanced loads for each Truss. This is contrary to ANSI/
TPI 1, Section 2.3.2.4(d). It is important to understand that
the responsibility for calculating and providing the loads
applied to each Truss rests with the Building Designer.
6) A functioning roof system is the responsibility of the Building
Designer and consists of Trusses, bracing, blocking, connec-
tions to structure, diaphragms, and an understanding of the
load path of all forces. The Truss Submittal Package is only
one piece of the system.
7) If a portion of the roof system falls outside of the scope of
the IRC, then that portion, including the associated load
paths, will require engineering analysis. If the Building
Designer is not an engineer, then an engineer who is not fill-
ing the role of the Building Designer could be engaged for
a limited scope to design and stamp the elements that fall
outside of the scope of the IRC.
This article intends to educate engineers about the roles and division of
responsibilities for residential wood Trusses. It is critical to understand
the specific scope of the Truss Designer as defined in ANSI/TPI 1. The
Truss Designer is responsible for individual Truss Design Drawings using
loading information obtained from the Truss Manufacturer, who gets
information from the Contractor in the form of selected information
from the Construction Documents. The Building Designer is respon-
sible for ensuring that the Truss loads given to the Truss Designer are
accurate. The Building Designer is also responsible for ensuring that
all Trusses act together as a roof system. All players need to understand
and fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in ANSI/TPI 1 in order to
achieve a safe and code-conforming building.
Look for a forum piece in an upcoming issue of STRUCTURE
where the author will share his experiences, opinions, and rec-
ommendations to improve the practice.■
Brent Maxfield is a Civil/Structural Engineer with the Special Projects
Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake
City, Utah. (maxfieldba@ldschurch.org)
THE FULL HARDY FRAME SPECTRUM
®

OF LATERAL LOAD SOLUTIONS

Whether you’re looking for wind and seismic code compliance, or just a design that opens larger architectural openings,
MiTek’s Hardy Frame product line now offers seven products in a “full load spectrum” offering of engineered solutions.

SPECTRUM OF SOLUTIONS

SHEAR SHEAR PANEL CFS MOMENT FRAME MOMENT FRAME CFS PICTURE FRAME PICTURE FRAME Z4 TIE-DOWN
PANEL BACK TO BACK *Pictured Above SYSTEM

MiTek® Leading in Lateral™

See the complete lateral line at HardyFrame.com
C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 19 M I T E K I N D U S T R I E S , I N C . A L L R I G H T S R E S E R V E D
 structural PRACTICES
Floor Design Considerations
Preventing Tile and Stone Cracks
By Frank Woeste, P.E., and Peter Nielsen
T wo kinds of designers are sometimes involved in home con-
struction – design professionals responsible for the structure
and interior-focused designers responsible for the final appearance.
Although these roles can overlap, it is important for design profes-
sionals to be aware of in-service demands that will result from interior
finish choices.
There are three aspects of floor design likely to impact the perfor-
mance of ceramic tile and stone installations in-service:
1) The use of an adequate design dead load, which includes the
weight of the hard-surface installation method,
2) The relative importance of joist stiffness and sheathing stiffness
in preventing cracks, and
3) Accounting for substantial concentrated loads, such as the weight
of kitchen islands with stone or polished concrete surfaces.
This article reviews these three aspects and offers guidance for design-
ers and others interested in the structural performance of their products
after construction.
Floors Supporting Tile and Stone
If the dead load (weight) of tile or stone “Installation Methods” by
Design Professionals (DPs) are inadequately specified, wood-frame
floors can be over-stressed in-service and excessive “creep deflection”
can occur that causes cracked grout and tiles in-service. Specifying
an adequate dead (sustained) load is essential for a reliable hard
surface installation.
One way to think of “creep deflection” is to imagine an overloaded
shelf in a bookcase. Over time, the weight of the books can cause
the shelf to bow. The deformation is not visible immediately, but
the damage can be permanent. In the case of a floor, not only is the
effect on the floor itself an issue, but also the effect on the floor-
ing. The “creep” occurs beneath the flooring, so the flooring is no
longer on top of a level surface and the result can be cracking of
tiles and grout.
Weight of Hard-Surface Installation Methods
Dead load data for the weights of tile and stone installations have been
tabulated in Appendix B of the 2017 Tile Council of North America
(TCNA) Handbook
for Ceramic, Glass, and
Stone Tile Installation
(https://goo.gl/9acfZE).
Appendix B is an invalu-
able design resource that
contains the typical weight
of dozens of “Installation
Methods” for ceramic and
glass tile (hereafter, tile) and
stone installed on wood-
floor framing. Figure 1. A portion of IRC Table R502.3.1(2).
28 STRUCTURE magazine
In Table 1, the
Installation Method
Dead Load is the weight
of the materials above
the subfloor. Total Dead Figure 2. Depiction of stresses induced from the
Load in the rightmost bending action of joists and sheathing/substrates.
column is based on an
assumed dead load of 10 psf for the subfloor, joist, and ceiling.
As shown in Table 1, a design dead load of 10 psf is not adequate when
the floor covering is tile or stone. This structural issue requires the atten-
tion of all professionals involved in the specification of the hard surface/
installation method, floor system design, and for framing inspectors.
An excerpt from the IRC, the International Residential Code,
indicates that an inadequate assumed dead load could be a “code issue”
with respect to maximum span (Figure 1) and, in addition, the extra
loading can contribute to additional creep deflection that can result
in tile, stone, and grout cracks.
The content of the IRC table suggests why the 2015 IRC span table
for joists has two sections – one for an assumed dead load of 10 psf
(carpet, vinyl, wood) and the other for a dead load of 20 psf (typical
residential hard surfaces).
Tile Cracks
Tile cracks typically form on top of and parallel to the joist. The
primary practical question is: With respect to floor design, what is
more important for protecting tile or stone from potential cracking:
joist deflection/stiffness (L/xxx) or floor sheathing thickness/stiffness?
From engineering science for a beam (Bretzfield and Woeste, 2003),
1/ρ = M/EI
where ρ is the “radius of curvature” of the beam at the location of
bending moment (M), and EI is joist stiffness.
To translate the expression, the amount of “bend” at any cross-section
of a floor joist (or sheathing) span is proportional to the bending
moment divided by the product of the modulus of elasticity (E) and
moment of inertia (I) of the section. Referring to Figure 2 and the
tile depicted, joists and subfloor/substrates with the largest possible
ρ will minimize the stresses induced in the tile from bending action
of the joists and sheathing/substrates, respectively.
 1) Floor sheathing bend, as determined by (1/ρ) under a concen-
trated load, is about 23X greater than the bend of the joist under
60 psf uniform live and dead load.
2) Based on field evidence and engineering analyses (presented
above), the structural designer for floor areas supporting tile or
stone should place the greater emphasis on subfloor/sheathing
specification relative to joist framing specifications.
3) The analyses and recommendation as summarized above did
not include the impact of end butt-joints in the subfloor and
Figure 3. Cross-sectional view of the test specimen assembly of the Robinson-Type
Floor Tester (ASTM C627).
the impact of differential joist deflection due to concentrated
loads, girders, and points of bearing that can cause differential
deflections of framing.
Bend of Joists Verses Sheathing
Practical Specifications for
Joist Bend Calculations
Concentrated Floor Loads
Using a total floor load of 60 psf, the authors calculated the radius
of curvature, ρ, for several IRC joist spans at maximum bending For ceramic tile, the 2017 TCNA Handbook has “deflection require-
moment. The results are given in Table 2, page 30. ments” listed for all framed floor system Installation Methods that
The average radius of curvature for the joists is about 7,000 inches. cites the IRC and International Building Code (IBC), as well the
following requirement:
Sheathing Bend Calculations
“For ceramic tile installations, maximum allowable floor member
The ASTM C627 standard for testing tile installation methods live load and concentrated load deflection for framed floor systems
includes a rotating platform that applies up to 300 pounds at three shall not exceed L/360, where “L” is the clear span length of the
locations (Figure 3). supporting member per applicable building code.”
The test does not include the deflection of the joists and butt joints in Given this language, uniform live load and concentrated load deflec-
the subfloor and underlayment that are present in an actual construc- tions in residential/multi-family applications are a requirement for the
tion. Likewise, the calculations below represent a best case scenario “supporting member” or floor framing system. The TCNA “concen-
for an actual tile installation because a constructed floor contains trated load deflection” requirement is in addition to the requirements
joists that deflect under loads and the floor sheathing is butted at of the applicable IRC, as the authors are not aware of a concentrated
the 4- x 8-foot panel ends. dead-load deflection requirement in the 2015 IRC (or earlier edi-
The authors calculated ρ for four (wood sheathing) installation tions). Knowing that concentrated loads such as kitchen islands may
methods using the following assumptions: be shown on the Construction Documents, it is incumbent upon
1) A 300-pound concentrated load in the first sheathing span at the design team to specify concentrated loads for the Component
the point of maximum moment, and Manufacturer’s (CM) use (if trusses or I-joists are specified) or other
2) No composite action between the subfloor and underlayment. measures to address the expected deflection from concentrated loads.
For the first wood sheathing span under a 300-pound concentrated An example of a modern and large kitchen island in residential
load, ρ (calculated) for four TCNA Methods was about 300 inches. construction is shown in Figure 4, page 30. The framing design ques-
The following statements summarize the relative importance of joist tion is – given the footprint of the island, what is a reasonable dead
stiffness (L/xxx) versus sheathing stiffness. load specification?
The density of natural stone can
Table 1. Sample of Installation Methods from the 2017 TCNA Handbook. vary between 160 and 200 lbs/ft2.
Installation Total Dead Load As such, a stone thickness of 1¼
Page
TCNA Method
Description
Method Dead (Framing, drywall, inches (30 mm) can weigh between
Number Load above and subfloor, 16.7 and 20.8 psf. Considering the
“Subfloor” (psf ) 10 psf assumed)
weight of the cabinet, doors, and
138 RH122-17
16” oc, 23⁄32” T&G Ply. Subfloor
19 29 shelves, the island weight without
¾” Gyp Underlayment Hydronic Tubing contents approaches 30 psf (a sus-
16” oc, 19⁄32” T&G Ply. Subfloor tained load).
150 F141-17 21 31
1¼” Mortar Bed The fact that it is a “sustained
16” oc, 19⁄32” T&G Subfloor, 15⁄32” load” is significant, as sustained
158 F150-17 7 17 loads cause creep. Assuming the
Ply. Underlayment
16” oc, 19⁄32 or 23⁄32” T&G Ply.
total dead load of the island with
162 F144-17 8, 9, or 10 18-20 contents is 40 psf, it should not
Cement Backer Board, ¼, 7⁄16, or ½”
be considered equivalent to a 40
24” oc, 23⁄32” T&G Ply. Subfloor,
174 F149-17 19
⁄32” Underlayment
7 17 psf live-load due to creep deflec-
tion from sustained loads. Simply
F250-17 16” oc, 19⁄32” T&G Ply. Subfloor, 15⁄32” Ply. stated, an L/360 design based
358 11-14 21-24
(Natural Stone) Underlayment, and (various) Backer Board Products
on a 40 psf live-load can experi-
F180-17
16” oc, 23⁄32” T&G Ply. Subfloor, Poured Gypsum
12 (Add 2¼ psf ence additional creep deflection
182 Ceramic Tile, per additional ¼” 22 in-service due to a 40 psf “sus-
Underlayment (Min. ¾”), Bonded Membrane
Glass Tile poured gypsum)
tained load” with the actual joist

M A R C H 2 019 29
 Table 2. Radius of curvature (ρ) for 2015 IRC maximum spans for 2x10 No. 2 Southern Pine joists and 40-20 psf to differential deflection of the joists
loading (and L/360 live-load deflection limit). (and to improve the likely vibrational
Live Load Dead Load Joist Spacing Span (max) M ρ = EI/M performance of floors as well).
(psf ) (psf ) (in.) (ft-in) (in-lb) (in.) 1 5) Offer Customers (homebuyers and
owners) floor framing and subfloor
40 20 16 12-10 19,761 6,983 “upgrades” for added protection
40 20 19.2 11-8 19,600 7,041 against the likelihood of tile and
grout cracks and annoying floor
40 20 24 10-5 19,531 7,066
vibrations.
1
EI for 2x10 No.2 Southern Pine equals 98.93 in4 x1,400,000 lb/in2, or 1.38x108 in2-lb. See 2015 NDS Supplement, Historically, the design rules in resi-
pp.14 and 40, for 2x10 design data. dential construction building codes
addressed a concern for plaster crack-
Table 3. Radius of curvature (ρ) for first sheathing span at maximum bending moment when loaded by a 300 lb ing (L/360 live-load only deflection)
concentrated load as applied in the ASTM C627 test of installation methods. (Note: For joists spaced 16 inches and a floor collapse (40 live load plus
on-center, M=927 in-lb; for joists spaced 24 inches on-center, M=1301 in-lb.) 10 psf dead load) when solid-sawn joists
2017 TCNA Joist Spacing Subfloor T&G Underlayment Uncoupling and wood flooring were the norms.
ρ = (EI/M)
Method (in.) (in.) (in.) Membrane Fast-forward 100 years, longer joist
F144 CBB spans, hard surfaces (ceramic, glass,
Residential
16 19
⁄32
¼
-- 221 and stone), and large kitchen islands
are common, yet the current IRC does
F144 CBB not include provisions to address the
16 23
⁄32 -- 345
Light Comm. ¼ intrinsically inelastic nature of hard sur-
F147 24 23
⁄32 3
⁄8 Yes 284 face flooring. To do so, the design team
must take into account concentrated
F149 24 23
⁄32 19
⁄32 Optional 404 floor loads and total load deflection to
mitigate the serviceability issues that
stem from the use of hard surface floor-
deflection approaching L/180 (using a creep factor of 2.0 for trusses ing. Hopefully, this article will motivate a coordinated effort by design
from ANSI/TPI 1-2014). For seasoned lumber, structural glued teams to address serviceability issues for modern construction with
laminated timber, prefabricated wood I-Joists, or structural composite hard surface flooring.■
lumber used in dry service conditions, a creep factor of 1.5 is required. A version of this article written for wood-framing/truss designers appeared
in the June 2018 issue of The Component Manufacturing Advertiser.
Conclusions
The online version of this article contains a detailed reference.
The design of residential and multi-family floors has become more com- Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
plicated due to the widespread use of hard surfaces and the placement of
heavy items, such as large kitchen islands, in the center section of fram- Frank Woeste is a Professor Emeritus, Virginia Tech, and a wood
ing spans. When the uniform and concentrated loads, including creep construction consultant. (fwoeste@vt.edu)
deflection, are not adequately accounted for in the floor system design,
in-service performance issues of the hard surfaces can be expected. Peter Nielsen is a co-founder of MGNT Products Group, LLC, a consulting
Based on analyses and experience, the following suggestions are and product design company for the tile and construction industry.
offered for consideration by the design team. (nielsentile@gmail.com)
1) Prepare Construction Documents that contain:
a) the TCNA tile/stone Installation Method,
b) the weight of the installation method, and
c) the footprint and weight of kitchen islands (and other
heavy equipment such as large front-loading washers).
2) Require floor system designs based on a “total load” that
includes the actual weight of the TCNA Installation Method
for the hard surface listed in the Construction Documents.
3) Upgrade the subfloor thickness above the thickness specified for
the TCNA Installation Method in the Construction Documents
to improve the predicted bending behavior of the floor sheathing
under a 300-pound concentrated load. (For example, a 23⁄32-inch
T&G plywood panel has a bending stiffness (EI) of 320,000
(lbf-in.2/ft) when installed as a subfloor, whereas a 7⁄8-inch panel
has an EI of 500,000 (lbf-in.2/ft). The EI of a 7⁄8-inch subfloor
panel is 1.56 times greater than the EI of the 23⁄32-inch panel, thus
providing substantially more protection for the hard surfaces.) Figure 4. Kitchen island oriented parallel to the floor framing. For this case, almost
4) Require strongback bracing for floor trusses to protect tile the entire weight of the island would be supported by two framing members at 24
and stone floors against potential hard surface damage due inches on-center.

30 STRUCTURE magazine
 NORTHRIDGE
Performance-Based
Earthquake Design
Lessons Learned from a Building Code Option
By Chris D. Poland S.E., FASCE-SEI, NAE
P erformance-Based Earthquake Design (PBD) has become
a standardized process in Structural and Earthquake
Engineering with the publication of the American Society of
Civil Engineers Standard ASCE 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE 41). It represents a shift
from the prescriptive code provisions of the past that are silent
about what they achieve, to a design tool that meets the varying
needs of the public by targeting specific performance objectives.
The need for a new approach was formally recognized after the 1989
Loma Prieta Earthquake and became a nationally funded effort after
the 1994 Northridge Earthquake (Northridge). Those moderate
earthquakes proved that the then current design standards saved lives.
However, the public declared on multiple fronts that the extent of
damage was unexpected and too expensive to repair, and therefore
unacceptable. Thanks to the tireless work of the Applied Technology
Council (ATC) and their hundreds of volunteer experts and millions of
dollars of funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), ASCE 41 stands today as a significant PBD tool that can
be used by Structural Engineers to achieve acceptable performance
and improve the resilience of communities.
Moving the profession from the prescriptive, non-committal, seis-
mic design rules of the 1960s to PBD was, and continues to be, very
controversial and contentious. Some believed that the simplicity
of the existing codes was enough to guide the expert judgment of
the designers. Others argued that there was too much uncertainty
in the entire PBD process to declare the anticipated performance.
Unspoken was a need to hide under the building code’s mandate to
protect the public. Still, others believed that while designing to vari-
ous performance levels was possible; the potential liability was too
high. Many feared to be sued out of business after the next major
earthquake if expectations were not met. Fortunately, the earthquake
design profession is protected by consensus-based codes and standards,
including ASCE-41, that define the “state of the practice” the courts
use to judge liability.
While structural engineers recognized that their design provisions
had achieved life-safety, there were a handful of specific examples
of performance that got everyone’s attention. Excessive damage to
multi-story wood frame buildings and the collapse of the three-story
Northridge Meadows Apartments (Figure 1) demanded new analysis
techniques, design procedures, and detailed provisions. The damage
to the apartments not only illustrated the collapse potential of code
permitted soft-first story construction, but also the deficiencies in
the design of shear walls and diaphragms. While concrete buildings
32 STRUCTURE magazine
25 YEARS LATER
Figure 1. Damage to the Northridge Meadows Apartments.
designed after the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake generally performed
well, there was excessive damage and even collapse for newly designed
parking garages with precast elements (Figure 2). Precast elements,
while tied together for the then-code-level forces, did not perform
as well as the cast-in-place concrete structures where the intercon-
nection is continuous and not the weak link. New code provisions
were needed to assure that the precast elements were adequately
designed and interconnected. Within a year of the Northridge earth-
quake, over 100 steel moment resisting frame buildings were found
to have a significant number of weld fractures in the beam-column
connections that compromised their strength and ability to resist
future earthquakes. A multi-year research and testing program fol-
lowed, completely changing analysis, design, and detailing procedures.
Damage to existing non-ductile concrete buildings as shown in Figure 3
demanded that attention be given to older, non-conforming build-
ings. Vision 2000, Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings
(Structural Engineers Association of California, 1995), cataloged these
lessons. ASCE 41 has incorporated the evaluation of these and many
other deficiencies in its four styles of evaluation and material specific
acceptance criteria. The earthquake occurred just months before the
needed seismic retrofit of this building was scheduled to begin.
The Vision 2000 committee was organized in 1992 and, after
Northridge, received a grant from the California Office of Emergency
services to formally develop PBD recommendations. By 1995, the
team of 20 academic and design professionals published a conceptual
framework and interim recommendations in their report, Vision
2000. They knew it was feasible to design and construct buildings
that would not experience damage in the most severe earthquakes,
but believed it was unnecessary and uneconomical. It was judged to
be more prudent to design to varying levels of performance depend-
ing on the occupancy of the building, its importance to community
response and recovery, and the economic viability of investing in
reducing future losses. The committee formalized the process and
vocabulary used today to define earthquake design levels, performance
levels, and performance objectives Their design framework begins with
Figure 2. Collapse of the precast concrete parking garage at Northridge Fashion Center.
site selection followed by a three-stage design process (Tiers 1 to 3),
design review, and quality assurance during construction. The Vision
2000 report stands as the foundation for ASCE 41.
Vision 2000 also looked closely at the performance of buildings in
and around strong motion recording stations as a means of testing the
consistency and accuracy of the analysis and design provisions used
in the past. The structural and non-structural performance of almost
200 building were surveyed and cataloged using a comprehensive
data gathering form that included 10 levels of damage (10 being fully
functional and 1 being collapse) that matched the Vision 2000 perfor-
mance descriptions. While the sample size is not statistically balanced
and focuses on damaged buildings, the results were judged acceptable
enough to draw general conclusions. Of the most significant conclusions
related to structural performance was the observation that buildings
designed to modern codes had little impact on the average performance
of the structural system. Also, for non-structural performance, no cor-
relation was observed between the damage recorded and the ages of the
building or their design to modern standards; Vision 2000 is filled with
additional information. Refined analysis and design techniques were
needed for PBD’s goal of producing predictable performance. ASCE
41 provides 2 force-based and 2 displacement analysis procedures that
better predict the expected damaged to a wide variety of structural
systems and material types. A new generation of non-structural evalu-
ation procedures are also provided.
The 1971 San Fernando Earthquake demonstrated that the provisions
being used for the design of new buildings did not yield the desired
results. The earthquake also generated hundreds of strong motion
records that cataloged the variation in strong shaking across the region.
The ground motion records showed that the shaking was much larger
than expected and demonstrated the need for a new process for defin-
ing the design ground motions based on the relationship between
the strong motion records and the observed damage. By 1980, such
a process had been developed and has since formed the basis of the
International Building Code (IBC) in use today.
The 1971 earthquake also signaled the need to do something about
the seismic resilience of the existing building stock. With the updated
design process for new buildings in place, FEMA began to focus on
design standards for the evaluation and rehabilitation of existing
buildings. A landmark workshop held in Tempe, Arizona, produced
an action plan that would eventually result in ASCE 41. It began as a
conceptual framework followed by a development guide that resolved
the major controversial issues (ATC 28), a published guideline (ATC
33/FEMA 273), a pre-standard suitable for the America National
Standards Institute (ANSI) balloting process (FEMA 356) and, finally,
Figure 3. Damage to this non-ductile concrete frame building.
published as an ANSI approved standard in 2006 as ASCE 41-06. It
was immediately recognized as an acceptable PBD tool by the State
of California for use in the SB 1953 Hospital Retrofit Program and
by the IBC a few years later.
In parallel with the development work that led to ASCE 41-06,
FEMA sponsored the transition of FEMA 178, Handbook for the
Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, from a guideline to the
pre-standard FEMA 310, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of
Buildings – A Pre-standard. ASCE subsequently balloted the pre-
standard and published ASCE 31, Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings. ASCE 31 and 41 then became widely used standards
for the evaluation and rehabilitation of existing buildings. As they
gained acceptance and popularity, engineers also used ASCE 41-06
as a PBD tool for the design of new buildings under the alternate
design procedures clause in the IBC. Because ASCE 31, ASCE 41,
and ASCE 7 were developed under different programs and did not
share a common origin, they were not universally compatible. In
the worst cases, a building found to meet the life safety standards
of ASCE 31 when evaluated did not meet the same performance
objective specified in ASCE 41.
Further, the characterization of seismic hazards in ASCE 41 did
not match the characterization in ASCE 7, the basis for the IBC.
These inconsistencies became barriers to the use of ASCE 41-style
PBD but were eventually reconciled. ASCE 41 now stands as a
consistent PBD tool that is accepted by the IBC as suitable for
new building design.
Following the lessons learned in the San Fernando and Northridge
earthquakes, Vision 2000 saw that a single set of design provisions
that would be used for both new building design and existing build-
ing rehabilitation was important. Unfortunately, since they were
developed under different programs, only ASCE 41 became a PBD
standard. The controversy continues as to whether ASCE 7 and the
IBC should fully embrace and incorporate the PBD process as out-
lined in ASCE 41. Fortunately, engineers can and should choose to
use ASCE 41’s PBD on all their projects, either as a design tool or
validation tool after the design is complete, because of the defined
performance expectations. Either way, it is critical to the resilience
of buildings and communities that structural engineers determine
and declare the performance that is expected during design
level and extreme level earthquakes, so their clients can
invest wisely and their communities can plan accordingly.■
Chris D. Poland is a Consulting Engineer in Canyon Lake, California.
(cpoland@cdpce.com)
M A R C H 2 019 33
 STORY SURVIVOR
THE
OF A

SAND PALACE OF MEXICO BEACH

By John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

H urricane Michael, one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes to ever make landfall in the contiguous United States, made a
direct hit on Mexico Beach, Florida, on October 10, 2018. The Category 4 storm strengthened unexpectedly as it raced
through the Gulf of Mexico with maximum wind speeds of 155 mph. At landfall in Mexico Beach, the measured storm surge was
nearly 16 feet and, if wave height is added, the height of the wall of water was over 20 feet. The storm caused 45 deaths and
resulted in damage of approximately $15 billion.

In Mexico Beach, almost all of the homes along the beach were
destroyed by the wind and waves and swept away. However, one
building along the shoreline (Figure 1) remained standing, alone in
a field of devastation. Several news reports, including coverage in the
Figure 1. Sand Palace after the hurricane.
New York Times, suggested that, from an engineering perspective,
something unique had occurred and was worthy of further investiga-
tion. This attracted STRUCTURE’s attention.
So, John Dal Pino, Chair of the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial
Board, tracked down the building’s owners, Russell
King of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Lebron Lackey
of Cleveland, Tennessee, and their structural engineer
Southeastern Consulting Engineers of Wewahitchka,
Florida, to learn the full story. The Southeastern
Consulting Engineers (SCE) team consisted of co-owners
Jack Husband, President, Lance Watson, Vice President,
and Matthew DeVito, Project Manager and lead engineer.
Unbeknownst to the owners, working closely with
SCE, performance-based design concepts were employed
to design and build a genuinely sturdy building that
satisfied their own goals for performance and longevity
while also conforming with the local building code. The
evolving trend toward using performance-based concepts
to increase the likelihood of achieving a specific set of
goals is being used more frequently and something worth
highlighting when it is performed successfully, all the
more so when it is done by non-specialist owners (Mr.
King is an attorney, and Mr. Lackey is a physician).
As you might imagine, the owners are very busy recover-
ing as is SCE with their other clients, so we are grateful
for their time. Lance Watson mentioned that his own
home was flooded with three feet of water.

34 STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2. Concrete base – beams and piles.
What first got you concerned about building performance?
Lackey/King: We have each owned several homes, but we had
always purchased existing buildings. The house in Mexico Beach
was going to be our first new, ground up building. We had decided
that we wanted a vacation house and wanted to build something
that would stay in the family for several generations, say 100
years or so. Russell had visited Costa Rica in the past and had
noticed that a lot of the properties were constructed from con-
crete. Media coverage of climate change and the expectation that
tropical storms were going to be more frequent and more intense
also got our attention.
Were you concerned that the building code was not
adequate for your situation?
Lackey/King: No. We did not believe that the building code was
inadequate, but we did believe it only represented a minimum. We
knew the code was a compromise document that was drafted by many
different groups that did not necessarily share our goals.
What was your overall performance goal? Did you do
your own research, or did you rely on the advice and
expertise of your engineers?
Lackey/King: The survivability of the
building in a major hurricane, you
might call it the Big One, was our pri-
mary concern and the driver behind all
of our decisions. We came up with that
goal ourselves as we thought about the
longevity we desired and factored in the
news stories about storms.
Did you start with a completed
design and then make changes, or
did the process evolve differently?
Lackey/King: We worked with local
designers to come up with an architec-
tural floor plan that we liked. Then we
worked with our structural engineers to
come up with a design for the building
focused on survivability as the goal and
what made sense to us. Only then did we Figure 4. Wood floor trusses.
Figure 3. ICF walls.
worry about the code. We had our engineers confirm that we had
satisfied the code.
Would you describe the building’s structural system?
SCE: The base of the building consists of 12-inch square precast,
pre-stressed concrete piles that cantilever upward from the bearing
stratum below the surface beach sands. Atop the piles, there are
precast concrete beams that support the exterior and interior walls.
(See Figure 2 for the base of the pile base of the structure and the
concrete beams at the first elevated floor.) The beams are attached
to the piles with epoxied #10 reinforcing steel bars for uplift and
shear transfer. The perimeter walls are constructed using Insulated
Concrete Forms (ICF) with a seven-inch thick concrete wall inside
with a single layer of #5 bars at 18 inches on center, each way (Figure
3). There are 2½ inches of insulation on each side for a total thick-
ness of 12 inches. The interior walls are non-bearing wood stud.
The floors and roof are constructed with pre-manufactured wood
trusses (Figure 4 ).
Wind naturally controls lateral force design. What were
the pressures?
SCE: The building code wind pressures are based on a 140 mph
wind speed. On an allowable stress basis, the windward and leeward
wind pressures are 34 pounds per square
foot (psf ) and 19 psf respectively. The
sidewall pressures were 24 psf. The roof
uplift pressure was 30 psf.
Would you describe the
interaction between the owners
and the engineers? How did you
decide what changes to make and
what parts of the building were
modified?
Lackey/King: We started at the founda-
tions and went through all of the major
elements and evaluated them in terms of
their contribution to survivability.
We started with the piles. It turned out
that 40-foot piles did not cost much
more and allowed us to penetrate the
more solid ground beneath the sand, so
M A R C H 2 019 35

Figure 5. Nearing completion.
that is what was built. 50-foot piles were much more expensive,
because of handling and trucking, so we decided against them. The
extra length in the piles, since they are cantilevers, added signifi-
cantly to the lateral strength of the building and better protected
against scour for a small cost. We wanted to have a solid slab-on-
grade but learned that everything in the path of the storm surge
needs to be designed to break away to protect the piles and the
superstructure. Some of the only damage the building sustained
was where the slab did not break away cleanly and contacted the
piers, producing some cracking.
Then we focused on the walls. Our engineers told us that plywood
sheathed wood stud walls would work but, thinking back to Costa
Rica, we opted for insulated concrete form (ICF) walls. Our engineers
told us that they would withstand 235 to 240 mile per hour winds,
which sounded good to us. The doors and windows were custom made
in Ocala, Florida, to the 140 mph, 4-pound-projectile Miami Dade
County criteria. This is not 235 mph, but it was the best available.
We focused on potential weak points and made sure that the wall
piers had two-foot-wide minimum widths and that a door or window
failure would not compromise the entire building.
Lastly, we focused on the roof. It was
robustly designed using multiple factors of
safety to account for any construction errors,
unprecedented storm events, and more to
provide an exceptional design in the event of
an unforeseen act of nature. Particular focus
was placed on the eave design because our
engineers told us that the eave design had
a significant influence on survivability. It
turned out that a hipped roof is better than
a gable roof. We made the eaves as small as
possible, about 12 inches, and enclosed the
soffits to minimize the forces on the roof.
Then we had the roof trusses secured to the
concrete walls with Simpson Strong-Tie hur-
ricane tie-downs which were conservatively
designed.
If we might ask, how much more did
the design changes cost and what
impact was there on schedule?
Lackey/King: The cost premium turned
out to be 15% to 20% on a per square Sand Palace owners, Mr. Lackey (left), Mr. King (right).
foot basis over the cost of an equivalent, existing building in the
same area. We evaluated many options and, if the extra cost was
reasonable and we thought it represented an upgrade, we went
with it, while always keeping an eye on the overall cost. We actu-
ally found that some elements, such as the ICF walls, did not cost
that much more at all because the extra material costs are offset
by lower labor costs. The ICF also had the side benefit of better
insulation and resulted in lower insurance costs. We calculated
that the on-going cost savings would offset the original extra
costs in six to eight years. There was no noticeable impact on the
project schedule. The cost of the lot is also the same regardless
of what is built. (The building at the time of near completion is
shown in Figure 5.)
What advice would you have for other owners seeking to
mitigate specific risks?
Lackey/King: We did not have any special skills going into this
process (it was our first house remember). It just takes asking the
right questions and the ability to analyze alternatives rationally
and not emotionally. Spend time talking with your structural
engineer so that you understand why things are the way they are
and what you get with minimum code compliance. Understand
the local risks (wind, earthquake or flood) and then build to
match your own goals and comfort level so that you can sleep at
night. Also, we recommend that owners stay personally involved
throughout the construction process. If you live far away, hire a
local representative. Just do not be an absentee owner. You need
to have eyes and ears on the site continuously to make sure that
the contractor follows the plans and builds in the quality that the
structural engineer designed. We installed cameras on site so we
could watch the contractor and monitor progress. These cameras
also let us watch the building go through the storm.
Any last words?
Lackey/King: For us, function always won out over form. Before
Hurricane Michael, we would not have said that we had the prettiest
house in Mexico Beach but, after Michael, it would seem
we have the only house still standing in Mexico Beach.■

36 STRUCTURE magazine
 WHY JOIN ACI?
American Concrete Institute is a leading authority for the development, distribution,
and adoption of consensus-based standards, technical resources, educational programs,
and proven expertise for those committed to pursuing the best use of concrete.
We are always advancing!

NETWORKING
Networking with our powerful
community of over 30,000
concrete professionals

INFLUENCE E MBER
Shape concrete M
knowledge
through ACI
committee
EXPERTISE
participation Receive free
access to ACI’s
BE
NEFIT
200+ guides
S

and reports

Gain a competitive edge with

access to our continuing education
resources including ACIU

LEARNING

248.848.3800 | www.concrete.org/membership
JOIN ACI
 ADDING A
Parking
Basement
After-the-Fact
Top-Down, Post-Tensioned Concrete
Solution Drives Success in Boston
Congested site between adjacent State House and condominiums. By Carol Hayek, Ph.D., MBA, and Tony Salem

T he picturesque Beacon Hill conservation area in Boston is home to some of the most

historic and prestigious buildings in the city. The area is characterized by narrow streets
and Federal-style façades that are protected as part of Boston’s rich heritage.

This was the challenging location for a project involving the conver-
sion of two townhouses – numbers 6 and 7 Mount Vernon – into
luxury 21st-century properties, along
with a building to the rear which was
converted into luxury condos. Sea-Dar
Construction was the general contractor
for the project. The developer’s vision was
to create a parking basement for the reno-
vated properties by excavating beneath
the two townhouses while preserving the
existing above-ground structure.
The Challenges
The plan for a basement parking lot was
viewed as the ideal solution to provide
parking spaces. Due to the limited space
of the location and the restrictions on
any exterior modifications to the prop-
erties because of their conservation area
location, restrictions had been placed on
creating exterior, ground-level parking.
The underground parking solution
presented numerous challenges, how-
ever. While plans for the townhouses
included internal remodeling, there was
a project-critical requirement to retain
the façades and some of the internal
structural walls, so it was vital that the
excavations did not cause any adverse
structural movement. Moreover, the buildings share structural
walls with neighboring properties and are sandwiched between the
Interwoven post-tensioning tendons.
Parkman House, where the Mayor of
Boston entertains guests, and the gold-
domed Massachusetts State House.
Consequently, any movement or struc-
tural damage caused by the excavations
would affect these buildings too.
The location also involved design and
buildability challenges. Modifications
to the external aspect of the proper-
ties had to be ‘in keeping’ with the
local architectural context and origi-
nal design, and the narrow streets
severely restricted vehicle movements,
size of the equipment, and any cranage
requirements.
The underground parking lot was
designed with a ground-level entrance
and a vehicle elevator to accommodate
the heritage restrictions. The engineer-
ing and construction team needed to
develop a solution that would avoid
structural movement and support the
structure above both during the excava-
tions and post-construction. The design
also had to overcome the logistical
restrictions and enable large spans to
allow 14 parking bays and associated
vehicle movement.

38 STRUCTURE magazine
 excavation of the parking basement, a top-down approach was an
Initial Proposals ideal way to protect the façade and adjoining buildings, as the exca-
The initial parking garage design proposed the use of structural steel vation would be carried out after the post-tensioned slab was already
beams to hold the existing structure in place. This required install- in place, enabling it to support the above-ground structure and brace
ing the beams after the structure had been temporarily shored by the retaining elements.
carrying out an extensive needling process of the existing structural
brick walls and underpinning of the existing foundations to allow
for the excavation. It was clear that this initial plan did not take
Build Methodology
into consideration the implications of the structure’s integrity, the The original wooden ground-level floor was removed, an opening
significant logistical constraints, or the project schedule. was created in the wall to enable the piling works, and closely drilled
Needling through existing old brick structural walls would have mini piles were drilled around the internal perimeter of the external
been very risky. Also, the weight of the structural steel beams would wall. These piles were specified to enable post-excavations of 10 feet
have made it close to impossible to get
them into the building and maneuver
them into position.
The time and cost implications were
extremely onerous. Sea-Dar Construction
estimated that the underpinning works
alone would take up to six months, and
there was likely to be a wait and a cost
premium for the right expertise. Added
to those program and labor costs was
the excessive price of the steel itself, due
to the weight and number of structural
beams required.
Finally, there was a significant design
issue. Due to the depth of the steel
members and the height clearance
needed for the basement, the ini-
tial design proposal would also have
required deeper excavations.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

A New Approach
Sea-Dar Construction began brainstorm-
ing alternative approaches and proposed
a top-down construction program that
would enable the above-ground structure
to be supported without underpinning
during the excavations. A post-tensioned
slab was the obvious answer, and Sea-
Dar Construction brought in CCL to
advise on feasibility and design a suitable
solution.
It became clear that, by combining
mini piles with a flat post-tensioned
transfer slab tied into the structural
walls, the above-ground structure could
be supported both during the excava-
tion and post-construction, in addition
to providing the large span required
for an open-plan basement with just
two support columns. This option
overcame the logistical issues of trans-
porting large pieces of steelwork and
heavy equipment to the site, offered a
much faster construction schedule, and
reduced excavation depth and the cost
of materials.
As the major structural risk element
of the construction process was the

M A R C H 2 019 39

Beacon Street garage interior showing one of two interior columns.
Post-tensioning tendons running through the walls.
of headroom for the parking garage – while further anchoring into
the ground.
The idea was to brace the top of the piles with a post-tensioned
slab, providing a structure that could support the force of the earth
during the excavations and carry the weight of the existing above-
ground structure.
To tie the post-tensioned slab into the existing structure, small open-
ings were created in the existing load-bearing brick walls at regular
intervals at the height of the proposed slab, creating a castellated effect
with gaps in the brickwork for concrete.
The size and location of these openings were modeled by the CCL
team to ensure that the risk of structural wall movement and deflection
of the slab were managed. All structural walls were also monitored
throughout the work to corroborate the expected design values.
Extensive hand calculations were performed to verify the feasibil-
ity and demonstrate to the project’s Engineers of Record that the
solution would deliver against all structural and risk management
considerations.
With the castellated openings in place, the steel reinforcement was
installed into the brickwork and through the gaps. The positioning
40 STRUCTURE magazine
of the longitudinal and latitudinal post-tensioning tendons was also
carefully mapped out, and post-tensioning tendons were crossed
through the wall openings, ensuring that post-tensioning of the slab
was tied into the existing structure.
The concrete pour was carried out in two phases, filling some of
the wall openings with concrete before casting the remaining with
the inter-connecting slab. When all the concrete had cured to the
required strength, the tendons were post-tensioned, resulting in a
self-supporting slab that was fully connected and running through
the existing walls. Excavations could then begin, with earth and all
foundations of the existing structure removed from underneath the
post-tensioned slab, creating the new level space that would later
become the parking garage.
Shotcrete walls were created around the perimeter of the excavated
area connecting the (now exposed) upper third of the mini piles and
ensuring a permanent and effective retaining structure. Foundation
walls and the basement slab-on-ground were then finally put in place.
Maximizing Space
One of the early ideas was to have a U-beam underneath the slab
to embrace the walls and thereby avoid movement of the structure
above. This proposal entailed the loss of space, reducing vehicle
clearance. After rigorous calculations and modeling, and the idea of
intertwining the post-tensioned slab with the existing walls, CCL
was able to present a two-way post-tensioned transfer slab solution
that provided adequate capacity to support the self-weight and the
movements of the above-ground structure while allowing for top-
down construction. This was very appealing to the project team
because it left an open-plan parking garage with limited drops and
just two columns, essentially yielding a transfer slab of 32-foot spans
intertwined with the existing walls.
Summary of Advantages
Thanks to the creative thinking and collaborative approach of the
project team, the project was not only viable from a cost and build-
ability perspective but also enhanced the spatial effectiveness of the
newly-excavated basement.
In total, the change in approach reduced the time required to create
the basement parking lot by around six months and avoided the need
for any fire protection installation as the post-tensioned slab already
met the required fire rating.
An extremely unusual project with some particular challenges, this
small underground parking lot demonstrates the viability of a top-
down approach to basement excavation using post-tensioned
concrete, which could be replicated to resolve similar chal-
lenges for other confined site projects and heritage buildings.■
Dr. Carol Hayek is Chief Technical Officer at CCL and is a lecturer in
prestressed concrete design at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. A fellow of
the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) and a member of the PTI’s Technical Advisory
Board, Carol also chairs the PTI’s Building Design Committee. She is a member
of the American Concrete Institute ACI-ASCE 423 Committee, chairs the ACI
423F Subcommittee for Sustainable Prestressed Concrete, and is a member of
the International Federation of Concrete (fib). (chayek@cclint.com)
Tony Salem is Vice President and Principal at Sea-Dar Construction. Under
his leadership, several Sea-Dar projects have received numerous awards.
(tsalem@seadar.com)
 Design wood structures effectively,
economically and with ease!

Design Office

SIZER SHEARWALLS CONNECTIONS

Gravity Design Lateral Design Fasteners

2x4 DATABASE EDITOR PDF WOOD PDF WOOD

Customize Materials Adobe
STANDARDS Adobe
STANDARD
(US version) (CDN version)

Download a Free Demo at woodworks-software.com

n g
n comi
io !
ew vers g 2019
N in
AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL

Spr
US Design Office 11 Canadian Design Office 10

NDS 2015, SDPWS 2015, IBC 2015 and ASCE 07-10 compliant CSA O86-14 (Update 1 & 2)
New version will conform to NDS 2018, SPDWS 2015, IBC 2018 and ASCE 07-16 and NBC 2015 compliant

Use Promo Code STRUCMAG and receive a 10% discount towards your purchase!

www.woodworks-software.com 800-844-1275
 structural TESTING
Moisture and
Mass Timber
Large Scale Research into Durability of
Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Connections
By Evan Schmidt

M oisture management plays an essential role in

the serviceability and preservation of buildings,
particularly when considering wooden structures. This
is because wood’s durability can be compromised by the
sustained presence of liquid water, while large moisture
fluctuations can also impact dimensional stability and The MCMEC (Multi-Chamber Modular Environmental Conditioning System), where CLT
mechanical performance. Like any material, wooden samples will be exposed to varying environmental conditions during the first stages of the
structures perform excellently when designed and main- new USDA and TDI funded research.
tained properly, with many examples that have stood
the test of time and lasted centuries (e.g., the Horyu-ji temple TallWood Design Institute (TDI), recently demonstrated that
in Japan, stave churches in Norway, etc.). While moisture man- exposure to rain, followed by simulated interior conditions, can
agement principles are generally well understood for light frame result in higher levels of checking and other stress-relief disconti-
construction, there are still many questions to be answered nuities, particularly at the edges where connections would occur.
regarding moisture performance of large scale, “mass timber” While this study explored moisture performance in terms of
structures, including how fast they wet and dry and how exposure wetting, drying, and checking, there is still a need to understand
affects long term durability. the effects of different exposures on the short- and long-term
This is particularly relevant because, despite requirements for performance of connections.
protection of mass timber elements during the service life of the In response to this need, collaborators at OSU and Portland State
structure (i.e., that they should not be exposed directly to weather), University (PSU) have been awarded large research grants from the
contact with moisture is common during construction and, in USDA ($500,000) to explore the effects of moisture exposure on the
the case of leaks, could happen anytime. Moisture monitoring durability of CLT connections. Another grant from the TallWood
projects at Brock Commons (Vancouver), Carbon12 (Portland), Design Institute ($250,000) was awarded to a different team to
and George W. Peavy Science Center
(Corvallis) have demonstrated that CLT
elements exposed during construction
can generally dry to or remain below
acceptable moisture levels during the
envelopment process and in service.
However, there is still a need for more
data and, particularly, research on the
propensity for such exposure to affect
long term connection durability and
service life.
CLT connections are uniquely affected
by weathering, in part as a result of the
restraining action of the cross lami-
nations. Specifically, while the cross
laminations result in higher in-plane
dimensional stability, they also induce
higher internal stresses between boards
and subsequent checking (due to the
restraint of moisture-related differential
swelling and shrinking). The SMART
CLT project, led by Oregon State The edge of a CLT panel at a half-lap joint after Moisture monitoring equipment – part of the “Living Lab @ Peavy
University (OSU) Assistant Professor controlled exposure to heavy rain and subsequent Hall” study at OSU – installed on a shear wall at the George W.
Mariapaola Riggio and funded by the drying – part of the “SMART CLT” project at OSU. Peavy Hall construction site.

42 STRUCTURE magazine
assess CLT durability and develop numerical models to characterize dissertations, and educational seminars. Reporting will
the degradation. be in stages, annually, and the total duration of the project
Both projects are led by Arijit Sinha, Associate Professor of Wood will be 4 years, with expected completion in 2022.■
Science and Engineering at OSU. The research team for the USDA
study consists of people with expertise in the fields of wood durability Evan Schmidt, B.A. Architecture and M.S. Wood Science, is the Outreach
(Jeff Morrell), non-destructive testing (Thomas Schumacher), acceler- Coordinator at the TallWood Design Institute. TDI represents a collaboration
ated weathering (Fred Kamke), and timber mechanics and structural between the College of Forestry (Oregon State University), College of
engineering (Arijit Sinha). For the TDI project, Professors John Nairn Engineering (Oregon State University), and the College of Design (University of
and Andre Barbosa join Sinha and Morrell. Oregon). TDI’s mission is to advance the capabilities and usage of engineered
“Lack of data and models for this behavior is a significant hindrance wood products through applied research, testing, education, and workforce
to the understanding of the long term behavior of structures, and development. For general inquiries about this and other mass timber research,
thus effective service life,” Sinha says. contact the TallWood Design Institute at tdi@oregonstate.edu.
The team has identified the need to
systematically correlate the influence of
moisture exposure and wood species on
short- to long-term connection durability
and mechanical performance.
The research, which aims to quantify
degradation, will be conducted in three
main stages. In the first stage, Douglas-fir
and Lodge-pole Pine CLT samples will
be exposed to various wetting conditions
The height
and monitored in the Multi-Chamber
Modular Environmental Conditioning of structural
system (MCMEC) at OSU, a state of
the art accelerated weathering device.
Wetting conditions will include simu-
protection.
lated construction conditions, in-service
leaks, and full immersion soaks (to mimic
Literally.
the worst-case scenario). Some samples
will be inoculated with decay fungi,
From a Space Program Hall

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

while others will be cycled between wet
and dry conditions. The samples will be of Fame induction to one
closely monitored to observe wetting and of the tallest, mixed-use
drying trends and durability, all using
buildings in San Francisco,
non-destructive methods (including
ultra-sonic wave propagation and full Taylor devices continues to
CAT scans). provide the most efficient,
The second stage will involve destructive effective and innovative
assessment of the exposed connections structural protection
through quasi-static loading at OSU
College of Forestry’s structural testing products on the planet.
laboratory to determine changes in
strength, stiffness, ductility, energy dis-
sipation, and maximum load/deflection.
The data from this stage will be used to
create a hygro-mechanical model update
for the Seismic Analysis for Woodframe
Structure (SAWS) 10 parameter model,
which will have inputs for moisture and
biological conditions.
The third stage will validate the devel-
oped model through full-scale testing and
will assess a new structural health moni-
toring methodology for in situ testing of
buildings using ultrasonic and acoustic
emissions equipment.
The data from this project will be pub-
licly available and will be reported in the 716 694 0800 | seismicdamper.com
form of engineering design guidelines,
peer-reviewed publications, student

M A R C H 2 019 43
 structural SUSTAINABILITY
Structural Design and Embodied Carbon
Considerations over a Building’s Service Life
By Chris Horiuchi, S.E., LEED BD+C, and Nicole Wang, P.E.

T he structural engineering design profession needs to carefully

reconsider design approaches. Embodied carbon of structural
systems in buildings has been established to be a considerable influence
on the detrimental environmental impact of structures. Embodied
carbon is defined as the CO2-equivalent emissions into the atmosphere
caused by the production of a material, product, or system. Embodied
carbon impacts of a building’s structural system are primarily associated
with the different life cycle stages: material extraction, manufacturing
and production, construction, damage and repair during service life,
and end-of-life considerations.
The ASCE/SEI Sustainability Committee is focused on reducing the
global climate change impact of structural components and has com-
pleted significant research into the many opportunities for structural
engineers to reduce the embodied carbon of buildings. It is critical
to consider these options early in the decision process such that they
become important aspects of the project. Some possible strategies Normalized comparison of embodied carbon values of various lateral systems
include the use of alternative materials, particular structural system based on survey of previously-designed buildings.
selection, and incorporation of enhanced seismic-resisting systems.
carbon sink as it sequesters carbon when sourced from a sustainably
managed forest. While timber has been traditionally used for low-rise
Alternative Materials construction, mass timber components have become more common
Material decisions can help reduce embodied carbon. For example, in taller construction and longer span conditions, and serve to reduce
cement is the most significant contributor to the embodied carbon the amount of steel and concrete used in construction. For additional
of concrete. Replacing cement with supplementary cementitious information on embodied carbon of structural materials, refer to the
materials (SCM) like fly ash and slag can reduce the overall environ- ASCE/SEI technical report Structural Materials and Global Climate.
mental impact without negatively affecting concrete performance.
Additionally, wood is a renewable material and can be considered a
Structural System Selection
Surveys of previous buildings have been
analyzed to determine trends in structural
system selection. Based on previous stud-
ies, it is estimated that utilizing a slab
and beam system over a flat slab system
can save 15 – 20% of embodied carbon.
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

The more efficient gravity framing depths

translate into lower material quantities in
the framing and lower lateral demands.
Other considerations are required when
selecting structural framing systems,
but the intensity of structural embodied
carbon should also factor into the deci-
sion process.
Lateral system selection can also affect
overall material quantities. The Figure
shows average structural embodied carbon
values based in a database of previously
designed buildings with particular lateral
force-resisting systems as compared to
buildings of similar height and seismicity.
For steel structures, systems incorporating
axial resistance (e.g., braced frames) can

44 STRUCTURE magazine
reduce embodied carbon impacts by 20% when compared to similar
structures using moment frames. For concrete structures, shear wall
buildings show trends of higher structural embodied carbon over
moment frame buildings. Even though moment frames are a less
efficient method of resisting lateral load, shear walls may include
underutilized concrete material.
The examples of trends exhibited by this data are not expected to be
absolute rules for lateral system selection. Rather, they should serve
to encourage engineers to use embodied carbon as another decision
variable in structural design. The results for any particular project
may vary depending upon many factors, including the seismicity,
the geographic location, the assumed service life, and the building
program and configuration.
Resilient Seismic Systems
Buildings have a probability of experiencing a design-level earthquake
over their service life. Damage resulting from a seismic event requires
repair and designs include a particular failure probability of complete
demolition and replacement of the structure, thereby causing further
use of natural resources and emitting additional carbon.
Enhanced seismic systems can limit the expected damage during a
future earthquake. These systems enable the more efficient use of the
required structural materials by reducing the likelihood of repair or
demolition and replacement in the event of a collapse. These effec-
tive seismic systems localize displacements to allow the majority of
the structure to behave as essentially elastic. Isolators reduce seismic
demands on the superstructure and fuse systems localize ductility
to a particular location which can be easily replaced after a damage-
inducing seismic event. A previous building study on a mid-rise
ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org
TOUGH ANCHORS
FOR EXTREME CONDITIONS
2X-Hook
compressed vertical legs
The ONLY anchors to exceed BIA recommendations with over
200-lbf in tension or compression, in wall cavities up to 7½” wide.
An ideal solution for high-wind, seismic or wide cavity conditions!
Learn more, visit: www.h-b.com
or call 1-800-645-0616 Today!
residential building in San Francisco showed a possible 15–20%
reduction in overall embodied carbon when considering probabilistic
seismic damage using base isolation. Considering these long-term
structural impacts with respect to embodied carbon impacts rein-
forces the importance of seismic design methods that target improved
performance beyond code minimums.
One could also argue that structural engineers are among those
who can have the most significant impact on climate change since
they decide the structural materials and system performance. As
a profession, we need to create greater awareness of the damaging
carbon emissions in the construction and maintenance of building
structures negatively impacting global climate change. It is important
for the engineering profession to embrace the most advanced systems
available and create a holistic awareness of their benefits to building
performance, damage repair cost and extent, and environmental
impact. With a goal of minimizing the built environment’s impact
on the natural environment, engineers need to focus on intelligent
use of materials and incorporating resilient systems.
Structural engineers interested in participating in the further develop-
ment of sustainable structural design ideas are encouraged
to connect with the ASCE/SEI Sustainability Committee
(www.seisustainability.org) or their local organization.■
Chris Horiuchi is an Associate at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP in San
Francisco and is chair of the ASCE/SEI Sustainability Committee’s Disaster
Resilience Working Group. (christopher.horiuchi@som.com)
Nicole Wang is a Project Engineer at Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
in San Francisco and is chair of the SEAONC Sustainability Committee.
(nicole.wang@som.com)
U.S. PATENTS: 6,789,365;
7,325,366; 8,096,090; 8,122,663; 8,613,175
Seismic
Hook Mighty-Lok™
Hook
compressed legs with
flattened & serrated front edge
M A R C H 2 019 45
 historic STRUCTURES
Thames River Bridge
New London, Connecticut, 1889
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M.ASCE, D.Eng., P.E., P.L.S.

A lfred P. Boller (STRUCTURE, November 2011) had

already designed swing bridges across the Pequannock
River, Harlem River, Hudson River, Ft. Point Channel, and
the Arthurkill when he was called to be the designer of the
longest swing bridge in the United States across the Thames
River in Connecticut.
Preliminary surveys of the site to replace a train ferry started in
1859 for the Stonington Railroad, but the Connecticut legislature Artist’s Conception, Scientific American, June 8, 1889.
did not pass an act approving the New York, Providence, and Boston
Railroad to build the bridge until January 1882. A commission of for his original estimate for a single-track bridge. It was not until 1888,
Army Engineers was appointed that approved of the site at the nar- four years later, that all the financing was approved by the two railroads
rowest point along the river. Boller was authorized to proceed with and bids received. On April 6, 1888, the construction contract was
his first design in the summer of 1882 for the bridge between New awarded to the Union Bridge Company run by Charles Macdonald
London and Groton, Connecticut, across the Thames River. It utilized and others. The bridge as built differed from the initial design with
Whipple double intersection trusses and had a swing span of 500 feet single intersection trusses and two fixed spans of 150 feet, two fixed
with two 310-foot approach through-spans and two 150-foot deck- spans of 310 feet, and a swing span 503 feet long with four panels
spans on each shore. His design was placed before an independent adjacent to the swing towers of the top chord on a parabolic curve.
panel of engineers that issued a favorable report on March 28, 1883. Foundation problems were compounded by the fact that the river
The plans were submitted to a select panel of engineers consisting of was 40 to 60 feet deep and bedrock was at a depth of 130 feet, making
C. C. Martin, Octave Chanute, and Col. J. Albert of the Corps of pneumatic caissons questionable. Boller arrived at the following
Engineers. Congress passed an act in May 1883 approving the bridge, construction procedure.
with the proviso that another panel of military engineers approve of 1) Wooden cribs, built with two walls of 12 x 12 inches with a
the final plans. Congress approved the bridge and designated the space of 8 feet apart and cross-braced, were sunk and the mud
road as a Post Road. dredged out with the cribs sunk to a bottom of 70 feet below
The long, two-track swing span was later fixed in the spring of 1884 the water level. The 8-foot space was filled with rock to help
by a panel consisting of three Army Engineers and two Navy Engineers in the advancement of the cribs and extensions added on top
to ensure there was adequate clearance for ships using the United to keep the top of the crib above the water level.
States Naval Station just upstream. The clear passage on each side of 2) The cribs were supported by interior cross walls that also left
the swing pier was 225 feet, and the vertical clearance on the three pockets in which to drive the piling.
central spans was 32 feet. The weight of the swing span was 1,000 3) Wood piles 85 to 95 feet long were then driven to bedrock in
tons. They approved of the location on July 25, 1884, but raised the the pockets.
spans six feet and called for
pointed icebreakers on the
upstream faces of the piers.
The railroad approaches
were approved by the cities
of Groton and New London
on May 15, 1884. The rail-
The first design of the Thames River Bridge, early 1880s, with 500-foot swing span.
roads then got into a debate
as to whether the bridge
should be single-tracked or
double-tracked and ordered
Boller to prepare an estimate
for both possibilities. He
found that, with improved
designs and lower prices
then prevalent, he could
build a double-track bridge The second design of the Thames River Bridge, 1888, with a 503-foot swing span.

46 STRUCTURE magazine

Thames River Bridge.
4) The piles were cut off at the new mud line and sand in deep
water.
5) The tops of the piles were encased in tremied concrete.
6) Caissons were then floated into place and sunk until they set
on the concrete, and then pumped out.
7) The masonry was placed in the dry in these caissons.
After the swing pier was completed, up to three courses from the top,
a test load of 2,672 tons of iron ingots was placed to ensure its load
carrying capacity. A maximum settlement of 5 inches was observed. At
the same time, it was discovered that the stonework was not coming
up level requiring the last three courses to be cut to ensure the top of
the pier was level, necessary to make the swing table work properly.
Boller’s colleague, Alexander McGraw, placed the foundations and
masonry. Construction on the foundations started in June 1888. The
entire project was completed in 16 months, with its grand opening
on October 10, 1889. It carried two tracks and, in profile, resembled
Boller’s Eighth Avenue span across the Harlem River. Mr. Babcok,
President of the Railroad at the dedication, commended Boller, stat-
ing, “The bridge will stand as a monument to your labor and skill.
Although the Company furnished the money, neither the Directors
nor the stockholders had the brains to do the great work. It is indeed
a work the Company has every reason to be proud of.” The total cost
of the project, including the approach trackage, was $1,600,000.
The Railroad and Engineering Journal wrote of the bridge,
The aesthetic features of the structure have evidently been studied, as
well as its purely engineering features. It is gratifying to know that the
design is not only graceful and pleasing, but that it is also economi-
cal. The excuse for making structures hideous and unsightly is that it
would be too expensive to make them otherwise. As a matter of fact,
the ugliness of bridges is due generally to the absence of a sense of beauty
or grace in their designers. In the present instance, the Engineer of the
Thames River Bridge was an artist as well and, as a result, both the
engineering and the artistic effects are good and neither was sacrificed
for the other, and, in fact, the science of the engineer seemed to improve
the work of the artist, and vice versa.
Boller wrote a lengthy report on the bridge entitled New York,
Providence, and Boston Railroad-Report to the General Manager upon
the Completion of the Thames River Bridge and Approaches at New
London, Conn. It had 43 pages of text and many drawings and test
results. Engineering News wrote of the report,
The total length of new work required
by the bridge was 5.13 miles. The chief
difficulty in location and construc-
tion lay in the piers and abutments
and their foundations, the adopted
plan calling for a draw-span of 503
feet flanked on either side by spans of
310 feet and 150 feet each. Careful
soundings made at the site of the main
foundations only reached rock and
boulders at depths of 130, 100, and
120 feet below mean low water, and
the material overlying this rock was
from 60 to 75 feet deep. Pneumatic
foundations were out of the question
and the ingenious methods adopted
and carried out by Mr. BOLLER are
fully described and illustrated in this
report with an engineering minuteness
that makes them of great professional
value. The superstructure, with its great swing draw-span of 503 feet,
is treated in a similarly careful manner, and is made plain in all its
details of design and erection by concise description and complete draw-
ings, with dimensions and sections. As we have before mentioned in
this journal, the bridge is not only one of the latest and best examples
of American steel bridge design, but its treatment is artistic in general
form and detail, and the result proves conclusively that even so utili-
tarian an object as a railway bridge can be made a pleasing object to
the eye without practical increase in cost. The bridge proper only cost
$658,489, though the entire cost of land, approaches and general
account swelled the final cost to $1,293,939. In appendices are given
the official tests of the bridge, the full specifications of foundations and
superstructure, the weight of metal in the truss spans, full-sized eye-bar
tests, and the various other finished material tests. The illustrations are
from photographs taken during and after erection, and the various
detail sheets of foundations and superstructure are facsimiles of Mr.
BOLLER’s own plans, these latter including the turntable and gear-
ing and end-locking gear. Taken altogether, it is a model report and
proves how useful a complete record of a difficult and important piece
of work can be made to the engineering profession when the engineer
in charge goes conscientiously to work. The final regret is that reports
of this kind are too rarely issued by the executive officer, who is alone
able to fully detail the true history, and that it is still more rare to find
corporations willing to publish such reports when made.
It remained the longest swing span in the country until 1893 when the
Omaha Bridge and Terminal Railroad built a bridge, by J. A. L. Waddell,
across the Missouri River at East Omaha, Nebraska, with a span of 520
feet. Despite all of Boller’s efforts, the easterly pier of the Thames River
Bridge started to settle and shift to the south. In 1908, rail traffic was
limited to one track and, in 1919, when a new railroad bridge was built,
it was converted into a vehicular bridge carrying U.S. Route 1
across the river. It was replaced in 1943 with a high-level bridge,
the Gold Star Bridge, that is now part of I-95.■
Dr. Frank Griggs, Jr. specializes in the restoration of historic bridges,
having restored many 19 th Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He
was formerly Director of Historic Bridge Programs for Clough, Harbour
& Associates LLP in Albany, NY, and is now an Independent Consulting
Engineer. (fgriggsjr@twc.com)
M A R C H 2 019 47
 THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE
IN TUBULAR PRODUCTS

IS HERE
Independence Tube Corporation, Southland Tube, and Republic Conduit are now
NTP Grades include:
Nucor Tubular Products. As we come together as part of Nucor, North America’s leading
steel company, we remain dedicated to working with you, our customer. • ASTM A500
• ASTM A252
As a result, our HSS line now boasts a wider product range. But one thing hasn’t changed, • ASTM A1085
our quality and service continues to be among the best in the industry. We pioneered on-line • ASTM A513
ordering with our 24/7 customer secure portal and our on time rolling schedule is considered • A53 grade B Type E ERW
to be second to none among our customers. • ASTM A135 and
As part of our tubular family, Republic Conduit continues to offer its electrical conduit ASTM A795 Sprinkler Pipe
products designed to reduce installation costs and jobsite delays. This winning combination HSS Sizes include:
of products and innovation continues to support the reason why we have been so successful:
Squares: ½" x 16" gauge
working together and dedicated to providing our customers with the best products and through 12" x .625" wall
services in the industry.
Rectangles: 1 ½" x 1" x 16
Our locations include: Birmingham, AL; Cedar Springs, GA; Chicago, IL; Decatur, AL; gauge through 16" x .625" wall
Louisville, KY; Marseilles, IL; and Trinity, AL. Rounds: .840" OD x .109" wall
through 16" OD x .688" wall

Learn more at www.nucortubular.com


Disruption is Coming to the Building Industry
By Steven Burrows, CBE, P.E., FICE, FASCE, MIStructE, LEED-AP
T he construction industry is on the cusp
of significant disruption that will forever
change how buildings are bought, designed,
made, and assembled. The summation of
the technological forces being applied to the
construction industry is termed PropTech.
PropTech investment in 2016, according to
Re:Tech, was a record at $4.2 billion which
tripled to $12.6 billion in 2017. Data from
2018 is expected to outstrip 2017 easily. The
reason is that construction employs 7% of the
world’s working population and around 50%
of manhours on construction sites goes towards
unproductive tasks. Construction also has the
lowest digitization index, a measure of techno-
logical adoption, of any major industry, creating
a target for PropTech. The rewards for success
are therefore huge and investment capital across
the world understands that.
Buildings have also become unaffordable, with
the cost of construction outstripping the con-
sumer price index by a significant margin in
major economy in the world. This can be seen
in major cities by looking at increased commute
times or by comparing the average wage to the
average cost of housing. By all measures, this
trend must reverse to be sustainable.
The concept of technology disrupting estab-
lished high cost/low productivity industries is not
new. Airbnb disrupted the hospitality industry
in 2008, Uber did the same to taxis in 2009,
Amazon has disrupted retail, and WeWork has
disrupted the workplace. Their rewards have been
huge, with Airbnb now valued at $25 billion and
Uber at $50 billion in sectors that have revenues
that are a mere fraction of those in construction.
The AEC industry is seen as the last major
industry to be disrupted. Investment dollars
are a sure sign that change is coming, and it
is coming fast. Some examples, just in the last
months, include PlanGrid (formed just 7 years
ago) sold for $875M, Building Connected
founded in 2012 and sold in 2018 for $275M,
and Katerra formed in 2015 and now employ-
ing over 5,000 people. There are hundreds of
examples of new players entering the AEC
space all with one goal in mind, to increase
cost effectiveness and disrupt the status quo.
What are Investors Seeking?
McKinsey reported in Reinventing
Construction that the global productivity gap
between construction and the average for
professional ISSUES
other industries equates to $1.6 trillion per
annum. That would require construction to
increase overall productivity by around 50%
to align with the average for all industries.
Improvement is predicted to come from five
big moves (and their share of the productivity
increase):
1) Collaboration 7.5%
2) Design 10%
3) Supply chain 7.5%
4) Onsite execution 10%
5) Technology 15%
Technology underpins the changes that are
coming but, to understand how such a major
move can be made, it is worth looking at other
industries that have been transformed such
as automotive, shipbuilding, or aerospace.
In the automotive industry, cars have broadly
maintained the same relative price over the
last 50 years, meaning that, in terms of 2018
dollars, a car in 1960 costs about the same as
one today. However, that car is now consider-
ably more advanced, of higher quality, and
far greater reliability than in 1960. By way
of comparison, homes cost around double
what they cost in 1960, in present-day dollars.
However, buildings are not significantly more
advanced now than they were 100 years ago.
They still use wood and nails, doors still use
keys invented in 1860, and the loss of the
artisan tradesman to the journeymen means
they have not improved in terms of quality,
life expectancy, or reliability. At a different
scale, we marvel at the speed of construc-
tion of the Empire State Building and cannot
replicate it today while using substantially
the same structural materials used for the
last 100 years. To build better, cheaper, and
faster requires a transformation and that is
what PropTech intends to achieve.
Shipbuilding is another excellent example
of the type of transformation that can be
expected to occur in the AEC industry. The
world’s largest vessels are around 1,500 feet
long. These massive structures were mostly
stick built in shipyards 30 years ago. Unlike
the car, the scale of these ships is such that their
length would put them alongside the world’s
top 20 tallest buildings. In shipbuilding, the
industry moved to offsite construction. Today,
ships are made of assemblies of huge modular
components largely factory built and then
merely connected at the shipyard like giant
Lego® blocks.
Aerospace used to build passenger aircraft in
one place. It became the first major industry
to standardize using a common modeling
protocol to create a single coordinated source
of truth. This decision allowed suppliers
anywhere in the world to make standard com-
ponents that fit in the model and sell those
components for multiple buyers, effectively
creating a global supply chain model. The
automotive industry followed that approach.
Now, many cars are built on the same chassis
with the same drivetrains but produced by
assorted brands. Can buildings be created that
way, instead of each building being bought
out on a one-off basis?
The benefits to these approaches being
applied to the AEC industry will lower
cost, increase speed, and improve quality.
Investment is bringing these thought pro-
cesses to the AEC industry at the speed Uber
arrived on the scene to rival taxicabs.
The AEC industry has long argued that the
unique nature of the product, together with
the fragmented nature of the market, pre-
vents this revolution occurring. However,
technology thrives on complexity. The
time taken to reach 50 million users for
the radio was 75 years, television did it in
13 years, the Internet took just 4 years, but
PokemonGo did it in 19 days. Technology
now enables us to deal with complexity at
a speed never before possible. We now use
smart devices that allow apps to be devel-
oped anywhere by anyone; Tesla is using
that same approach to communicate with
its cars. The age of technology disrupting
the AEC industry is here.
Where is the Investment
Money Going?
Investment into AEC has been going into 10
primary places:
1) Offsite manufacturing
2) New building materials
3) 3-D printing and additive
manufacturing
4) Autonomous construction
5) Visualization
6) Data and analytics
7) Wireless connectivity
8) Collaboration tools
9) Scanning and sensors
10) Building Information Modelling (BIM)
continued on next page
M A R C H 2 019 49
 Several new companies have also emerged, as
have alliances between manufacturers and con-
structors. The competitive landscape is changing
as is the process for buying buildings. The way
customers will interface with building providers
will be more like buying a car online.
Some of these changes were inevitable; for
example, automation on site. Autonomous
cranes, dirt scrapers, bricklayers, drywall
finishers, and other trades are obvious can-
didates, as there is insufficiently trained labor
to meet demand. Automation simply closes
the labor gap.
For other parts of the supply chain, the
impact will be more than just lost jobs; engi-
neering is one of them.
The Professional Engineer 2.0
The author firmly believes that now is the
greatest time in history to be an engineer.
There have been several other great times such
as in ancient Egypt, Rome, or during the
industrial revolution, but today is the best
of them all. The disruption to AEC gives
the engineer the greatest opportunity for
transformation.
The engineering profession needs to take
advantage of these three opportunities:
1) Designers must design for construc-
tability much as the ancient engineers
did in Egypt and Rome.
2) Designers must design for manufac-
turing so that the deliverable is not
a construction drawing but machine
code that can go straight to the toolset.
3) Designers must design for whole life
cost, understanding maintenance and
how to replace elements of buildings
to allow them to be renovated easily.
Designing for Constructability
For most of history, engineers determined the
means and methods by which buildings were
built. The engineer had to understand how
technology impacted the design in order to
design it. Tomorrow’s AEC industry will be
much the same; as manufactured modules,
components, and assemblies become the build-
ing blocks of tomorrow’s buildings, so will the
engineer need to understand how automated
systems on construction sites will place these
blocks within the building. Process engineer-
ing will sit alongside structural engineering
as a design discipline, and the separation of
engineer and builder will blur if not disappear.
In recent years, engineers have increasingly
relied upon pre-construction services from
contractors to de-mystify the logistics of
building. However, in a future where vertically
integrated firms manufacture the majority of
50 STRUCTURE magazine
parts and pieces offsite, engineers will need
to look to the ways of the past to determine
how assemblies will be put together.
Designing for Manufacturing
Designing for manufacturing will also bring
a need for change. Today’s engineers deliver
documents that are sufficient for permitting,
and for contractors to tender and complete
the design and deliver it back for review via
shop drawings. In a world in which the engi-
neering product is a machine file sent directly
to manufacturing, the role of the engineer
will become one of designer-maker. Shop
drawings will disappear. The product of an
engineering design office will be a single coor-
dinated model from which components can
be extracted in the form the factory needs it.
No more will there be many versions of the
building in models held by architects, engi-
neers, subcontractors, and general contractors.
There will be just one coordinated source of
truth, a model not just used for gaining a
permit but a model that is manufacture-ready.
Engineers need to step into the world of
product design, understand the capabilities
and needs of equipment, and coordinate the
components that make up the building sys-
tems as a set that fits together as one.
Designing for Whole Life Cost
The cost of a building has 3 parts: the first
cost, the operational cost, and the personnel
cost. The ratio of these is 2:6:92, yet today
we almost exclusively focus on the first 2%.
Taking the first cost; building construction
tolerances are poor and lack of accuracy is far
below that in industries where manufacturing
methodologies are used to create the product.
In construction, these tolerances and lack of
fit are remedied by many means such as shims,
welds, wedges, caulking, sealants, cover strips,
or finishes. All these things add unnecessary
cost that high-quality construction would
require less of, or in some cases will just not be
needed. Manufacturing demands that toler-
ances are tighter to make it efficient. Quality
of construction has to improve.
Operational costs also have to come front
and center. Buildings built as a series of
components will have the ability to unplug
these elements for renovation. Today we see
small examples of this in items such as bath-
room pods. However, disaggregation based
on life expectancy will soon be a key design
consideration. Additionally, the life-to-first-
maintenance and the means of doing this will
become the responsibility of the designer.
Engineering decisions around material
compatibility, tolerances, maintenance, and
lifespan impact the cost the customer pays.
Engineers will need to take a leading role in
this for the transformed industry, as design
decisions will need to be made holistically.
How will engineers take on all this additional
work and responsibility? The answer is design
automation. Many designers have 30% or
more of their staff undertaking routine tasks
that algorithms will replace. Studies suggest
that one-third of the entire U.S. workforce
will need to find new occupations by 2030
as automation comes to the AEC industry,
creating a lower ratio of staff headcount to
fee revenue. This will create space for these
changes to occur at no cost to the project.
Too Much, Too Soon?
In a transformed industry, where buildings
will be built twice as fast for half the cost
and at much higher quality, the role of the
engineer is going to be key.
The future will be data-driven, automated,
and component based. Now is the most sig-
nificant time in history to be an engineer in
AEC, but the profession must change to meet
these demands.
The great news is that many disruptive firms
in PropTech are led by engineers who already
see the opportunities that lie ahead. However,
many consultants are only now beginning to
consider the impact of change. Some firms are
investing in parametric capabilities, allowing
staff to go back to school to learn how to script
code and attend manufacturing conferences
to understand the tools being developed and
the potential of new products. Some of these
firms are late to the changes, but not too late.
If we remain alive to the possibilities and stay
open-minded, not passive, then we should
be able to play a crucial part in tomorrow’s
disrupted industry.
So my message is this: Change is coming,
and it is coming fast, so get your business
future ready.
To do this, you need to do four things:
1) Change your mindset and be open to
the possibilities.
2) Consider the future, not as a
destination but a place of disruption.
3) Prepare yourself for a range of
scenarios; stay current and relevant.
4) Invest in your people, your processes,
and your future.
It is an incredibly exciting time to
be in the AEC industry.■
Steve Burrows was a Director of Arup, EVP at WSP,
and Executive at Katerra. He is now a Principal
Consultant at Cameron MacAllister Group and a
Founding Partner of Baumatix Building Automation.
(burrows@cameronmacallister.com)
“Sure, it checks stability
and punching shear
”

Structural Software
Easy. Versatile. Productive.

VisualFoundation
Simplified analysis and design of concrete
foundation systems. Handles complex
mats, grade beams, pile caps, and more.

Download your free trial today:

iesweb.com 800.707.0816

Jobsite Safety
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
By Randy Lewis, CPCU
F or design professionals, assuming any
responsibility for a contractor’s means
or methods – either by contract or by the
A/E’s actions – can have serious consequences.
Jobsite safety is typically the primary
responsibility of the general contractor. The
contractor has actual, physical control of its
employees and the site, and is usually the
overall coordinator of the work. Sometimes,
however, a design professional’s actions can
result in the assumption of liability for jobsite
safety. For example, if an engineer were to visit
the construction site three or four times in a
week, giving direction regarding the instal-
lation of the HVAC system she designed,
her actions could result in an assumption
of liability.
A 2016 court decision highlights how A/Es
can protect themselves from an assumption of
liability for jobsite safety and its negative con-
sequences. In McKean v. Yates Engineering,
the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed a
2015 Court of Appeals decision concluding
that a design firm had no duty to notify or
warn workers or employees of hazardous con-
ditions on the site unless the design firm had
assumed by conduct or contract to supervise
a construction project.
A Case in Point
It was a complex case and not without con-
troversy. Boiled down, though, it involved an
engineer hired by the contractor to design scaf-
folding. The design was flawed in that it called
for materials that were not commercially avail-
able. Without seeking guidance or clarification
from the engineer, and ignoring some essential
features of the design requirements, the con-
tractor erected the scaffolding using different
materials. The scaffolding collapsed, injuring
four of a subcontractor’s workers.
The workers sued the engineer and the
project architect (who had an AIA B141™
agreement with the project owner), alleg-
ing they were “negligent in inspecting the
scaffold[ing] and failed and/or refused to cor-
rect known deficiencies and defects in the
construction [that] made it dangerous to use
prior to the subject incident.”
The trial court ruled in favor of the architec-
ture firm, stating it was not involved in actual
52 STRUCTURE magazine
risk MANAGEMENT
supervision and control of
the contractor’s work. The
court also pointed out that
the architect’s AIA B141
agreement with the owner
was unambiguous in stating
that the architect was not
responsible for construction
methods or safety precau-
tions in connection with the
work. The trial court later
ruled in favor of the engi-
neer, too, quoting an earlier
decision: “Unless [the engineer] has under-
taken by conduct or contract to supervise a
construction project, he is under no duty
to notify or warn workers or employees of
the contractor or subcontractor of hazardous
conditions on the construction site.”
Seven Factors Can
Undermine Your Contract
In upholding the trial court’s decision, the
court of appeals and the supreme court cited
earlier decisions that had listed seven factors
that determine whether supervisory powers
go beyond the terms of the contract:
1) Actual supervision and control
of the work
2) Retention of the right to supervise
and control
3) Constant participation in ongoing
activities at the construction site
4) Supervision and coordination of
subcontractors
5) The assumption of responsibilities for
safety practices
6) Authority to issue change orders
7) The right to stop the work
The supreme court also went a step further
to clarify its position “that an architect has
no affirmative duty to supervise safety absent
contract or conduct.”
The court’s guidance is a reminder that
your actions on the site can undermine any
contractual protections. For example, if you
perform supervisory and inspection tasks over
and above the scope of your contract, a court
may find you have “assumed a duty of safety,”
which could leave you liable for damages…
never mind what your contract says.
Let’s suppose that the architect in the above
case had been continually at the site offer-
ing advice regarding the contractor’s means
and methods. In that instance, the court may
have found he had assumed some control
of the work, therefore failing the above test.
Similarly, had the engineer visited the site,
watched the erection of the scaffolding, and
given the contractor suggestions regarding a
construction barrier, he, too, may have been
seen as assuming “supervisory powers” and
the liability that went with them.
The Takeaway
The main thing to remember here is that you
should have a good contract and take care to
stay within the terms of that contract and the
bounds of your scope of services. Your staff
should be briefed on the scope, duties, and
responsibilities, and other critical issues of
your contract so that your employees, while
observing the work at the job site, do not
undertake responsibilities for jobsite safety.
At the same time, you cannot ignore your
duty as a licensed professional to step forward
in the face of imminent threats to life or safety.
Each firm should develop a field manual for
staff to follow if your on-site representatives
observe unsafe conditions on a proj-
ect site, including situations that
pose an imminent danger to others.■
Randy Lewis brings over 20 years working
in the insurance industry. Currently, Randy
manages the risk management and client
education programs of AXA, XL a Division
of AXA, a recognized leader in the AEC
community. (randy.lewis@axaxl.com)
M A R C H 2 019

The Future – BIM
Building Structural Monitoring
By Tom Winant, P.E., and Alan Jeary, Ph.D., DSc
C odes of practice and standards for struc-
tural design have traditionally been
regarded as the ultimate security for making
sure that structures comply with requirements
for safety. The advent of new technology and
higher computing power allows engineering
design to be supplemented by measurements
of the actual performance of a structure
during and after construction. This would
allow for feedback to validate whether build-
ings are built as intended and to determine
if existing buildings have acceptable levels of
capacity. If done on a broad level, it would
give insight into community resilience and
ultimately allow poorly performing buildings
to be identified prior to shock events.
As buildings are subjected to storms,
earthquakes, and natural events, tracking
degradation is also critical to understand
the structure’s residual capacity, risk profile,
and suitability for re-occupancy after natural
events. In a few hours, an assessment from
very small dynamic movements can be pro-
cessed into a structure’s Dynamic Signature
and yield a risk profile of the building. With
cloud computing, this assessment is made in
near real time after data is collected.
Using accelerometers that are extremely
sensitive, it is possible to use low amplitude
excitation from natural sources (such as wind
or traffic) to obtain information about the
in-service performance of the structure. This
analysis of tiny movements is analogous to
the use of an electrocardiogram to judge the
state of health of a human heart. The measure-
ments at low amplitude allow for a prediction
of the response at high amplitudes, which is
where damage can occur. A recent award-
winning paper issued by ASCE (Spence and
Kareem) gives a detailed explanation of the
predictable nature of non-linear damping,
allowing for extrapolation of low values of
damping to higher values. The paper sum-
marized decades of international research on
the topic of non-linear damping, providing a
fundamental understanding of the previously
poorly-understood mechanism. This under-
standing, applied appropriately using classic
structural dynamic analysis, becomes a pow-
erful tool to compare all structures with the
54 STRUCTURE magazine
INSIGHTS
code under which they were built, as well as to
each other, based on their measured response
and associated risk profile. The measurements
not only give a direct measure of the capacity
of the structure but also identify the presence
of any anomalies or weaknesses and their loca-
tion. The techniques and analysis have been
used on buildings in the U.S., Australia, New
Zealand, and other countries to support deci-
sions about the viability of continuing to use
a building, what repairs/improvements need
to be made, and even whether construction
work is safe to continue.
Already, this approach has been used
extensively and has identified a building
in an earthquake zone that had damage in
areas hidden from sight. In this example, 10 On-site monitoring.
buildings of various design types, heights,
construction quality, and uses were measured, technology was used to modify the approach
and the response of each was put into a bell to demolition or nearby blasting very close
curve based on their relative risk profile to to an adjacent structure. The baseline mea-
compare each structure based on both their surements showed the adjacent structure
risk and the local codes. One building was had an unusual type of behavior in which a
identified as an ‘outlier,’ which under any resonance-on-a-resonance type of response
design criterion was substandard. It had been was probable. When this type of condition
damaged mildly in several earlier earthquakes, occurs, the response of a structure can increase
but the damage was covered cosmetically. dramatically. The modifications included rais-
Using classical engineering techniques, inves- ing the elevation of soil berms intended to
tigators could not identify its fundamental catch the structure being demolished, there-
weaknesses; however, the objective measure- fore reducing the impact forces.
ments clearly identified the weakness as well In all instances, the objective capacity-related
as the location of damage. measurements were critical to engineers to
In another example, the techniques were give them actual performance measurements,
used to give assurances that a school building’s in addition to engineering judgment. The
newly developed cracks were merely cosmetic measurements proved critical and
and did not pose a risk to the children. Also, allowed the engineers to provide
the techniques were used to modify a pro- the best service to their customers.■
posed addition to the roof of a kindergarten
to allow safe working loads where no existing The online version of this article
drawings were available. contains a reference. Please visit
The technology is also applicable to work www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
under construction. It has been used by a
piling contractor to avoid costly stop-work Tom Winant is the President of STRAAM Group.
orders by giving near real-time feedback about (twinant@straamgroup.com)
the acceleration and vibration effects of the
Dr. Alan Jeary is CTO and Partner for STRAAM
pile installation on adjacent buildings. The
Group. He is a fellow of IStructE (UK), Engineers
baseline behavior of the existing buildings was
Australia, The Australian Institute of Building,
also established as a reference, before the pile
The Royal Society (NSW), and an Officer of the
driving began, to compare with the condi-
Order of Australia. (ajeary@straamgroup.com)
tion after construction. In another case, the
M A R C H 2 019
 FESSIONA
RO
WWW.STRUCTURESCONGRESS.ORG EARN UP TO

L
S
DEV

UR
LO

O
E
PMENT H

STRUCTURES
CONGRESS 2019
Orlando, Florida April 24–27

Experience the Premier Event in Structural Engineering

Visit the Exhibit Hall for the latest
JOIN US IN ORLANDO TO resources and opportunities
LEAD AND INNOVATE:
•NEW: Performance-Based Design
Trends, New Smart Technologies,
Career Development, and Leadership
Skills
•View program detail and use interactive
planner online
•Special Sessions: Grenfell Tower |
Workshop on Conceptual Design |
Improve your Communication/
Presentation Skills
Check out demos of ASCE 7 Online and the Hazard
•A fantastic evening Celebrating the Future
Tool at the Bookstore, and enter to win a free six-month
of SE hosted by CSI
individual subscription to ASCE 7 Online.
•Register by March 20 for best rate www.asce.org/asce-7

WHAT’S THE NEXT BEST THING TO ATTENDING STRUCTURES

CONGRESS IN PERSON?
Livestream a sample of up to three select sessions on Friday, April 26, US Eastern Time.
Register for 1-3 sessions and earn up to 1.5 PDHs per session. Individual registration only.
Choose from:
• Behavior and Design of Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors for Steel Buildings Livestream Made
• Structural Optimization in Everyday Design Tasks Possible By
• Diverse and Illustrative Bridge Case Studies

LIVESTREAM REGISTRATION DEADLINE APRIL 16.

Learn more and register at structurescongress.org/livestream
 business PRACTICES
Building Your Leadership Legacy
By Jennifer Anderson

A s a leader in your company and in many

other roles of your life, you have an
opportunity to build a leadership legacy that
will not only make a difference in how you
will be perceived by your team, your peers,
and the community at large today… but also
how you want to be perceived in the future.
Leadership is defined as the position or func-
tion of a leader, a person who guides or directs
a group. How you lead today will make a dif-
ference for how people will remember you in
the future –your leadership legacy.
Legacy is often associated with an endow-
ment or a large sum of money bequeathed to
a favorite university that honors the donor
with naming a building on the engineering
campus. Another way to look at it is that
legacy is your personal brand, or your mark
on the world. Impressive as it sounds, few
people in leadership roles will amass a fortune
in their lifetime sufficient to have a building
named for them. For those in a leadership role
who realize that how they lead impacts the
lives of team members, they have a significant
way for their leadership legacy to shine… one
that might be even more impactful than their
name on a building.
If you are not satisfied with how your lead-
ership legacy is being built today, you can
improve and make changes to how people
perceive you as a leader. Here are three ways
to build a leadership legacy of which you
can be proud:
Start With the End
When it’s the end of your life, for what do
you want to be known? What do you want
people to say about you at your funeral? You
might think that end-of-life questions are too
morbid for a career development article but,
in answering these profound questions, the
author’s coaching clients – and the companies
they run – are positively affected. If you are not
clear about what you want to be known for at
the end of your life, no one else will be clear
about your personal brand either. That means
your leadership legacy is messy and needs to
be adjusted to reflect the true and best leader
within you. Start with the end in mind.
Perception
If you are trying to get to New York, you need
to know where you are now. If you want to
be known as a “visionary leader,” start with
surveying how people perceive you. This can
be done with an extensive 360-degree review,
or you can simply ask people to describe you
in one word. Compile that list of one-word
responses and you will get a snapshot of your
current reputation based on how people per-
ceive you. If you like what people have to say,
then continue your path to New York. If you
do not like what they have to say, then identify
where you are and make course corrections to
get yourself on the right path to New York.
Understand how others perceive you.
You Can Change
In the author’s career coaching, clients tell
her, “I am not going to change. I am who I
am.” You do not need to change yourself to
please other people, but, if you have noticed
that your work relationships are not as strong
as you want, then there is an opportunity
to evaluate your part in the relations. As a
leader, take note of how people are respond-
ing to your leadership style – are they happy
working for you, or resistant? You cannot
change much about other people, but you
can make changes in yourself if you want to.
If you are not keen on how your leadership
legacy is developing, then there is a perfect
opportunity to start making some incremental
changes today, if you want to.
Finally, think about the people who have
had a positive influence on your career – your
professors, the senior engineers who mentored
you when you were a junior engineer, the
client who patiently allowed you to make a
mistake and then fix it, the architects, other
partner engineers, previous firm owners, etc.
Likely there have been many people who have
made an impression upon you. The author
would be willing to assume that you have a
good opinion about the leadership legacy
of each of those key people. Be certain that
other people have an opinion about you too.
How you are leading people is building your
personal brand – your mark, your legacy. Are
you happy with how people perceive
you today? Are you content with
your leadership legacy?■
Born into a family of engineers but focusing on
the people side of engineering, Jen Anderson
has over 21 years of helping leaders and their
teams build stronger careers.
(www.CareerCoachJen.com)

56 STRUCTURE magazine

American Wood Council
Phone: 202-463-2766
Email: info@awc.org
Web: www.awc.org
Product: Connection Calculator
Description: Provides users with a web-based
approach to calculating capacities for single bolts,
nails, lag screws, and wood screws per the 2005
NDS. Both lateral (single and double shear) and
withdrawal capacities can be determined. Wood-
to-wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-steel
connections are possible.
SOFTWARE updates
Dlubal Software, Inc.
Phone: 267-702-2815
Email: info-us@dlubal.com
Web: www.dlubal.com
Product: RFEM
Description: Structural analysis and design including
USA/International standards for steel, concrete,
wood, CLT, aluminum, glass, and fabric/membranes.
Capable of non-linear analysis of member, plate, and
solid elements complete with code references and
detailed design results. Direct interfaces with Revit,
Tekla, and AutoCAD incorporate seamless and bi-
directional data exchange.
Jordahl USA Inc.
Phone: 866-332-2218
Email: frank.metelmann@jordahlusa.com
Web: www.jordahlusa.com
Product: Decon Studrails and Jordahl Anchor
Channels
Description: The EXPERT design software has
been updated and improved to incorporate the
latest national and international design codes. Easy
to understand user interface and clear graphics are
combined with a powerful calculation tool to produce
a versatile platform for efficient and economical
design. Free download.

Canadian
Wood Council
Phone: 800-844-1275
Email: sales@woodworks-software.com
Web: www.woodworks-software.com
Product: WoodWorks Design Office
Description: Conforms to IBC 2015,
ASCE7-10, NDS 2015, SDPWS 2015.
SHEARWALLS: designs perforated and
segmented shearwalls; generates loads;
rigid and flexible diaphragm distribution
methods. SIZER: designs beams, columns,
studs, joists up to 6 stories; automatic load
patterning. CONNECTIONS: Wood to:
wood, steel or concrete.
Concrete Masonry Association
of California and Nevada
Phone: 916-722-1700
Email: info@cmacn.org
Web: cmacn.org
Product: CMD15 Design Tool for Masonry
Description: Structural design of reinforced concrete
and clay hollow unit masonry elements in accordance
with provisions of Ch. 21 2010 through 2016 CBC
or 2009 through 2015 IBC and 2008 through 2013
Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures
(TMS 402/ACI 530/ASCE 5).
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: sales@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: VisualAnalysis
Description: Apply ASCE 7 wind
provisions to building models. Easily load
surfaces through area loads to get automatic
pressure values. VisualAnalysis also tackles
wind on open structures, like transmission
towers, through loads on a member’s cross
section with potential ice build-up. Get a
free trial today.
Integrity Software, Inc.
Phone: 512-372-8991
Email: sales@softwaremetering.com
Web: www.softwaremetering.com
Product: SofTrack
Description: Save money on monthly,
quarterly, and annual Bentley® license
fees! Automatic control to prevent over-
usage of Bentley licenses. Ensure licensed
applications are used within your license
limits. Includes support for all Bentley
licensing policies. Automatically block usage
of products you do not own. Ask about
enhanced Autodesk and ArcMAP reporting.
Losch Software Ltd
Email: LoschInfo@gmail.com
Web: LoschSoft.com
Product: LECWall
Description: The industry standard for precast
concrete sandwich wall design handles multi-story
columns as well. LECWall can analyze prestressed
and/or mild reinforced wall panels with zero to 100
percent composite action. Flat, hollow-core, and
stemmed configurations are supported. Complete
handling analysis also included.
MKT Fastening, LLC
Phone: 800-336-1640
Email: charley@mktfastening.com
Web: mktfastening.com
Product: MKT Anchor Design Software 2.0
Description: MKT software has new updates
and additions. If you already have the software
downloaded, please re-open to update. If you don't,
WHY NOT? Let the software do the work for you
and ease the stress of design loads.
Listings are provided as a courtesy,
STRUCTURE magazine is not
responsible for errors.
continued on next page

All archived articles

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Demos at www.struware.com
available online. Wind, Seismic, Snow, etc. Struware’s Code Search program calculates these and
other loadings for all codes based on the IBC or ASCE7 in just minutes (see online
video). Also calculates wind loads on rooftop equipment, signs, walls, chimneys,
trussed towers, tanks and more. ($250.00).
CMU or Tilt-up Concrete Walls Analyze solid walls for out of plane loading and
panel legs next to or between openings by automatically calculating loads to the wall
leg from vertical and horizontal loads at the opening. ($75.00 ea)
Floor Vibration Program to analyze floors with steel beams and/or steel joist.
Compare up to 4 systems side by side ($75.00).
Concrete beam/slab Program to provide bending, shear and/or torsional reinforcing.
STRUCTUREmag.org Quick and easy to use ($45.00).

M A R C H 2 019 57
 National Concrete
Masonry Association
Phone: 703-713-1900
Email: nlang@ncma.org
Web: www.ncma.org
Product: Direct Design Software v3.0
Description: An innovative design software for
concrete masonry buildings. Direct Design Software
v3.0 can design nearly any CM building up to 60 feet
with a variety of options. The software includes an
intuitive user interface and a complete structural design
package for each building. Free 30-day trial available.

POSTEN Engineering Systems

Phone: 510-275-4750
Email: sales@postensoft.com
Web: www.postensoft.com
Product: POSTEN X
Description: Efficient and comprehensive post-
tensioned concrete software that, unlike other
software, not only automatically designs the
Tendons, Drapes, as well as Columns, but also
produces highly efficient, cost saving, sustainable
designs with automatic documentation of material
savings for LEED. The others simply analyze –
POSTEN DESIGNS.

Qnect LLC
Phone: 512-814-5611 Simpson Strong-Tie
Email: Christian@Qnect.com Phone: 800-925-5099
Web: www.Qnect.com Email: web@strongtie.com
Product: QuickQnect Web: www.strongtie.com
Description: Delivers fast, engineered, and 3-D Product: Coiled Strap Calculator
modeled connections with significant cost and Description: Coiled Strap Calculator
schedule savings. Qnect will optimize 60-90% of web apps enable you to quickly determine
joints for maximum efficiency in minutes. the best solution for your load demands
and help determine the cut length of each
strap and the total amount of coiled strap
required for the job. Use the free Coiled
RISA Strap Calculator today.
Phone: 949-951-5815
Product: Connector Selector® Software
Email: benf@risa.com
Description: Connector Selector
Web: risa.com
(Allowable Stress Design) software tells you
Product: RISAConnection
which products are appropriate for your
Description: The cutting edge of next-
connection then sorts by least installed cost.
generation connection design software;
The Job List can track your projects and
features full 3-D visualization as well
print a shopping list. An easy to use stock
as expandable reports for every limit
list identifies which products you keep in
state. The latest release, v10 incorporates
stock. Download this free software.
updates to AISC 360-16 (15th Edition)
including changes to HSS provisions as
well as improved design for extended
shear tab connections.
Strand7 Pty Ltd
Phone: 252-422-0104
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Web: www.strand7.com
If you are working with Product: Strand7
advertisers, or vendors listed, Description: The soon to be released Strand7 R3
offers a new GUI, a new high-performance graphics
please let them know that you engine based on DirectX, and a 64-bit architecture.
saw their company in Significantly more efficient than traditional menu
STRUCTURE magazine! driven interfaces; new graphics engine provides orders
of magnitude improvement in graphics performance.
StructurePoint
Phone: 847-966-4357
Email: info@structurepoint.org
Web: structurepoint.org
Product: Concrete Design Software Suite
Description: StructurePoint, formerly
the PCA Engineering Software Group,
offers concrete design software programs
updated to ACI 318-14 for concrete
buildings, concrete structures, and
concrete tanks. Reinforced concrete
structural software includes programs
for design of columns, bridge priers,
beams, girders, one and two-way
slabs, shearwalls, tilt-up walls, mats,
foundations, tanks, and slabs-on-grade.
Struware, LLC
Phone: 904-302-6724
Email: email@struware.com
Web: www.struware.com
Product: Struware Code Search
Description: Struware announces a new
version of its Code Search program,
updated to incorporate ASCE 7-16 and
the 2018 IBC. The program will provide
all pertinent wind, seismic, snow, live
and dead loads in just minutes. Struware
also offers other structural software.
Demos at website.

58 STRUCTURE magazine
Tensar International Corporation Victaulic
Phone: 800-836-7271
Email: svance@tensarcorp.com
Phone: 713-752-1914
Email: stephanie.black@hkstrategies.com
Not listed?
Web: www.tensarcorp.com Web: www.victaulicsoftware.com All 2019 Resource Guide forms,
Product: SpectraPave4-Pro, TensarSoil, Product: Victaulic Tools for Revit® 2019
including the 2019 TRADE SHOW IN
SpectraRail, and Dimension Solution Software Description: The latest version enhances INFO routing SPECS

Description: SpectraPave4-Pro for optimizing with new editing features that make Filemodeling,
Name: 18-2650 Ad_Structure_Mar_CRS PRINT, are available
Corporate Page Size: on 5w" ourx 7.5h" website.
paved roads and stabilizing unpaved roads and procurement, and fabrication within PR#:Revit
no a reality
Job#: 18-2605 Number of Pages: 1
construction platforms. SpectraRail for the for
1 1 4engineers
4 E . N e w pand o r t contractors.
C e n t e r D r . These features further
Artist: Georgina Morra Email: gmorra@mapei.com STRUCTUREmag.org Bleed: Yes Amount: .125"
optimization of railway construction projects. simplify
D e e r f i e preconstruction,
l d B e a c h , F L 3 3 4boost 42 productivity,
Date: Februaryand 1, 2019 11:09 AM Colors: CMYK Process, 4/0
TensarSoil enables design of Tensar systems in make
N O T E : Cprojects
O L O R S V I Eeven
W E D Ofaster
N - S C R Efrom
E N A R Ethe
I N Tstart.
E N D E D F O R V I S U A L R E F E R E N C E O N L Y A N D M A Y N O T M A T C H T H E F I N A L P R I N T E D P R O D U C T.

accordance with all major industry-standard

protocols. Dimension Solution Software increases
productivity on foundation design analysis and
recommendations.

The Masonry Society

MAPEI provides a world of
Phone: 303-939-9700 Concrete Restoration Systems
Email: tmsmeetings@masonrysociety.org
Web: masonrysociety.org
Product: Print and Online Codes & Standards • Concrete Repair Mortars • Epoxy Adhesives
Description: A not-for-profit professional • Corrosion Protection • Decorative Toppings
organization of volunteer members, dedicated • Construction Grouts • Cure and Seals
to the advancement of masonry knowledge. • Waterproofing • Densifiers
Through our Members, all aspects of masonry
are discussed, challenged, & debated. TMS • Sealants and Joint Fillers • Structural Strengthening
develops and publishes standards and minimum • Coatings and Sealers Products
uniform criteria for safety, materials, design,
and construction of masonry.

ADVERTISEMENT–For Advertiser Information, visit STRUCTUREmag.org

Trimble
Phone: 678-737-7379
Email: jodi.hendrixson@trimble.com
Web: www.tekla.com
Product: Tekla Tedds
Description: Automates repetitive and
error prone structural and civil calculations,
allowing engineers to perform 2-D frame
analysis, access a large range of automated
structural and civil calculations to U.S.
codes, and speed up daily structural
calculations.

Product: Tekla Structural Designer

Description: Fully automated and
packed with unique features for optimized
concrete and steel design; helps engineering
businesses win more projects and maximize
profits. From quick comparison of
alternative design schemes through cost-
effective change management and seamless
BIM collaboration, Tekla Structural
Designer can transform your business.

Product: Tekla Structures

Description: Create and transfer
constructible models throughout the design
life, from concept to completion. With
Tekla Structures, accurate and information-
rich models reduce RFIs, leverage models
for drawing production, material take MAPEI USA

offs, and collaboration with architects,

consultants, fabricators and contractors.

18-2650 Ad_Structure_Mar_CRS Corporate.indd 1 2/6/19 2:03 PM

M A R C H 2 019 59
 NCSEANCSEA News
NCSEA Corporate Members
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Nationally recognized bodies that are associated with the practice of structural engineering, regardless of location and membership, who are approved
for this status by the Board of Directors.
AISC International Code Council Steel Tube Institute
American Wood Council Metal Building Manufacturers Association USG Corporation – Structural Solutions
Fabreeka International, Inc. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety Simpson Strong-Tie

AFFILIATE MEMBERS
Companies who provide supplies or services to structural engineers, including vendors of structural engineering applications software, insurance, and
structural products used for construction.
Allplan, Inc. Geopier New Millennium Building Systems
Atlas Tube GIZA Steel Performance Structural Concrete Solutions, LLC
AZZ Galvanizing Services Graitec Pieresearch
BDS VirCon GRM Custom Products Qnect
Bekaert Hayward Baker RISA Technologies
Blind Bolt Headed Reinforcement Corporation SE Solutions, LLC
Cast Connex Corporation Hexagon PPM SidePlate Systems, Inc.
Chicago Clamp Company Hilti, Inc. SkyCiv
Cold-Formed Steel Engineers Institute IAPMO Evaluation Service Stabil-Loc Inc.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute International Masonry Institute Steel Deck Institute
Construction Tie Products, Inc. ITW Commercial Construction North America Steel Joist Institute
CoreBrace Kinemetrics Strand7
DECON USA, Inc. Lindapter USA Trimble
DeWALT MeadowBurke Vector Corrosion Technologies
Freyssinet, Inc. Mitek Builder Products Voss Engineering

SUSTAINING MEMBERS
Structural engineering firms, firms that employ structural engineers, or individual professional engineers practicing structural engineering.
ARW Engineers Gerald E. Kinyon Morabito Consultants, Inc.
Barter & Associates, Inc. Gilsanz Murray Steficek Mortier Ang Engineers
Blackwell Structural Engineers Glotman Simpson Consulting Engineers O'Donnell & Naccarato, Inc.
Burns & McDonnell GRAEF Omega Structural Engineers, PLLC
Cartwright Engineers Haskell Professional StruCIVIL Engineers, Inc.
Collins Engineers, Inc. Holmes Culley Rimkus Consulting Group
Construction Consulting Associates, LLC IBI Group Engineering Services (USA) Inc. Ruby & Associates, Inc.
Cowen Associates Consulting James Ruvolo Scovis PLLC
Structural Engineers Joe DeReuil Associates SES Group LLC
Criser Troutman Tanner Consulting Engineers Katerra Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger
CSA Knoxville KBR Sound Structures, Inc.
DCI Engineers KOMA Stability Engineering
Deems Structural Engineering Krech Ojard & Associates Structural Engineers Group Inc.
Degenkolb Engineers LBYD, Inc. STV, Inc.
DiBlasi Associates, P.C. LHB Inc. TEG Engineering, LLC
Dominick R. Pilla Associates Mainland Engineering Consultants Corp. TGRWA, LLC
DrJ Engineering, LLC Mainstay Engineering Group, Inc. The Harman Group, Inc.
ECM Martin / Martin, Inc. Thornton Tomasetti
Engineering Solutions, LLC Mercer Engineering PC Wallace Engineering

PARTNERING ORGANIZATIONS
ASCE Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE SEI) Coalition of American Structural Engineers (CASE) International Code Council (ICC)
60 STRUCTURE magazine
 News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
The Benefits of NCSEA’s Corporate Membership
As a Corporate Member of NCSEA, you are not only part of a unique group of over 112 organizations sharing a higher level of involve-
ment, but also more connected to a national network of over 11,000 professional structural engineers. When you join, you are encouraged
to use this enhanced level of engagement with NCSEA to virtually “reach out” within our structural engineering network. Specifically, your
online presence within NCSEA will increase recognition of your organization that comes with the membership investment, such as an
acknowledgement at the annual Structural Engineering Summit, special logos that feature your connection with NCSEA, or a “spotlight”
on the NCSEA website that showcases your engineering firm.
Add to that, discounts for all NCSEA events are included in every membership level: live and recorded webinars, the Summit, and the Trade
Show at the Summit. All members also have the opportunity to save on a yearly webinar subscription, which includes all live webinars (25+)
within a 12-month period, unlimited access to the recorded webinar library (over 120), and unlimited certificates for all webinars attended.
As an NCSEA Corporate Member, you have the unique opportunity to connect with engineers nationwide in a variety of ways! Learn
more about how you can join, as well as the increased money saving benefits included within each Corporate Membership level, by visiting
www.ncsea.com/members/more.

NCSEA Forms New Ad Hoc Committee

The NCSEA Board has voted and approved the formation of an ad hoc Sustainable Design
Committee. Proposed by Kelly Roberts, P.E., Principal at Walter P. Moore’s Atlanta offices, the Save the Date for
committee’s main mission will be to promote sustainable design practices within the profession
of structural engineering through leadership, advocacy, outreach, and education. With her level
of interest and commitment to the concept, Roberts was installed as the committee’s first chair.
NCSEA's Structural
Stephanie Young, Principal at Mattson Macdonald Young and Director on the NCSEA Board,
worked with Roberts to secure the approval needed for the group’s formation. She noted, “Such Engineering Summit
a committee fits well within the NCSEA structure due to the strong network of Structural
Engineers Associations (SEAs) across the country that are members of NCSEA.”
Initial deliverables of the committee will include creating a web page on the NCSEA site November 12-15, 2019
dedicated to education on sustainable design – the best in class resources – as well as articles
and direct outreach to the SEAs to introduce the committee and the topic at the local level.
Disneyland ® Hotel
Anaheim, CA
NCSEA Webinars Register by visiting www.ncsea.com.

March 26, 2019 Learn more about

2018 IEBC – Part 1: Prescriptive & Performance Methods
Chris Kimball, S.E., P.E., MCP, CBO the NCSEA Summit
This two-part series will go through the structural provisions that are included in the 2018 IEBC.
Part 1 addresses the specific provisions for the prescriptive and performance compliance methods. by visiting
April 9, 2019 www.ncsea.com!
2018 IEBC – Part 2: Work Area Compliance Method
Chris Kimball, S.E., P.E., MCP, CBO
Part 2 addresses the specific provisions for the work area compliance method which comprises
the majority of the code.

April 18, 2019

Masonry Infill Design
Charles J. Tucker, P.E., Ph.D.
This course will cover the behavior of masonry infills and the 2016 TMS 402 Building Code
Requirements design provisions.

Courses award 1.5 hours of continuing education after the completion

of a quiz. Diamond Review approved in all 50 states.

M A R C H 2 019 61
 SEI Update
Membership

Join or Renew SEI/ASCE ASCE Member Get

For innovative solutions and learning, to connect with
leaders and colleagues, and to enjoy member benefits such as SEI a Member Offer
Member Update monthly e-news opportunities and resources – Invite your peers to join ASCE/SEI and
visit www.asce.org/myprofile or call ASCE Customer Service at earn rewards for recruiting new members.
800-548-ASCE (2723). message.asce.org/mgam

Advancing the Profession

2018 O.H. Ammann Research SEI Standards
Fellowship Visit www.asce.org/SEIStandards to:
• View ASCE 7-22 Committee Meeting
schedule and archive
Congratulations to recipients of the 2018 O.H. Ammann • Submit proposals to revise ASCE 7
Research Fellowship in Structural Engineering:
Jame Alexander, S.M.ASCE, New Mexico State University
Mohammad Alipour, S.M.ASCE, University of Virginia
Kien Quang Nguyen, P.E., A.M.ASCE, University of Kansas
Mohammad Taghi Nikoukalam Mofakham, S.M.ASCE, Texas A & M University
Yujie Yan, S.M.ASCE, Northeastern University
Learn more at www.asce.org/structural-engineering/ammann-research-fellowship.

Become an ASCE Key Contact

Key Contacts influence public policy at the state and federal levels. By building rela-
Svend Ole Hansen presented the Eurocodes in Wind
tionships with policymakers, you can influence issues important to the profession.
Actions to the ASCE 7-22 Wind Loads Subcommittee
https://www.asce.org/keycontacts/
meeting January 17 at ASCE in Reston, VA.

SEI Online
Engage via SEI Social Media Follow SEI
We want to hear from you! Share what inspires and informs you in structural engineering
with your colleagues and contacts via social media. When you tweet, make sure to add
@ASCE_SEI, so we see it. And remember to connect with your SEI/ASCE colleagues via
on Twitter
ASCE Collaborate. https://collaborate.asce.org/integratedstructures/home @ASCE_SEI

ASCE Guided Online Courses SEI News

Starting in March/April on GIS, crane lift plans, seismic design, and
construction. Earn up to 23 PDHs per course with 6 or 12-week options.
Read the latest news items including SEI New
www.asce.org/guided-online-courses Orleans Chapter events at www.asce.org/SEI

Errata SEI Standards Supplements and Errata including ASCE 7. See www.asce.org/SEI-Errata.
If you would like to submit errata, contact Jon Esslinger at jesslinger@asce.org.

62 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
Learning / Networking
Announcing ASCE 7-16 SEI Futures Fund Lectures
Goals include professional development, increasing ASCE/SEI membership and participation, presenting the ASCE/SEI standard develop-
ment process and future of performance-based codes, and promoting opportunities to get involved. Made possible by the SEI Futures Fund
in collaboration with the ASCE Foundation. Presented by leaders that develop the standard.

March 5 – ASCE/SEI 7-16 Overview Presentation in Boston

Hosted at Tufts University by BSCES and SEI Boston Chapter
https://goo.gl/5Chhz2

March 7 – ASCE/SEI 7-16 Wind Loads Presentation in Miami

Hosted by the SEI Graduate Student Chapter at Florida International University and SEI Miami-Dade Chapter
https://goo.gl/x92XRZ

April 9 – ASCE/SEI 7-16 Seismic Presentation in Portland, OR

Hosted by SEI Oregon Chapter – Details to be announced

June 5 – ASCE/SEI 7-16 Wind Loads Presentation in Chicago

Hosted by SEI Illinois Chapter – Details to be announced

Register by March 20 for the best rate at www.structurescongress.org.

• New: Learn from the Experts on Performance-Based Design Trends, Smart Technologies, Career Development, Leadership Skills, and more
• View program detail and use interactive planner online
• Make sure to include your tickets for the CSI Special Evening Reception April 26
• If you can’t attend, Livestream up to 3 sessions Friday, April 26; sponsored by CSI

Visit SEI at
NASCC
April 3-5 in St. Louis
See us at Booth 211 for member-
Join structural engineers, architects, and project stakeholders for in-depth case studies exploring dif-
ship benefits and opportunities, and
fering international design and construction demands, the challenges that lie ahead, and how we can
enter to win a six-month individual
find globally connected solutions.
subscription to ASCE 7 Online.
Key themes:
• Unusual structures, unique challenges
• Large occupancy venues, sports stadia design
• Tall buildings, performance-based design
Structures featured will include Shanghai Tower (China), Jeddah Tower (Saudi Arabia), Singapore
Sports Hub (Singapore), London Eye (UK), and Salesforce Tower (USA).
Registration opens in March.

Free eLearning Webinar

In case you missed it! Check out the ASCE Free eLearning webinar with SEI leaders from December 11: ASCE Made Me – How SEI Young
Professional Involvement Leads to Career and Personal Success. https://goo.gl/YjniUr

M A R C H 2 019 63
 CASE in Point
Save on CASE Membership!
Can you ever really be too successful? Keep your business thriving – no matter what your competition or the economy is doing – and say YES
to membership in ACEC’s Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE). An “Association within an Association” that comple-
ments your ACEC National benefits.
CASE, the oldest of ACEC’s four discipline-specific Coalitions, is a professional community for, of, and by structural engineers who want
relevant, useful information – on BIM, international building codes, risk management, and more – to run their businesses better.
Join CASE today, and you’ll qualify for:
• Education: CASE offers a track of 3 dedicated education sessions at both the ACEC Fall Conference and Annual Spring Convention
to keep members current with best practices and trends in structural engineering. As a member, you will also receive a discounted rate
to ACEC webinars focused on structural engineering issues. CASE also provides education sessions at the AISC Steel Conference and
the ASCE-SEI Structures Congress.
• Resources: Coalition members get free access to over 145 contracts, tools, and publications (a total value of over $5,000! ). CASE
developed over 65 documents geared toward structural engineering firms. You will also receive our weekly A/E/C Digest, an online
compilation of current articles and information about our industry.
• Advocacy: Your voice matters! Coalition members are often the first ones contacted to share their expertise with Congress and gov-
ernment agencies in response to current legislation and relevant regulatory agendas.
As an active member of CASE, I have found great networking opportunities within the structural engineering industry and consistently
reference Coalition documents to aid in my business’ development.
Save $75 off your first year’s dues through June 30, 2020! Join CASE by March 31, 2019, and get 15 months for the price of 12!
Questions? Contact CASE’s Executive Director, Heather Talbert, at 202-682-4377 or email her at htalbert@acec.org.
Together, we can take your business to the next level!
Corey Matsuoka
CASE Chairman
SSFM International

Keep Your Firm Thriving

ACEC’s Business of Design Consulting Course, April 3-6
ACEC’s Business of Design Consulting course in Phoenix, Arizona, April 3-6, provides a proven playbook for building leadership and
managing your firm.
The 3½-day program delivers strategies for a wide array of critical, need-to-know business topics to maximize your firm’s performance
in today’s churning business environment, including change management, strategic planning, finance, leadership, ownership transition,
contracts and risk management, and marketing.
The experienced faculty of industry practitioners includes Rod Hoffman of S&H Consulting; Brett Stewart of XL Catlin Design Professional;
Colvin Matheson of Matheson Financial Advisors; and David Stone of blüStone Marketing.
The course carries 22.5 professional development hours (PDHs).
For more information and to register, https://goo.gl/thz46A.

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 scholarship, administered by the ACEC College of Fellows, is awarded to a student seeking a
Bachelor’s degree, at a minimum, in an ABET-accredited engineering program. Since 2009, the CASE Scholarship program has given
$29,000 to help engineering students pave their way to a bright future in structural engineering.
We have all witnessed the stiff competition from other disciplines and professions eager to obtain the best and brightest young talent from
a dwindling pool of engineering graduates. One way to enhance the ability of students in pursuing their dreams to become professional
engineers is to offer incentives for educational support.
Your monetary support is vital in helping CASE and ACEC increase scholarships to those students who are the future of our industry. All
donations toward the program may be eligible for tax deduction, and you don’t have to be an ACEC member to donate! Contact Heather
Talbert at htalbert@acec.org to donate.

64 STRUCTURE magazine
 News of the Council of American Structural Engineers

Did you know?

CASE has tools and practice guidelines to help firms deal with a wide variety of business scenarios that structural engineering firms face
daily. Whether your firm needs to establish a new Quality Assurance Program, update its risk management program, keep track of the skills
young engineers are learning at each level of experience, or need a sample contract document – CASE has the tools you need! CASE has
several tools available for firms to use to enhance their business development processes:

CASE 962-F A Guideline Addressing the Bidding and Construction Administration Phases for the Structural Engineer
CASE 962-H National Practice Guideline on Project and Business Risk Management
CASE 976-A Commentary on Value-Based Compensation for Structural Engineers
Tool 5-4 Negotiation Talking Points
Tool 7-1 Client Evaluation
Tool 7-2 Fee Development
You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

CASE Practice Guidelines Currently Available

Structural Engineer’s Guide to Fire Protection
This publication is intended for structural engineers with no prior
experience or training in fire protection engineering. It is a compre-
hensive and concise treatment of prescriptive and performance-based
methods for designing structural fire protection systems in an easy
to understand format.
CASE 504 – Proposal Preparation Spreadsheet
The CASE Proposal Preparation Spreadsheet was developed to assist
project managers and administrators in developing cost proposals
for a project. The spreadsheet may be easily customized for any
organization or project type. It also may be used as a checklist to
see that all phases of a project are adequately staffed.

You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

Fresh EJCDC Contracts to Meet Modern Market Demands

EJCDC’s newly released 2018 Construction (C-Series) Documents are a significant modernization, revision, and expansion of the 2013
C-series and now the state-of-the-art in construction contract documents.
The updated edition comprises 25 integrated documents, including:
• Fundamental contract documents such as the Standard General Conditions, the Small Project agreement, and Supplementary Conditions
• Forms for gathering information needed to draft bidding documents
• Instructions for bidders and a standard bid form
• Bonds including bid, performance, warranty (new for 2018), and payment bonds
• Administrative forms, such as change orders and a certificate of substantial completion
EJCDC C-700, Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract, has been extensively refreshed and updated, too. The new EJCDC
2018 C-Series also includes expanded and updated, “Notes to Users” and “Guidelines for Use” to provide more specific instructions and it
eliminates the need for notary and corporate seals.

You can purchase these and other EJCDC documents at www.acec.org/bookstore.

Follow ACEC Coalitions on Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.

M A R C H 2 019 65

Art of
Approximation
By Dilip Khatri, Ph.D., P.E.
M easure the distance between two points
using a ruler, and you may read “12
inches.” This implies that the relative accuracy
is to the nearest inch. If I write “12.00 inches,”
then this implies accuracy to nearest 1/100th
of an inch. For a foundation, the accuracy of
± ½ an inch may be appropriate. The tools
of that construction trade do not have a high
level of precision (i.e., a backhoe, shovel, or
excavator). In contrast, for an Aircraft Wing
on a fighter jet, the accuracy may be mea-
sured in Mills (0.001 inches) or 1/1000th of
an inch. Understanding the level of accuracy
required for a given task involves familiarity
and judgment.
Structural Engineers approximate wind and
earthquake loads based on data provided by
seismologists, then use factors of safety on
materials to design buildings that will hold
our world’s inventory for an unknown period
of time, giving our client’s a vote of confidence
that will assure their tranquility. We represent
the trust of society, the honor of integrity, and
are responsible for millions of people’s lives
because our structures store their memories,
house their loved ones, and transport the
world’s treasures across the nation’s highways.
At both the beginning and the end, it is all
based on approximation because engineer-
ing is a system of approximations, based on
judgment, experience, and past errors that
become lessons learned.
Where can a young engineer learn such
skills? The first way is to learn from interaction
with experienced engineers. Another way is to
spend time on construction sites familiarizing
oneself with the tools, fit-ups, and methods of
the workers. When in doubt, review drawings
produced by others and recommended toler-
ances for construction such as those in ACI
117 or AISC 303. The best learning experi-
ence for young engineers is to get construction
experience. Work on something “real,” build
“stuff,” get your hands dirty, and immerse
yourself in the trades before becoming an
“office junky.” You will experience how the
paper design turns into a real structure.
Masters level students now graduate with
extensive training and theoretical background
on Finite Element Methods. Feats of analysis
66 STRUCTURE magazine
structural FORUM
that were impossible in earlier generations are
now done in matters of seconds using pow-
erful software, hardware, and sophisticated
algorithms. No doubt, impressive progress
from this author’s days when the PC was just
emerging on the horizon, and the first four-
function calculator was being sold for $100.
However, how can we teach the “common
sense” and “engineering judgment” to guide
us in design, and know that the answers pro-
vided by the software are right?
Teaching our engineering students about
Strain Energy Density, Non-Linear Dynamic
Analysis using the Galerkin Method,
Bete Reciprocal Theorem, Heisenberg’s
Uncertainty Principle, Fourier Transform,
Jacobian Matrix, and the Duhamel Integral
Formulation are useful tools for engineer-
ing analysis. But where’s the judgment?
Universities cannot teach it because it is not
really from textbooks and you cannot learn
it from Timoshenko’s Treatment on Plates
and Shells. You have to “live it” and learn
through osmosis with experienced engineers
in the profession who have designed many
structures over many years.
The profession of Structural and Civil
Engineering deserves its own School to
match that of other professions: Dentistry,
Medicine, Architecture, and Law. We need
a practice degree at the Master’s Level that
is a “Master of Structural Engineering” that
teaches Structural Engineering Design and
is taught by Professional Structural Engineers
from industry. These teachers can introduce
students to “Instinct,” the Engineer’s ability
to see the structure perform in the extreme
event and foresee the failure before it hap-
pens, then intuitively design for it so that it
does not happen. They can teach scale, both
in terms of proportions of members and
the production of drawings which describe
the structure.
They can teach Judgment, the “common
sense” to “feel” the right answer. Yes, “feeling”
whether an answer is right is also part of the
engineering experience. Our judgment mat-
ters because an undersized footing will lead to
a sinking building, an over-reinforced concrete
roof system will cause sudden collapse when
overloaded by snow, and a poorly designed
bridge truss will lead to hundreds of deaths.
These are skill sets that are best conveyed
by practicing engineers or those with exten-
sive design experience. Practicing Engineers
have this wealth of experience, accumulated
through years/decades of toil working with
construction contractors, owners, building
departments, and perhaps lawyers on proj-
ects that went well, wrong, sideways, and
sometimes won an award. All of this matters,
because Wins and Losses are both learning
experiences that should be shared. Classroom
learning is limited to textbooks, charts, tables,
graphs, and research papers. There is a bound-
ary to your educational envelope when you
limit your circle to only Ph.D. level educators,
and you lose the perspective of the real world.
Research is still essential, as are tenured Ph.D.
professors, grants, publications, and experi-
mental testing of components and systems.
Our profession is being asked to stamp and
qualify older structures with retrofit systems
that are unproven and be even more economi-
cal with designs. We need researchers to help
bridge the gaps in our understanding,
but we also need them to understand
that their students need us too.■
Dilip Khatri is the Principal of Khatri International
Inc, Civil and Structural Engineers, based in
Las Vegas, NV, and Pasadena, CA. He was
a Professor of Civil Engineering at Cal Poly
Pomona for 10 years. He previously served as
a member of the STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
(dkhatri@gmail.com)
M A R C H 2 019
 Simplified Design
Simplified Installation
Simplified Costs
Superior Seismic
Performance

✔ Bolted, Pinned, and Welded

Connections—Fully Qualified and
Exceeding AISC 341 Requirements
✔ Real-Time Assistance in all Stages
of the Project
✔ Maximum QA/QC and Scheduling
Control Contact CoreBrace at:
✔ Integration with Structural Design 5789 West Wells Park Road
and BIM Software (RAM, Etabs West Jordan, UT 84081
801.280.0701
and REVIT) corebrace.com
info@corebrace.com