Structure 201002

A
J
o
i
n
t

P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
C
S
E
A

|

C
A
S
E

|

S
E
I
S

T

R

U

C

T

U

R

E
February 2010
Steel
NCSEA Winter Institute
Coronado, California
March 12 & 13
Feb10 cover saddle stitch.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:46:09 PM
Powers Fasteners, Inc.
2 Powers Lane
Brewster, NY 10509
www.powers.com
P: (914) 235-6300
F: (914) 576-6483
Keep on top of the latest building code changes now
requiring code listed and compliant anchors in all states.
Powers has the products, the tools and the information you
need to help you specify compliant anchors.
Powers currently has the most code compliant anchors on the market*,
satisfying a range of needs including mechanical and adhesive anchors.
Our FREE PDA software is an anchor design interface
that puts technical data into a real-time environment
to help you visualize, consider
and specify anchors with our tabbed Design
feature, pull-down menu options, interactive
3-D graphics and anchor information bar.
Understanding the newcode is vital. Powers
makes information about compliancy a
priority, offering informational pieces,
and a hotline to connect you one-to-one with an expert who can help
answer your questions.
Get Compliant with Powers.
* AS OF DECEMBER 2009, 46 STATES INTHE USAHAVEADOPTEDEITHERTHE 2003 OR 2006
INTERNATIONAL BUILDINGCODE.
Powers can help you
make the change efficiently.
Blank.indd 1 12/11/2009 4:45:36 PM
STRUCTURE magazine February 2010
C O N T E N T S
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE
magazine does not constitute endorsement

by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole
responsibility for the content of their submissions.
22
20
6
The Richmond Oval is a
multipurpose sports and
recreation facility that
will serve as the Long
Track Speed Skating
venue for the 2010
Winter Olympics. This 6-acre roof structure features
composite wood-steel arches and is featured in this
months Structural Sustainability article found on
page 16. Courtesy of FII.
A
Jo
in
t P
u
b
lica
tio
n
o
f N
C
S
E
A
| C
A
S
E
| S
E
I
S

T

R

U

C

T

U

R

E
February 2010
Steel
NCSEA Winter Institute
Coronado, California
March 12 & 13
COLUMNS
FEATURES
DEPARTMENTS
IN EVERY ISSUE
ON THE COVER
3
20 Cold-Formed Steel Faade Framing
By Anthony D. Coviello, P.E., S.E.
It is important that structural engineers have a good understanding of the limitations
of Cold-formed Steel (CFS), as well as its possibilities. This article outlines some
common CFS faade framing issues and how the Engineer of Record can resolve
them with early consideration.
22 A Gem in the Mountains
By Carol A. Stevens, P.E., SECB and Phillip A. Warnock, AIA, NCARB
The Upshur County Courthouse, built in 1899, is constructed of brick with a
rock face sandstone foundation and monumental sandstone columns supporting
the portico. The dome is supported by a brick tower that draws ones eye to the
top of the structure, where decorative Corinthian cast iron columns adorn the
faade. Time and weather had taken a toll on this gem, which has suffered the
consequences of good intentions.
5 Editorial
Understanding National Standards
Provisions for Seismic Design
By James Malley, S.E.
6 Structural Design
Structural Design of Steel Pipe
Support Structures
By Kasi V. Bendapudi, P.E., S.E.
10 Construction Issues
Planning to Minimize Damage to
Buildings Adjacent to Construction
Sites in Urban Environments
By Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E., Paul
Kelley, P.E., Michael Brainerd, P.E.,
and Charles Russo, P.E.
14 Structural Performance
A Solution to Seismic
Bracing Restrictions
By John W. Lawson, S.E.
16 Structural Sustainability
Can Using More Wood Reduce Your
Environmental Footprint?
By Roxane Ward
41 Structural Forum
The Failure of the Five Es
By Barry Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB
24 InSights
Soil/Cement Slurry Strengthens
Weak Soils
By Jonathan Bussiere, E.I.T.
27 Quality Assurance Corner
Validating the Results of Structural
Engineering Software
By Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB
and Eric J. Heller, E.I.T.
33 Spotlight
Upholding Tradition
By Brent Bonham, P.E., S.E. and
Jeffry S. Adams, P.E.
4 Advertiser Index
30 Resource Guide Bridge
34 NCSEA News
36 SEI Structural Columns
38 CASE in Point
TOC Feb10.indd 1 1/21/2010 8:55:09 AM
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine online at
www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE
(Volume 17, Number 2). ISSN 1536-4283.

Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C
3
Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is
$65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $125/yr foreign (including
Canada). For change of address or duplicate copies, contact
your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in
STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the
STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE
is a registered trademark of
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA).
Published By:
C
3
Ink
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
C
3
Ink
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER
Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
Executive Director
312-649-4600
execdir@ncsea.com
Council of American Structural Engineers
David Bixby
Director, Coalitions
202-347-7474
case@STRUCTUREmag.org
Structural Engineering Institute
John E. Durrant, P.E.
Manager
ASCE Engineering Programs
703-295-6360
sei@STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE

A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
4
ADVERTISER PAGE #
American Galvanizers Association Page 30
Computers & Structures, Inc. Page 44
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. Page 13
Design Data Page 40
ESAB Welding and Cutting Products Page 19
Fyfe Co. LLC Page 7
Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. Page 29
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. Page 42
KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 4
MidaSoft, Inc. Page 31
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Page 17
Powers Fasteners, Inc. Page 2
QuakeWrap, Inc. Page 28
RISA Technologies Page 43
SidePlate Systems, Inc. Page 25
Simpson Strong-Tie Page 9
Steel Deck Institute Page 11
StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. Page 32
Struware, Inc. Page 27
Valmont Tubing Page 15
Wheeling Corrugating Page 26
Advertiser Index free information from advertisers
C-Index-Ed-InFoc-Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:47:02 PM
Editorial
5
Understanding National Standards
Provisions for Seismic Design
By James Malley, S.E.
Vice President, NCSEA
As a member of the committee that writes and updates the AISC
seismic design standard for structural steel in AISC document 341,
I am able to participate in the discussions and dialogues that are
held whenever a new provision is proposed, or an existing provision
is modied. This is a unique opportunity to understand both of
the fundamental philosophies for, and the detailed reasons behind,
the AISC 341 provisions. I know that every meeting held by our
committee will be a great learning experience for me, as I try to take
in all of the expertise that is shared by my fellow committee members.
Unfortunately, most practicing engineers do not have this opportunity
and therefore have to rely on other means to complete their project
designs, such as their own interpretation of the provisions, review of
the accompanying commentary, and discussion with colleagues. The
seemingly never-ending series of changes and additional complexity,
built into every edition, makes proper application of our seismic design
standards one of the signicant challenges of our profession.
If you have ever felt that this challenge was frustrating, and maybe
even a bit overwhelming, then attending the 2010 NCSEA Winter
Institute on March 12
th
and 13
th
in San Diego may be just the ticket for
you. Titled Seismic Design: Explaining the Y Factor from One Generation
to the Next, this seminar will focus on presenting the fundamental basis
for, and reasons behind, our national standards provisions for seismic
design. This Winter Institute will include seven lectures given by leading
seismic researchers and practicing engineers on such topics as the basic
seismic design provisions, requirements for the four primary structural
materials, nonstructural component design, soil-foundation-structure
interaction (SFSI), and the next generation of performance-based
design criteria. The presenters will describe recent changes and will
focus on areas of the code that have been the more frustrating or less
understood. Their emphasis will be on how to systematically implement
good fundamental seismic design concepts, to result in buildings and
structures that will meet our seismic design objectives.
NCSEA Winter Institute Presenters:
Professor Chia-Ming Uang, UCSD
ASCE 7 and Steel Design Concepts
Professor Benson Shing, UCSD
Masonry Design Methods and Issues
Professor Jose Restrepo, UCSD
Concrete Performance Factors and Design
Mr. Phil Line, URS Corporation
Wood Design Provisions, Past and Present
Professor Tara Hutchinson, UCSD
Nonstructural Components and Systems
Dr. Farzad Naeim, John A. Martin & Associates
Modeling SFSI, Easy, Difcult, or Impossible?
Mr. Ronald Hamburger, SGH
Next-Generation Performance-Based Design
In addition to the lectures, there will be a Friday afternoon tour of
the world-renowned structural testing laboratory and shake table at the
University of California at San Diego. These facilities include a strong
wall for full scale component tests, a lab specically designed for testing
base isolators, and the outdoor shaking table that can test full scale
Chair
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Burns & McDonnell
Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org
Executive Editor
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
NCSEA
Chicago, IL
execdir@ncsea.com
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB
CBI Consulting, Inc.
Boston, MA
Richard Hess, S.E., SECB
Hess Engineering Inc.
Los Alamitos, CA
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc.
Marietta, GA
Editorial Board
Brian J. Leshko, P.E.
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA
John A. Mercer, P.E.
Mercer Engineering, PC
Minot, ND
Brian W. Miller
AISC
Davis, CA
Mike C. Mota, P.E.
CRSI
Williamstown, NJ
Evans Mountzouris, P.E.
The DiSalvo Ericson Group
Ridgeeld, CT
Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E.
Dokken Engineering
Folsom, CA
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
KPFF Consulting Engineers
Seattle, WA
Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Kramer Gehlen & Associates, Inc.
Vancouver, WA
John Buddy Showalter, P.E.
AF & PA/American Wood Council
Washington, DC
buildings. We are currently planning a tour that includes observing
multiple tests in action, as well as a shaking table test.
If this isnt enticing enough, I havent even mentioned the venue, the
Marriott Coronado Island Resort and Spa, on world famous Coronado
Island across the bay from San Diego. The resort boasts a full spa,
tennis courts and three pools on site, and easy access to the beach and
downtown San Diego. Combining the hotel with the expected warm,
but not hot, weather year round in San Diego should make for an
enjoyable stay during the event.
Check out pages 34 and 35 of this issue and the NCSEA website
(www.NCSEA.com) for more details on the Winter Institute schedule,
to register, and to reserve your room at the Marriott Coronado Island
Resort. Then plan to join us in San Diego this March 12
th
and 13
th
. I
am sure that you will learn a lot, catch up with colleagues, meet new
engineers, and maybe even work on your tan before heading home!
C-Index-Ed-InFoc-Feb10.indd 2 1/21/2010 8:56:00 AM
d
e
s
i
g
n

i
s
s
u
e
s

f
o
r

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L

D
E
S
I
G
N
6
Structural Design of Steel Pipe Support Structures
By Kasi V. Bendapudi, P.E., S.E.
It is common to overemphasize the struc-
tural design of pipe support structures,
rather than focus on detailing for stability
or economics and practical aspects of the
steel structure and the foundations. This
is sometimes referred to as over-designing
and under-detailing. Sometimes the
hanger-type pipe supports or the trapezes
supported by another structure, such as
the main building frame, are referred to
as pipe support structures. For the pur-
poses of this discussion, the terms pipe
racks, pipe supports, and pipe support
structures are interchangeable. Essential
elements for limit states of pipe support
systems are often ignored, since these
systems are comprised of secondary ele-
ments and rarely impact the structural
integrity of any industrial facility.
Structural failures of pipe supports are
neither documented nor disseminated to
the structural community. The structural
design of pipe racks varies widely depend-
ing upon the plant operations and the
associated plant standards. However, pipe
rack failures could cause serviceability
problems for plant operations. Failures
of pipe support systems could potentially
impact the health, welfare, and safety of
plant personnel due to pipe breakage or
leaks. The following discussion includes
a review of the considerations involved
in the design, detailing, and structural
stability of pipe racks. Optimal solutions
are still governed by the judgment of the
design engineer.
Overview of piping design
In general, pipes are designed to move
freely on their supports in the longitudinal
direction (along the axis of the pipe),
except at the anchor points. Pipe anchor-
ages are required to account for expansion
and contraction of pipes due to variations
in the ambient temperatures. The expan-
sion/contraction of pipes resulting from
changes in temperature and pressure of
the contents is taken into consideration by
the piping engineers during piping design.
Anchor points will be required to maintain
the pipes in a state of equilibrium. Expan-
sion loops are also used to limit pipe stresses
and the associated failures in the piping
systems. The movements of the pipes
occur due to expansion, contraction, and
transient loads. System shutdowns and re-
starts could also cause movements in the
pipes. Transverse guides limit the lateral
displacements of the pipes.
Temperature effects
Ambient temperature differentials induce
forces in both pipes and pipe supports.
These forces are generally induced over a
period of time if they are due to variations
in the ambient temperature. However, the
forces occur more rapidly if the thermal
variations are affected by the contents in
the pipes. Particularly during the time
of plant startups and shutdowns, these
forces can occur rapidly. A pipe rack or
a pipe support is not typically subjected
to noticeable punishment under seasonal
temperature differentials, because it re-
sponds like an accordion. Thermal
variations due to the contents of the pipe
result in anchor forces that are more severe
Structural steel pipe supports are extensively utilized in
industrial and manufacturing facilities. Lack of uniform
industry standards for this topic leads to each organization
adopting its own engineering standards, at times, without
a clear understanding of the underlying theoretical concepts
and the cost implications. This is the rst of a two-part series of
articles on the behavior and design of steel support structures
for pipes. This article (Part 1) discusses the effects of ambient
temperature changes, expansion joint requirements, and an
introduction to design loads. Part 2 concludes with the continu-
ation of design loads, structure stability concepts and detailing
for stability requirements.
SYMM ABOUT C
L
SYMM ABOUT C
L
TYPICAL LOCK-IN BRACE
PREFERRED BRACE
Figure 1: Vertical bracing arrangements.
Side view of 4 tier process pipe rack with longitudinal bracing. Courtesy of Midrex Corporation,
Inc., Charlotte, NC.
X
Y
130F
60F
50F
30F
30F
D
E
S
I
G
N
R
A
N
G
E
U
S
E
D
I
N
E
X
A
M
P
L
E
MEAN TEMP. OF ERECTED
STRUCTURE (ASSUMED)
STRUCTURE
ERECTION
ASSUMED CYCLICAL ANNUAL VARIATIONS
IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES
+ t
(EXPANSION DOMAIN)
t
(CONTRACTION DOMAIN)
Figure 2: Thermal variations of structure.
C-StructDesign-Bendapudi-Feb10.i1 1 1/19/2010 2:48:37 PM
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
7
and should be considered in the design of the
supporting structure.
The effects of temperature change (expansion
or contraction) occur with respect to the
center of thermal stiffness of the structure. As
a matter of good practice, lock-in bracing
(Figure 1) should be avoided. Such vertical
bracing provided at the ends of the pipe rack
structure, in any given straight segment of the
structure, tends to restrain the thermal forces.
On the other hand, if the vertical bracing is
provided at the center or close to the center
of the pipe rack structure, the accordion
effect can be achieved in the structural system.
Expansion joints are not necessary for pipe
rack structures less than approximately 400 to
500 feet (125m to 155m) in length, if lock-in
bracing is avoided. Failures of pipe rack struc-
tures due to lack of expansion joints are rare,
and no recorded evidence is readily available.
The coefcient of linear expansion () is the
change in the length, per unit length, for a
change of one degree of temperature. The thir-
teenth edition of the AISC Steel Construction
Manual recommends a value of 0.0000065
for each degree Fahrenheit (F) as a reasonable
approximation of the coefcient of thermal
expansion for temperatures less than 100
degrees F.
The change in length
l = tl Equation 1
Where l is the original length of the
member and t is the change in temperature.
The force imparted (P) due to restraint
of free thermal expansion (l)
P = AE (l )/l Equation 2
Substituting tl for l in Equation 2 the
change in stress ) (psi) is expressed as
) = E t Equation 3
P = A ) = A E t , Equation 4
where A is the cross-sectional area of
the member.
The metrics for establishing ambient temper-
ature differential are to some extent subjective
and should be based on recorded historical
data of the atmospheric temperature conditions,
preferably site-specic. The variations in the
seasonal temperature with respect to the in-
place condition of the structure need not be
more than 80 F at most locations of the struc-
tural systems (Figure 2). A similar temperature
gradient diagram should be established for
each project location.
Variation of 80 F in temperature would
cause an elongation (Equation 1) of approxi-
mately -inch in a 20-foot-long structural
member and, if fully restrained, would cause
a stress of 15.1 ksi (Equation 3). For a pipe
rack longitudinal beam (W12x26), the inter-
nal force induced to restrain the elongation
would be 116 kips (Equation 4). Design con-
siderations should be segregated between the
design of the piping for its own movements
and the design of pipe rack steel for the effects
of variations in the ambient conditions. The
movements of pipes during the operating
conditions, or at the time of startups and
shutdowns, could either happen in the ex-
pansion domain or the contraction domain
(Figure 2). Any attempt to establish a design
basis for the pipe rack steel to combine both
of these effects occurring concurrently is very
cumbersome and impractical.
Any attempt to restrain such forces at each
frame of the pipe rack would also be imprac-
tical and uneconomical. Therefore, lock-in
bracing as shown in Figure 1 should be avoided.
For example, in a 440-foot-long stretch of pipe
rack with frames spaced 20 feet apart, the middle
two frames should be braced in accordance
with the preferred method as shown in Figure
1. In this arrangement, the extreme column
would be displaced approximately 1.25 inches
(0.125 x 10 bays) at the top in the longitu-
dinal direction. Column slope caused by this
expansion is H/480 for a column height of 50
feet. Typically, longitudinal drift will not cause
serviceability problems. There are no codes or
industry standards that prescribe limits on lon-
gitudinal drift. For long stretches of pipe racks,
the pipe stress engineer should be consulted
for any special requirements for longitudinal
drift control. As a matter of interest, Process In-
dustry Practice (PIP) Structural Design Criteria
2007 (STC 01015) limits transverse drift of
the pipe rack bents to H/100, which is very
lenient. Therefore, the column displacement
at the top is not signicant, and the structure
should be allowed to expand and contract due
to the variations of the ambient temperatures.
The total column displacements would be re-
duced along the longitudinal direction (see
in Figure 3) if the column bases are xed in the
longitudinal direction; however, this is neither
a common practice nor necessary. No expan-
sion joints in the pipe racks are necessary for
rack lengths less than 500 feet (approximately
155m). Under such provisions (Figure 3), the
structure is considered stable and serviceable.
SYMM ABOUT
COMPRESSION BRACE
10 BAYS @ 20 = 200
DISPLACEMENT
AT POINT A @ COL. LINE 1 H / 480
A
(
~

1
6

m
)
H
=
5
0

0
10 BAYS @ 20 = 200
OF BRACING
AND THERMAL STIFFNESS
C
L
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Figure 3: Partial elevation of pipe rack with no expansion joints.
T y f o
F i br wr ap
S y s t e ms
FYFE
Co.
LLC
NSFFFR
Certied to NSF/ANSI 61
Over 20 years ago we created the industry...
today we set the standard
Structural Strengthening
FRP Installation
Seismic Upgrade
Blast Mitigation
Concrete Retrot
Specialty Gunite
Underwater & Coastal Repairs
Expansion & Seismic Joints
Pipe Repair and Renewal
Large and Small Diameter
PCCP, RCP, Steel Structural Repairs
Carbon Fiber Structural Liners
Concrete Restoration
Epoxy Crack Injection
Spall Repair
Corrosion Protection
Advanced Fire Protection
8380 Miralani Drive, San Diego, CA 92126
Tel: 858.642.0694
z
Fax: 858.444.2982
www.fyfeco.com
continued on next page
8
Design loads
Pipe racks should be designed for all gravity
and natural hazards such as wind and seismic
loads, internal forces induced by restraint of
free thermal expansion, and the pipe anchor
and guide support loads. Gravity loads are the
largest of the operating loads during normal
plant operations or under the hydro-test con-
dition. The primary anchor forces consist of
longitudinal and transverse forces. Calculated
and identiable load paths for strength and
stability should be provided. The longitudinal
anchor forces are typically resisted by the ver-
tical bracing of the pipe rack (Figure 3, page 7).
If adequate stiffness for the bracing is provided,
it will function as a lean-on brace. Pipe
anchor supports should be stabilized in both
orthogonal planes. Bracing in the longitudinal
direction for long stretches (greater than 500
feet) are typically located at or near the center
of thermal stiffness. The transverse bracing, or
bracing perpendicular to the length of the pipe
rack, does not provide restraint to the longitu-
dinal thermal movements of the pipe rack.
Designing pipe supports for seismic conditions
consists of two parts: 1) design of connections
(anchorage or fastening) of the pipes to the
supporting structure for the seismic loads;
and, 2) design of the pipe support structure
for the seismic forces. These two cases are
independently investigated and should not be
combined. The controlling combinations for
loads are specied in the governing codes and
standards. The base shears at the pipe support
structure must be transferred to the founda-
tions by means of appropriate anchorage.
The guidance given by the building codes is
minimal in this regard, since pipe racks are not
considered to be buildings and must be treated
as Other Structures.
Design of the pipe support structure, including
the lateral-load-resisting elements, should
typically be on the basis of the equivalent
lateral force procedure. ASCE 7 and the
International Building Code (IBC) also permit
the modal analysis procedure and linear
response history analysis for non-building
structures. Dynamic analysis may not be nec-
essary unless the contents of the pipes are
hazardous to the environment and there is a
concern for public safety. Pipe support struc-
tures should maintain symmetry and uniformity.
Irregularities should be eliminated as much
as possible.
Proper fastening of the pipes to the supporting
structure is essential in the seismic design
of pipe racks. The design of connections be-
tween the pipes and the supporting structure
should be based on the seismic base shear
attributable to the dead weight of the pipes
and their contents. Such seismic force should
be applied at the centroid of the pipe, and the
associated eccentricity should be considered
in the design of the fastening system between
the pipe and the supporting structure. All pipe
support structures should be provided with
adequate bracing required for frame stability
as discussed in this article. Horizontal bracing
(plan bracing) underneath the pipes may be
required to transmit the horizontal seismic
loads applied at the centroids of the pipes
(Figure 4). The plan bracing would function
as a collector element (diaphragm) in order
to transmit the seismic loads to the vertical
bracing. The transverse force component of
anchor loads should be assumed to be shared
by the adjoining two frames on either side of the
anchor point. This load-sharing concept assumes
decay of this force beyond these ve frames. This
is only possible when the plan bracing is pro-
vided. Therefore, it is imperative that the anchor
points be located with at least two frames before
the end of the pipe support segment.
B
A
1 4
2 3
(~4.5m)
15 0 (TYP)
(~6.0m)
20 0 (TYP)
(
~
4
.
5
m
)
1
5

0

(
T
Y
P
)
PLAN BRACING
NOTE: VERTICAL BRACING FOR
PIPE RACKS II & III NOT SHOWN
SEPARATE FRAME
AT INTERSECTION
DIRECT CONNECTION TO
INTERSECTING PIPE RACK
COLUMN
S
H
E
A
R

T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
@

C
O
L

2
8

&

3
8
PIPE RACK I
PIPE RACK II
PIPE RACK III
ELEVATION AT COL. LINE -A
PLAN
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N

A
T

C
O
L
.

L
I
N
E
S

-
3

&

4
N
Figure 4: Intersecting pipe racks.
Summary
Part 1 of this two-part series discussed tem-
perature effects on pipe racks, including the
forces imparted, recommended bracing arrange-
ments, drift control requirements, and an
introduction to design loads. The upcoming
Part 2 will discuss the interaction between the
pipe support structure and the pipes, stability
requirements, and detailing for the stability of
pipe racks.
Kasi V. Bendapudi, P.E., S.E. is the Chief
Civil, Structural, and Architectural Engineer
with BE&K Inc., at Houston, Texas. He can
be reached at kasib46@yahoo.com.
The online version of this article
contains references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Elevation of multi-tier process pipe racks bridging across the roadways. Courtesy of Midrex
Corporation, Inc., Charlotte, NC.
The only code-listed
stacked shearwall solution.
2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SSW10-S
If youre planning to stack prefabricated shearwalls, make sure theyre Steel Strong-Wall
shearwalls.
Simpson Strong-Tie is now the only manufacturer to have a code-listed, two-story solution. Available
in widths as narrow as 15 inches for stacked applications, our engineered walls allow you to design
multistory homes and buildings with larger windows, doors and open spaces without sacricing the
high load values required for the project.
To ensure your walls stack up, look to Simpson Strong-Tie for the widest selection of shearwalls code listed
to the 2006 IBC (see ICC-ES ESR-1679). Visit www.strongtie.com/strongwall or call (800) 999-5099.
Blank.indd 1 1/6/2010 9:20:15 AM
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
s
s
u
e
s

a
n
d

t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N

I
S
S
U
E
S
10
Planning to Minimize Damage to Buildings Adjacent
to Construction Sites in Urban Environments
By Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E., Paul Kelley, P.E., Michael Brainerd, P.E., and Charles Russo, P.E.
This is the second in a three-part series on the topic of planning and managing building response to adjacent construction.
The rst, Monitoring Building Response to Adjacent Construction, was published in the November 2008 issue of STRUCTURE
magazine. The third will appear in an upcoming issue.

People and businesses continue to con-
centrate in large metropolitan centers
because keen competition in a city makes
services and commerce better. As a result,
land values are typically at a premium,
requiring development of structures that
optimize use of space. Taller and deeper
structures are being constructed, existing
structures are expanded or modied, the
urban infrastructure is constantly main-
tained, replaced, and expanded, while the
existing and often historic fabric of mature
cities must be maintained. During this
continuum of urban rejuvenation, provid-
ing protection and needed maintenance
for the remaining, adjacent structures is
not a trivial task.
Common issues associated with urban
development can be political, commercial,
and technical in nature. Urban commu-
nities have multiple interests historic
preservation, trafc control, and vehicular
and pedestrian access. Developers are
often faced with signicant cost restraints,
especially when expanding into adjacent
properties, so construction alternatives
are selected by balancing risk and costs.
Adjacent neighbors are concerned with
property damage, disruption of access,
disruption to operation (noise, dust, vi-
bration), and safety. Design team members
must manage expectations of owners and
neighbors. Their role, which includes
determining the reasonable construction
methodology and evaluation of loads and
margins of safety, is extremely difcult in
urban environments. Due to unpredictable
existing conditions, tight boundaries, and
A photo of a building elevation can be used as a key map for identication of individual distress, shown separately on detailed, up-close photos.
Detailed observations from a condition survey can be shown on individual photos linked to
a key plan.
C-ConstrIssues-Vatovec-Feb10.ind1 1 1/19/2010 2:49:20 PM
11
the relative imprecision of construction toler-
ances in underground work, the designers risk
exposure often is not commensurate with their
level of control and compensation.
Some of the more common issues encountered
in planning for construction in this complex
environment are described next.
Well Managed Development
Projects Limit Damage Risks
Urban structures often consist of fragile,
archaic, and not well understood construction
components and systems. They can be founded
on unknown and potentially deteriorated
foundations, or can potentially bear on inad-
equate soils or soils whose condition changed
since the original construction (e.g. due to
past dewatering or consolidation). Therefore,
most projects in urban environments can and
probably will result in some level of movement
to adjacent buildings. Properly conceived and
executed projects, however, can effectively
limit the risk of signicant damage. To achieve
that, the developer and their design team must
begin planning, communicating, and acting
long before the rst shovel hits the ground.
Some of the more critical tasks to be addressed
in the process include:
Engage the design professional to
perform (pre)condition assessments
of adjacent buildings in an attempt
to document and understand their
present condition and fragility. Share
information with adjacent building
owners and reach agreement regarding
issues contained in the survey reports.
Conduct post-construction surveys at
the appropriate time.
Evaluate the effects of excavation
and the new foundation system on
adjacent buildings using estimated or
observed information regarding existing
foundations (type and depth). Evaluation
of potential risks can be used to develop
construction methodology and plans
to mitigate damage. Sequencing of
anticipated construction processes should
be well planned and executed (all too
often excavation proceeds ahead of lateral
support work, for example).
Engage in open communication with
adjacent building owners. Provide
them descriptions of planned activities
and controls. Solicit and address their
concerns. Coordinate with them all work
affecting their property.
Establish a well-dened construction
monitoring plan (building-performance
monitoring and construction diagnostic
monitoring) that includes monitoring of
groundwater elevations, ground-borne
vibrations, movements of the excavation
support elements, and movements of
adjacent properties. Establish threshold
and limiting criteria for each aspect
of measured response. If necessary,
especially fragile components should
be braced or protected.
Require that the contractors specialty
engineer make frequent site visits to
observe conditions, review and comment
on monitoring results, and react quickly
to any unforeseen conditions.
Unfortunately, many projects in larger US
cities are not designed and planned to suc-
ceed, especially relative to maintenance, care,
and damage protection for adjacent buildings.
Too often:
Responsibility is often blurred between
the designer, contractor, and the
contractors specialty engineer;
communication channels with adjacent
building owners are non-existent or
break down;
design professionals are not retained to
perform a thorough condition assessment
or to evaluate potential risk of damage;
the preconstruction survey, monitoring,
and protection of adjacent structures are
not budgeted;
the design team does not adequately
communicate project requirements, or
such requirements are ignored;
risky excavation activities seem to be
under no ones purview; or,
the developer/contractor rely on their
insurance to cover any collateral damage.
As a result, problems arise.
Legal Responsibilities and Issues
Most building codes and common laws en-
courage construction on rightfully owned
land, with certain provisions and requirements
regarding the remaining adjacent properties.
For example, the developing party may have a
duty to inspect the adjacent property, to give
reasonable notice regarding construction ac-
tivities that affect the building next door, or
to obtain insurance to protect the adjacent
owners. Owners of adjacent buildings may
be required to grant access to perform inspec-
tions, and ready the adjacent building to resist
construction impact.
In addition, most building codes have require-
ments regarding protection of adjacent buildings
during construction activities. A frequent
common law right is to have the owned land
naturally supported. If natural soil support
is removed or modied during construction
activities, the adjacent site owners or operators
will likely be found liable for any ensuing
damage. If adjacent development requires
excavation near or at the lot line, underpin-
ning of nearby building wall foundations will
STEEL DECK
I NSTI TUTE
s
www.sdi.org
We are pleased to announce that our new
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI ) / Steel Deck Institute ( SDI )
standards for Steel Roof Deck (RD1.0),
Composite Steel Floor Deck (C1.0) and
Non-Composite Steel Floor Deck (NC1.0)
are now available for FREE download
on our website. These standards are also
highlighted in our Steel Deck Institute
Steel Deck Design Manual #31 which
can also be ordered from our website.
Set your standards high.
P.O. Box 25 Fox River Grove, IL 60021
(p) 847.458.4647
Weve got
NEW 2009
downloadable.
And now theyre
standards.
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
12
typically be required. In general, responsibility
for any damage that is shown to be a result
of adjacent-site construction will rest with
the party performing the construction. Other
building code requirements may include pro-
tection of roofs, skylights, and walls, protec-
tion against water entry, protection and lateral
support of party walls exposed as a result of
demolition, installation pedestrian bridges for
protection against falling debris, etc.
Despite common sense, common law, and
building code requirements, construction in
urban areas, once damage is alleged, seldom
goes smoothly. Adjacent owners may not be
sufciently informed, are unaware of their
rights, or are not familiar with the plans for
adjacent development until it is too late.
Sometimes building code requirements are
vague or incomplete in terms of guidance, re-
quirements, and responsibility of the involved
parties. Occasionally, owners of damaged
properties inform their insurance companies
too late, or blindly request their insurance
carriers to pay for damage that is not covered by
their policies. At other times, cause of dam-
Monitoring of vertical building displacements.
The map on the right shows areas where the
threshold limits for displacement established prior
to construction were exceeded. Early detection
of exceedance can be used to quickly develop a
mitigation plan.
age is disputed or new damage is not easily
discerned from the pre-existing damage. In
general, without well-dened and planned proj-
ect processes in place, disputes regarding
causation and amount of damage (no precondi-
tion surveys), or disruption, easily develop and
occasionally escalate, requiring involvement of
experts, consultants, and ultimately attorneys.
Ensuing litigation can in turn quickly engulf
other parties (architects, engineers, contractors,
and insurance carriers) in the dispute.
Managing the Process to
Minimize Damage to
Buildings (Anticipate)
So, how does someone avoid getting their
building damaged when faced with irrespon-
sible, under-budgeted, under-qualified, or
uncommunicative prospective developers of
a property next door? The assumption here is
that, unless one of the four adjectives above is
true, the project would be well-planned, man-
aged, implemented, and designed to minimize
damage-risks described earlier. The following
focuses on some common issues and strategies
available to building owners.
Up-front Research
At least some information regarding new
developments is typically available in the public
domain. Specically, plans for new buildings
should be on le with the building depart-
ment in the appropriate municipality. Owners
of adjacent buildings should research the
building department records, which are often
available on the internet, at the rst sign of
adjacent development (e.g. the windows of the
existing building next door are being boarded
up), especially if they have not already been
approached by the developing party next door.
Generally, even if plans related to operations
that are most likely to affect adjacent properties
(such as excavation) are not available, sufcient
information regarding the identity of involved
parties can usually be obtained from the building
department records. Additional useful infor-
mation, such as past violations associated with
the development site or with the developer in
question, may also be available.
13
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
Communication
Owners of adjacent buildings should try to
contact, and get properly informed directly
from, representatives of the adjacent devel-
opment. A savvy building owner should be
able to recognize if the development is well
planned, if due attention is given to demoli-
tion, excavation, and construction methods,
as well as how the planned activities relate to
existing adjacent building(s). For less experi-
enced owners, the appropriate contact person
on the development side should be able to
walk them through all the processes, and help
them understand and anticipate all potential
issues. However, if plans and procedures are
not made available, if the monitoring plan
and staff that will implement protection is
not dened or divulged, or if full access to all
matters pertaining to the next-door property is
not given, there should be reason for concern.
Regardless of the response from the developers
side, however, owners may choose to retain
an independent consultant (adjacent owners
engineer) to help them through the process
and help mitigate risks. The adjacent-owners
engineer would review the design approach
and preconstruction-survey data, spot-check
monitoring and quality-control programs,
review monitoring data and reports, and visit
the site periodically to review project progress
and condition of the adjacent building. If the
project is going well, the adjacent-owner engi-
neers involvement and time-commitment can
be minimal. If the project is not going well,
if damage is incurred, if information is not
forthcoming, or if any other problem arises,
the engineers role may grow. They may take
on some monitoring and evaluation duties
ordinarily belonging to the developer and
design team or the adjacent property contractor,
as well as provide engineering guidance re-
garding protection and damage management
during construction.
Unfortunately, if the adjacent-building owner
is faced with an unresponsive developer next
door, there are few pleasant options. They may
rely on their independent consultant and their
insurance company to help them navigate
through issues that may arise throughout the
project, but this typically puts them in the
reactive mode. If they dont become part of
the planning process, and if the process is not
managed well, they will only be able to deal
with issues and damage as they occur; they will
not be able to prevent them.
Agreements
One way to attract the attention of an adja-
cent (and unresponsive) developer is to involve
attorneys. This does not necessarily mean that
litigation is imminent, or that some level of
damage was already incurred. Attorneys can
typically reach the appropriate parties on the
other side, and work towards developing a
rm, contractual agreement between neigh-
boring parties even before the project is started.
Ideally, irrespective of whether attorneys are
involved or not, this agreement would typically
dene steps, procedures, and reimbursements
for design and construction review; for access,
monitoring, property protection, responsibility
for damage and repair; and, other factors
that can be anticipated during the course of
the project. Although often not ideal, this
approach offers a clean, agreed-upon method of
resolution for any issues arising from construc-
tion, and it is a better alternative to unplanned
disputes and litigation. In general, there are
three ways for an owner of the adjacent building
to get protection against damage: through
insurance (their own or the adjacent develop-
ment owners), through contractual agreement
with the adjacent development owners, or
through some form of litigation.
Conclusion
Congested urban construction is difcult and
often results in damage to adjacent structures.
Damage and associated disputes can usu-
ally be avoided if proper project planning,
monitoring, and execution are employed.
Early coordination between parties can pre-
vent disputes and reduce risks. Preconstruction
agreements, whether procured through attorneys
or not, are invariably benecial when it comes
to minimizing and resolving damage claims.
Further discussion regarding evaluation and
remediation of building damage, once it has
already incurred, will be presented in the
third article of this series.
Paul L. Kelley, P.E. is a Senior Principal
at Simpson Gumpertz and Hegers ofce in
Boston and a head of East Coast Structural
Engineering operations.
Charles Russo, P.E. is a Senior Principal with
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., and is
Head of Structural Engineering Practice in
their Washington, DC ofce.
Michael Brainerd, P.E. is a Senior Principal
with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc, and is
their National Practice Leader for Structural
Repair and Rehabilitation.
Milan Vatovec, Ph.D., P.E. is a Senior
Principal with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Inc., and is Head of Structural Engineering
Practice in their New York ofce.
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

i
s
s
u
e
s

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

t
o

e
x
t
r
e
m
e

e
v
e
n
t
s
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L

P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
14
A Solution to Seismic Bracing Restrictions
Expanding the Acceptance of New Large HSS Sections
By John W. Lawson, S.E.
Concentric Braced Frames of steel hollow
structural sections (HSS) have a long his-
tory of providing efcient designs to resist
lateral forces especially in seismic zones.
The workhorse material standard, ASTM
A500, has provided tubular sections with
a good history of performance. However,
with the adoption of the 2006 edition of
the International Building Code (IBC) in
conjunction with the AISC 341-05 Seismic
Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, it
has become difcult to utilize these sections
in taller clear-height buildings and heavily
loaded applications due to the current
scope of the ASTM A500 standard. Ex-
panding the scope of ASTM A500 to
include the thicker wall sections currently
being produced will provide engineers more
seismically compact sections to choose
from and result in more efcient designs.
In the seismically active Western United
States, very large distribution/warehouse
facilities of 100,000 square-feet to over
two-million square-feet incorporate large
concentric braced frames. The inverted-V-
type bracing conguration, in conjunction
with an Ordinary Concentric Braced Frame
system (OCBF), has been preferred in the
past by allowing material handling ow
beneath and simplied bracing connec-
tions at the expense of higher design base
shear. Figure 1 was taken last year at a
facility in Southern California and depicts
a completed 1,400,000 square-foot dis-
tribution warehouse for a national brand
undergarment manufacturer. This large
building consists of concrete tilt-up walls
with a hybrid panelized at roof system.
The buildings interior utilizes large Hol-
low Structural Sections for the columns
(HSS 10x10x0.3125) and for the seismic
resisting braced frame diagonals (HSS
14x14x0.500).
With the adoption of the 2006 IBC
and referenced AISC 341-05, tubular
sections larger than 10 inches no longer
meet the new limits for seismically com-
pact sections. For an OCBF as used in this
example building, the allowable width/
thickness ratio for square brac-
ing members b/t < 110(F
y
)
was relatively low under the
1997 UBC through 2003 IBC.
For these larger cross-sections,
thinner wall sections were per-
mitted under the code and
complying HSS members were
widely available. In the 2006
IBC, the braces for OCBF
and Special Concentric Braced
Frames (SCBF) both have a
limited width/thickness ratio
of b/t < 0.64(E/F
y
) for square
and rectangular bracing members.
The background of this building code
change can be traced to the Northridge
Earthquake in 1994 and the subsequent
width/thickness ratios incorporated into
the 1997 UBC. Ongoing research has
shown that brace ductility is in large part
determined by the prevention of fracture
due to local buckling behavior under low
cycle fatigue. HSS sections are suscep-
tible to localized buckling. Because both
OCBFs and SCBFs are expected to un-
dergo some limited buckling under severe
ground motions, the braces are required
to meet the special width/thickness ratios
for seismic compactness. Unlike compact-
ness dened for gravity shapes where local
buckling is prevented before the onset of
strain-hardening, seismic compactness
provides resistance to local buckling when
stressed into the inelastic range.
Initially, a new width/thickness ratio limit
was applied only to SCBF by the adop-
tion of IBC 2003, but because SCBFs
require special detailing and because large
sections meeting the seismic compactness
criteria were not available, heavily loaded
and larger clear-height buildings continued
to use OCBFs. X-type bracing congu-
rations (Figure 2b) were avoided due to
perceived erection complexity, the larger
number of connections, and brace obstruc-
tion closer to oor level. Until recently, the
inverted-V-type congurations (Figure 2a)
have been preferred in single story large
clear height buildings.
Researchers cautioned that Hollow
Structural Sections (HSS) under seismic
loading should be avoided unless more
restrictive seismic compactness limita-
tions were adopted. Under the 2006 IBC
(AISC 341-05), width/thickness ratios
for OCBFs now are identical to SCBF
systems. The use of HSS under grav-
ity and wind loading was unaffected by
these changes.
An unexpected consequence of the more
restrictive width-to-thickness ratio is the
elimination of all HSS sections larger than
10 inches square for use in concentric
braced frames. Currently, only ASTM
A500 sections are available for square
braces in seismic applications. Because
the current ASTM A500 standard limits
its scope to a maximum wall thickness of
approximately inch, 12-inch, 14-inch
and 16-inch square sections are unable to
comply with seismic compactness, despite
thicker walled sections being available
from Japan.
One Japanese manufacturer, Nippon Steel
& Sumikin Metal Products Co., Ltd
(NSMP), is producing large HSS products
and exporting them to the United States.
According to Masao Sonoda, General
Manager of Building Products Develop-
ment, NSMP is regularly producing 12-,
14-, 16-, 18-, 20- and 22-inch square sec-
tions with 0.750-inch and 0.875-inch
wall thicknesses. As Table 1 shows, these
large HSS with thicker walls could give
structural engineers a new tool to comply
with the tighter restrictions under the
2006 IBC. By providing heavier walls,
12- and 14-inch square sections can once
again be used for concentric seismic brac-
ing to accommodate heavy loads or long
bracing situations.
In gravity or wind loading situations
where braces or columns are not required
to be seismically compact, cross sections
larger than 16-inch square may be desired;
however, ASTM A500s scope currently
limits section perimeters of 64 inches
or less. While not yet being produced
by North American steel manufacturers,
Figure 1: Large HSS shapes have been common in braced frames
in the seismically active western United States. Expanding the
scope of ASTM A500 will allow use of these shapes that already
comply with the new seismic compactness requirements.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2: Examples of concentrically
braced frames.
C-StructPerformance-Lawson-Feb101 1 1/19/2010 3:42:58 PM
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
15
Compactness Requirements:
Width/Thickness Ratio = b/t
(1) Earthquake loading:
b/t < 0.64(E/F
y
) Seismically Compact
(2) Gravity, Wind loading:
b/t < 1.12(E/F
y
) Compact
E= Young Modulus F
y
=Yield Strength
t = 0.93 times the nominal wall thickness
b = the clear distance of at portion between corners.
The outside corner radius equates to 1.5 times of the wall thickness.
t
HSS
t
1.5t 1.5t
B
b
Figure 3.
Japans NSMP is manufacturing 18-, 20- and 22-inch
square sections that could comply with ASTM A500
if the Standards scope were to expand. Without being
subject to the special seismic compactness restrictions,
these extra large HSS shapes provide many additional
opportunities for architects and engineers.
In an effort to continue providing concentric braced
frames in large clear-height buildings, some engineers have
experimented with using round pipes (HSS16x0.625)
as a substitute, but it is difcult to obtain seismically
complying material. And, the reduced radius of gyra-
tions in these sections increases the slenderness and thus
restricts their use to shorter applications.
Another unorthodox option is to ll the 12-, 14- and
16-inch tubes with concrete to stabilize their walls.
However, in addition to the extra material costs, it is
undesirable to bring a concrete subcontractor back out
to the job so late in the process and pump concrete
upwards of 40 feet.
A better approach to the conict between the current
ASTM A500 standard and AISCs compactness limi-
tations is to expand the standards scope of regulation.
Currently, there are applications where these large
HSS sections are being used despite being outside the
dimensional scope of ASTM A500 but equivalent in
quality. At the current time, some US service centers
have started to stock them in their warehouses for lim-
ited uses.
Unfortunately, ASTM A500 currently regulates its
scope to total periphery up to 64 inches, wall thick-
ness up to 0.625 inches. An increase in this standards
scope would once again provide a larger range of brac-
ing sections available for engineers to utilize. At this
time, NSMP has submitted a proposal to ASTM to
expand the dimensional scope to 88-inch periphery
and 0.875-inch wall thickness. With the opportunity
for foreign and domestic producers to supply larger,
thicker HSS material complying with ASTM A500,
more efcient structural systems can provide tall, open
spaces as well as accommodate heavily loaded seismic
bracing conditions.
Size
(in.)
Nominal Wall thickness (in.)
0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875
4 x 4 OK OK OK
6 x 6

OK OK
8 x 8

OK OK
10 x 10

OK
12 x 12

OK
14 x 14

OK
16 x 16

18 x 18

20 x 20

22 x 22

Table 1: Seismic Compactness.
John W. Lawson S.E. is a practicing Structural Engineer and Assistant Professor in the
Architectural Engineering Department at California Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo. He can be reached at jwlawson@calpoly.edu.
T u b u l a r s e c t i o n s
custom built
to the highest standards.
Yours.
SuperStruct tubular sections hold up to the strictest
design standards without holding them back.
ManuIacIurcd In a varIcIv oI sIacs and sIzcs Io
vour sccIIIcaIIons
Largc sIzcs Iron 12 u Io 4S squarcs and rccIangIcs
LcngIIs u Io 55'
WaII IIIckncss 5/16 Io 1
LxccIIcnI coIunn sIrcngII and IorsIonaI rocrIIcs
AcsIIcIIcaIIv acaIIng
S00-S25-666S vvv.vaInonI.con VaIIcv, NcLraska
ConIacI KvIc DcBusc aI VaInonI TuLIng IoII-Ircc aI 1-800-825-6668 ext. 3558 or
kld2@valmont.com Io Icarn norc on IIc dcsIgn ossILIIIIIcs oI HSS SucrSIrucI.
Shaded areas indicate availability, but not meeting the scope
of ASTM A500.
C-StructPerformance-Lawson-Feb102 2 1/19/2010 2:50:52 PM
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

t
h
e
y

p
e
r
t
a
i
n

t
o

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L

S
U
S
T
A
I
N
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
16
Can Using More Wood Reduce Your Environmental Footprint?
By Roxane Ward
Building designers have long recognized
the inuence they have in addressing the
worlds most pressing environmental issues.
In the late 1970s, the oil crisis helped to
initiate what has now been 30+ years of
increasing energy efciency. Today, con-
cern about climate change is resulting in
a similar focus on carbon dioxide (CO
2
).
However, while buildings in the United
States account for approximately 39 per-
cent of the countrys energy consumption
and contribute 38 percent of its CO
2
emissions, there is growing awareness
that material choices also factor greatly
and that wood, in particular, can have
a positive impact on a buildings environ-
mental footprint.
Carbon Absorption
and Storage
The fact that wood is the only major
building material thats renewable and
sustainable is just part of the picture, says
Dwight Yochim, national director of the
WoodWorks program, which provides ed-
ucation and technical support to engineers
and architects designing non-residential
wood buildings. Sustainably managed
forests such as those in North America,
and the products made from those forests,
also have the potential to play a signicant
role in addressing climate change.
As a tree grows, it absorbs CO
2
from
the atmosphere, using the carbon (C) for
growth and releasing the oxygen (O
2
).
Thats as much as most people think
about, says Yochim. But wood is about
50 percent carbon by weight and wood
products continue to store this carbon
indenitely. In a building, for example,
its stored for many decades. But wood
buildings are also easily adaptable and
its becoming increasingly common to
see the wood reclaimed for other uses
so the carbon is actually kept out of the
atmosphere considerably longer.
According to the research rm Dovetail
Partners, Inc., the amount of carbon stored
in U.S. wood products is about 3.5 bil-
lion metric tons (including landll sites).
However, more important from a climate
change perspective is the cumulative impact
over time. Each year, new wood products
represent an estimated 60 million metric
tons of additional stored carbon. Most
of this is in the nations housing stock,
so assuming that more homes are built
than dismantled, and adding any increase
in non-residential wood buildings, the
amount of stored carbon can be expected
to grow considerably.
Given that wood is made using the suns
energy, greenhouse gas emissions are also
avoided when wood is used in place of
materials which require large amounts of
fossil fuels to manufacture. For example,
although cost and speed of construction
were the reasons that HMC Architects
chose wood as the main framing and
structural material for Harada Elementary
School in California, the building includes
more than 23,000 cubic feet of wood,
which stores an estimated 490 metric tons
of carbon and is responsible for another
990 metric tons in avoided CO
2
emis-
sions. The 2010 Olympic Speed Skating
Oval in British Columbia, which has a
six-acre free-spanning wood roof, includes
almost 135,000 cubic feet of wood, stores
an estimated 2,940 metric tons of CO
2
and is responsible for avoided emissions
of another 8,820 metric tons of CO
2
.
Two things complete the cycle, says Yochim
the use of biomass as a carbon-neutral
energy source and forest regeneration.
Forests absorb more carbon when theyre
young because thats when theyre grow-
ing most vigorously. As they get older
they absorb less, until eventually they
start to decay and begin releasing their
stored carbon back into the atmosphere.
Obviously this doesnt mean that all forests
should be managed for timber. North
American forests can and should be
sustainably managed to provide a full range
of environmental, social and economic
values. However, those that are managed
for wood products help to reduce green-
house gases in an endless cycle of carbon
absorption and storage.
Choosing Materials Based
on their Life Cycle Impacts
In terms of material choices, the green
building movement is shifting away from
a prescribed approach and toward the life
cycle evaluation of actual performance,
says Lisa Podesto, P.E., a technical director
for WoodWorks and current chair of the
Structural Engineers Association of Central
California Sustainable Design Committee.
A prescribed approach assumes that
certain materials or practices are better
for the environment regardless of the
situation, says Podesto. For example,
some people might think that recycled
Olympic Oval. Courtesy of FII.
Forest regeneration. Courtesy of Sandy McKellar.
C-StructSustainability-Ward-Feb11 1 1/19/2010 2:51:21 PM
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
17
products are automatically preferable even
though they may require a large amount of
energy to produce and transport, and the
alternate choice may be wood from a local,
sustainably managed forest. It isnt that you
shouldnt use recycled materials, just that other
considerations may weigh more heavily on the
products life cycle environmental impacts,
depending on the situation. Its important for
designers to be able to assess the impacts of
their choices.
To compare materials, life cycle assessment
methodology, or LCA, has received strong
support from the international scientific
community and is increasingly being integrated
into green building rating systems such as the
U.S. Green Building Councils Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED
)
system and the Green Building Initiatives
Green Globes
. The process of analysis con-

siders the environmental impacts of a material
or assembly over its lifespan from extraction
and harvesting to manufacturing, transportation,
installation, use, maintenance and disposal
or recycling.
Its an area where wood excels, said Podesto.
Using the scientic LCA approach shows that
wood buildings are better for the environment
than other materials in areas such as air and
water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and
embodied energy. And the thing engineers
need to know because were a sceptical bunch
is that apples-to-apples are being compared
in LCA studies; wall systems with the same R
value and oor systems designed to carry the
same load.
Energy and
Resource Efciency
In the green building world, embodied energy
has received less attention than operational
energy because operational energy needs have
been so proportionally high. About a third of
the energy consumed in developed countries
goes toward heating, cooling, lighting and
the operation of appliances in non-industrial
buildings. However, as buildings become more
and more energy efcient, the signicance of
embodied energy will continue to rise because
it will represent a larger piece of the overall
energy pie.
At the same time, wood also contributes to
operational energy efciency. Because its cellular
structure has air pockets that limit its ability to
conduct heat, its a better insulator than other
materials which have higher conductivity
and must overcome lower R-values associated
with thermal bridging. As a result, they require
more insulation to meet the same level of
thermal performance.
Along similar lines, the concept of advanced
framing or optimum value engineering is
gaining popularity with engineers and as
part of green building codes because of its
impact on energy and resource efciency.
At a presentation to architects and engineers
in California, Katy Hollbacher, P.E., principal
of Beyond Efciency, Inc. said key elements of
advanced framing include optimizing the layout
for efcient material use, using structural-
rated wood materials to their full approved
capacities, eliminating structural materials where
non-structural materials are adequate and
Multi-family wood structure. Courtesy of FII.
18
reducing structural redundancies inherent with
conventional stick framing. Among other
things, she suggests laying the building out on
a 2-foot module, which maximizes the ef-
ciency of 24-inch framing and 4x8 sheet
materials, sizing headers based on load, leaving
open wall corners and using ladder framing at
wall intersections.
More commonly used in residential and
multi-family structures, this approach leaves
more room for insulation and facilitates in-
creased operational efciency, while minimizing
the amount of wood needed for a project and
reducing waste both of which contribute to
efcient use of the resource.
Likewise, the wood industry has increased
its own efciency through optimized sawmill
operations and the use of wood chips and
sawdust (once considered waste) to produce
paper and composite products, or as fuel
for bio-energy. The North American wood
industry now uses an average of 98 percent of
every tree brought to a mill for harvesting.
Forest Sustainability
According to State of the Worlds Forests reports
going back to the 1990s, the United States
and Canada have about the same amount of
forested land now as they did a century ago.
Over the past 50 years, less than 2 percent of
the standing tree inventory in the U.S. was
harvested each year while net growth was 3
percent. In Canada, which is a signicant ex-
porter of wood products to American customers,
less than one half of 1 percent of the managed
forest is harvested annually and the law re-
quires all areas to be promptly regenerated.
Wood is also the only major building mate-
rial with third-party certication programs
in place to verify that products come from a
sustainably managed resource an approach
Yochim, who is also a Registered Professional
Forester, would like to see adopted by other
industries. There is never going to be a time
when sustainability is less important than it is
today, he said. The forest industry has em-
braced certication as a way to assure people
that its practices are sustainable. Why shouldnt
others do the same?
The 2010 Olympic Oval made use of wood
certified through the Sustainable Forestry
Initiative (SFI) and Canadian Standards Associ-
ations Sustainable Forest Management Standard
(CSA), and is seeking green building certication
through both LEED and Green Globes.
FSC-certied wood was used in the three
buildings that comprise the Portola Valley Town
Center, which include a town hall, commu-
nity hall and library. The Center is expected
to receive LEED platinum certication and
was also chosen as an AIA Committee on the
Environment Top Ten Green Project for 2009.
With this project, wood was a good material
of choice, says Lynn Deutschbauer, S.E., a
senior engineer with Forell/Elsesser Engineers,
Inc. in California. Sustainability was a high pri-
ority from the clients perspective, and seismic
issues were also important because the project
is next to a fault. This was addressed architec-
turally with multiple, low-rise buildings and also
with the wood system because of its exibility
and resilience.
As of September 2009, close to 480 million
acres were certied to one of the four main
certication programs in North America,
including the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
(SFI), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC),
Canadian Standards Associations Sustainable
Forest Management Standard (CSA) and
American Tree Farm System. Among developed
countries, which have the majority of certied
forests, North America has more than all of
the others combined.
Sustainability as a
Design Objective
Marcy Wong of Marcy Wong Donn Logan
Architects frequently uses wood in her designs
and says she gives equal weight to renewability,
sustainability, life cycle and climate change
benets. Clients often request wood for its
environmental and aesthetic aspects, she
says. For the Meyer Sound Theatre, the clients
wanted wood for carbon storage and climate
change reasons as well as its warmth. For an-
other project, the clients selectively culled the
surrounding forest and used the harvested
wood to build their house. In the case of an-
other, the LEED-certied Freight and Salvage
Theatre, the project involved deconstructing
an existing building and re-using the wood for
wall and ceiling nishes.
However, although sustainability and green
building represent an increasing priority for
many designers, the decision to use wood
often comes down to cost.
Harada Elementary School. Courtesy of
HMC Architects.
Roxane Ward is a Vancouver, Canada-
based writer who has written extensively on
sustainability, forest and wood-related issues
for more than 15 years. She may be reached
via email at roxane@woodworks.org.
In the United Kingdom, the worlds largest
mixed-use wood building received approval
from authorities largely because of its reduced
carbon footprint. Compared to a similar con-
crete design, architect Andrew Waugh projected
that the nine-story building would save the
equivalent of about 300 metric tons of carbon
which was equivalent to meeting the citys
new 10 percent CO
2
reduction target for 210
years. However, as with the Harada Elementary
School, it was the buildings lower cost and
speed of construction that convinced the de-
velopers to use wood.
Likewise, architect Ron LaPage attended a
green building seminar hosted by WoodWorks
in Chicago before changing a design he was
working on to wood framing. LaPage was at
the schematic design stage for an addition to
The Birches assisted living facility in Clarendon
Hills, Illinois a 16,000-square-foot, two-
story building attached to the main facility
by a covered walkway. Using a sustainable
material like wood is important to me and Im
aware of the life cycle benets, he said, but
we also found that the wood structure was
going to cost about 5 percent less. Thats what
ultimately swayed the decision.
Cost is of course a factor, says Podesto, es-
pecially in this economy. But were also seeing
more projects where sustainability is a priority
and given the opportunity that building
designers have to impact issues such as climate
change, I think we can expect to see many
more in the future.
Atlantic Station. Courtesy of APA.
ESAB Seismic Certiedller metals.
When it comes to structural fabrication, ESAB Seismic Certifed
products deliver the strength you need to get the job done.
Meet AWS D designator requirements
Excellent welding option for when FEMA 353, D1.1 or D1.8 is utilized
Let our experts determine the best solution for your application
Your satisfaction is guaranteed by ESAB the welding authority
Get started today. Visit esabna.com/seismic for a brochure, and
well even send you a free do-rag.
+
+
+
+
esabna.com/seismic + 1.800.ESAB.123
Atom Arc
+ Dual Shield
+ Coreshield
+ Spoolarc
For critical welds,

the right product is crucial.
Blank.indd 1 1/13/2010 12:02:58 PM
20
Cold-formed Steel (CFS) is often used
as the intermediate structural framing sys-
tem, transferring the loads on the building
faade into the oor and roof diaphragms. It is
important that structural engineers have a good
understanding of the limitations of CFS, as well as its
possibilities. The faade attachments and fenestrations
need to be considered in the initial design phase by the Engi-
neer of Record (EOR). Too often it is passed onto the Specialty
Engineer for coordination with the Architect, after construction
has commenced. This is too late in the process and can lead to change
orders with additional unanticipated project costs. This article outlines
some common CFS faade framing issues and how the EOR can
resolve them with early consideration.
Common pitfalls in CFS faade framing can be categorized into
ve areas:
Stud Sizing
Ribbon Windows
Parapets
Masonry Veneer at Wall Openings
Fire-Proong
Stud Sizing
The two most prevalent stud sizes in building envelopes are 3 -inch
and 6-inch wide. The stud size is often chosen by the architect; however,
the engineer should play a larger role in this decision process. In choosing
the stud size, one should consider;
Wall height
Deection limitations
Header and Sill sizes
Top and bottom track connection details
Both 3 -inch and 6-inch studs can span most
common oor-to-oor heights by adjusting
flange widths and steel thickness. However,
as in hot-rolled steel, the cost of cold-formed
steel framing is based predominately by weight.
Therefore, the more efcient material sections will
be less expensive. For example, a 600C162-54
stud (1 -inch x 6-inch x 54-mils) has a nearly
equivalent section modulus as a 358C162-100
stud. However, the 3 -inch stud weighs 60%
more and has a 40% smaller moment of inertia.
Of additional concern are the lengths of the
wall openings. Long windows will require longer
headers and sills. Studs can be nested within
track sections for a built-up section. However,
code limitations allow for only two nested
sections. The EOR should determine if cold-formed steel headers and
sills will be feasible. It may be more cost effective to increase the wall
stud size. In rare cases, hot rolled steel framing (channels or angles)
might be the better solution.
The studs will typically be supported by U-shaped steel tracks at the
bottom and tops of the wall. Consideration must be made for the
placement of the track relative to the edge of slab or deck. Tracks are
usually fastened to steel or concrete with powder actuated fasteners
(PAFs) or, less commonly, self-tapping screws. PAFs are required to be
no closer than 3-inches to the edge of concrete. Tracks ush to the
outside edge of concrete, or overhanging the edge of concrete, may not
allow for adequate space to place the fastener. Concrete screws have
a small capacity within 1 inches of a concrete edge, and may be an
option. If considered early on in the design process, the EOR can
include steel embedments in the slab for attachment of the track when
the smaller stud size is required.
A cautionary note, ASCE 7-05 requires that most walls be designed
for a small seismic force, as outlined in Chapter 13. The limitations on
post-installed anchors in structures of Seismic Design Category C or
greater outlined by ACI 318 will require an anchorage system approved
for the cracked concrete condition. PAF anchors are not currently an
acceptable anchor under those requirements.
Ribbon Windows
The look of continuous windows across the faade of the building is
sleek. Architects like the appearance of the roof oating above a rib-
bon of glass. Structural Engineers are charged
with the difcult task of making the structure
oat. These window systems are extremely
problematic to the CFS engineer if they have
not been thought-out well in advance.
It is obvious that CFS headers and sills cannot
span across the entire length of the building.
Each stud or groupings of studs will need to
be constructed to prevent the lateral movement
of the wall. The placement of the continuous
windows in the mid-height of the typical oor-
to-ceiling stud creates two hinges (top and
bottom of window) between the two supporting
elements (oor below and above). This requires
cantilevered construction of the stud framing.
The header detail is considered here rst, since
it is usually the easiest to resolve. The rst and
most common way to brace the stud above a
window is with a kicker (diagonal brace) hidden
above a dropped ceiling. The vertical weight of
the wall above the window is supported by the
Multi-Story Building with Ribbon Windows.
Courtesy of ProCon Construction.
Figure 1: Wall framing above ribbon-type windows.
Cold-Formed Steel
Faade Framing
Design Considerations
By Anthony D. Coviello, P.E., S.E.
SF-CFSfacadeframing-Coviello-Feb1 1 1/21/2010 8:59:14 AM
21
vertical stud, and half of the lateral force from the window and half of
from the stud above are transferred into the diagonal member. Special
attention has to be made to the vertical stud connection at its top.
The stud is typically outside the face of the steel framing for reasons
discussed later. This requires that the stud be fastened to the side of
the spandrel beam, pour stop, or to the underside of corrugated metal
decking. The metal decking may require reinforcing depending on its
orientation, span length, and/or thickness.
The diagonal stud above the window is fastened back to the ceiling
above with a CFS angle. The connection of the CFS angle to the metal
deck is often the weakest link in the system. This is because metal deck
gauges are usually much smaller than typical CFS framing. Several
screws may be required to resist the combined tension (pullout) and
shear condition. In addition, as Figure 1 illustrates, the utes of the
corrugated metal deck may not align with the location of the required
screws. Options for accommodating this are: 1) Add a wide piece of
continuous sheet steel screwed to the metal deck. This provides a at
working surface for the CFS angles. The sheet steel needs to be analyzed
for the transmission of loads. 2) Add a hot-rolled steel section beneath
the metal deck specically for the attachment of the kickers.
The space below the window is more complicated. Kickers are normally
not allowed due to interruption of the oor space. The ideal method of
framing the wall in this area is to have the studs bypass the slab edge and
spandrel beam along the outside of the building. The vertical weight of
the wall is transferred into the spandrel beam or the slab edge through
CFS angle connectors. Horizontal loads are resolved through a force
couple at the slab level and at the bottom of the spandrel beam.
If bypassing the oor system is not an option, one might try to use a
proprietary moment-resisting connector. Most of the major CFS manu-
facturers produce products that can fasten the base of a stud to a oor or
beam with a nominal moment capacity. However, the capacities are often
very small and the connectors allow a signicant rotation (approximately
1.1 degrees). For example, a 3-foot tall window sill would deect
inches with a 1.1 degree rotation. For this reason, these connectors will
usually only work with short sill heights, less than 12 inches.
Another option is to frame HSS or Angle steel posts at an interval
(usually 4 feet or less) beneath the windows. Vertical studs are fastened
to the posts and a track section spans between them. Inll studs are placed
in between. This requires coordination from the initial design phase.
Parapets
The wind loads on parapets are very high when
compared to the wall elements below the roof
line. ASCE 7-05 requires that two conditions be
considered. The rst is the presence of a positive
wall pressure on the outside face of the parapet,
in combination with a negative roof pressure
on the inside face. The second considers the
wind in the other direction. A positive wall
pressure is placed against the inside face of the
parapet in combination with a negative wall
pressure on the outside face. The worst case
governs. Parapet loads are usually about twice
the magnitude of typical wall loads.
Parapet wall studs have similar connection de-
tail issues as the studs beneath ribbon windows
and, therefore, are handled similarly. Parapets
are commonly constructed by cantilevering the
wall stud from below the roof, bypassing the
spandrel beam. This type of parapet framing
represents the fastest construction methodology.
However, the size and gauge of the wall stud
will most likely be controlled by
the parapet loads.
Some parapets are constructed
as a separate element on top of
the roof framing. When this
is the case, the same options
discussed previously for the
window framing below ribbon
windows are used here, except,
an additional option of a kicker
back to the roof deck might be
employed. The diagonal brace
does present some challenges for
the roof membrane installation
and ashing.
Masonry Veneer at Wall Openings
Masonry veneer is usually supported by loose lintels at smaller windows
or door openings. At larger openings, structural lintels are secured to the
building frame for support. Whenever possible, these supports should
be constructed with hot rolled steel framing. Lintels should never be
secured to cold-formed steel box headers. The eccentric load from the
brick veneer produces torsion in a header. At present, there is no code-
approved method to deal with torsion in built-up CFS sections. The
possibility does exist to support brick lintels when the CFS framing is
balloon-framed; where each stud above the window is supported both
vertically and horizontally. This is not a preferred construction detail
due to the amount of welding required with thin steel members.
Fire-Proofing
Framing elements that are to receive spray-applied re-proong and
cold-formed steel wall framing must be identied in the construction
documents. The CFS specialty engineer can accommodate re-proong
with a variety of framing options. The most common method is the use
of Z-furring members providing an offset for the top of wall deection
track and the steel beam bottom ange. The spray re-proong can
occur anytime after the Z-furring is installed. Ideally, it is done prior
to the installation of wall studs as this improves the spray applicators
accessibility. Both the top track and the Z-
furring members have to be designed for the
eccentric load from the wall studs and the span
between the support locations.
Conclusion
Costly delays and design changes can be
avoided with proper coordination of the CFS
framing at the early design phases of a project.
Realizing the limitations and possibilities of
CFS framing will greatly improve the build-
ing construction process and the buildings
long-term performance.
Wall framing below ribbon-type windows.
Wall stud connection at spray
re-proofed beams.
Anthony D. Coviello, P.E., S.E. is a Principal
at Summit Engineering, PLLC in Portsmouth,
NH. He currently serves as the President of the
Structural Engineers of New Hampshire and the
Vice-President of the New England Coalition
of Structural Engineering Societies. He can be
reached at tony@summitengineeringinc.com.
SF-CFSfacadeframing-Coviello-Feb2 2 1/21/2010 8:59:40 AM
22
The Upshur County Courthouse, built in 1899, is situated in the
weathered mountains in the north central West Virginia town of
Buckhannon. Located on a prominent corner in downtown, the
dome of the courthouse can be seen from miles away while traveling
through the hills. The building is constructed of brick with a rock face
sandstone foundation and monumental sandstone columns supporting
the portico. A wooden cornice with heavily detailed dentil molding
trims the entire building at the roof level. The dome is supported by
a brick tower that draws ones eye to the top of the structure, where
decorative Corinthian cast iron columns adorn the faade. The dome
itself is constructed of radial arch steel trusses with wood decking and
galvanized sheet steel cladding. Time and weather had taken a toll on
this gem, which has suffered the consequences of good intentions.
The investigation of this phased project started with the Upshur County
Commission applying for grants through the Courthouse Facilities
Improvement Authority. Since the grant monies were limited, the project
was completed in three phases, with three different contractors. The rst
issues addressed pertained to the main entrance. Initially, the terrazzo
ooring was raised, prohibiting the proper function of the main entrance
doors. The terrazzo had cracked and chipped, and had been repaired with
grout. It was determined that a structural steel beam directly below the
entrance was severely deteriorated, with rust jacking causing the ooring
issues above. In lieu of replacing the beam and pipe column support, the
masonry wall below was extended up to support the oor above.
In addition to repairing the terrazzo and structural issues at the main en-
try, accessibility issues were addressed. As the root problem appeared to be
water and salts migrating toward the entry, a lightweight concrete pad was
provided on top of the existing portico slab to provide positive slope away
from the building and provide a level entry plane at the portico. Ramps
were provided at the plaza and an ADA compliant chair lift was installed,
with all work complimenting the historical aesthetic of the property.
In the second phase of the project, the dome was repaired and restored.
During the initial investigation, it was discovered that the dome had
actually shifted because the legs of the inverted steel channel that it was
resting on failed, causing the south side of the dome to be approximately
1 inches lower than the north. The rusting was so advanced that the
riveted connections between the truss rib and the bottom channel ring
were completely deteriorated in some locations. The shifting also caused
low slope areas above the cast iron ornamental columns to slope toward
the building, essentially funneling water into the structure. Previous
repairs, including EPDM roong installed directly over leaking panels,
increased the deterioration of the galvanized sheathing and the water
inltration in the dome area. The brick tower began to deteriorate due
to the presence of water. As the interior brick spalled and steel rods
anchoring the structure to the brick disintegrated, the deterioration of
the dome structure continued until the only thing holding the dome to
its unstable base was gravity.
Brick red at the same plant and from around the same time that
the courthouse was built was salvaged from a local house, and used to
replace those bricks that had lost their structural integrity. Bricks and
anchors were reset, repointed, and when necessary, replaced to create
a structurally stable base for the steel dome trusses. A jack truss was
created to allow the replacement of the entire steel ring at the bottom
of the trusses. A steel angle was used in place of the steel channel, as
the previous channel caught and trapped water and pigeon droppings,
leading to its disintegration. Slight corrections were made to counteract
the dome shifting without stressing the roong system. The wood
windows and louvers were repaired to deter pigeons from roosting
in the dome. The original roong system on the dome consisted of
painted galvanized steel sheets on wood decking. For galvanized steel
that was over 100 years old, most of the original steel was in remarkable
condition. However, as the processing of steel changed around WWII
to speed its manufacturing, the replacement of damaged steel with in-
kind materials was impossible. Terne-coated stainless steel was selected
to replace damaged areas, and low slope areas were built up to provide
positive drainage with no visual impact from the ground. Once all
leaks were repaired, the roong was coated with a high performance
polyurethane industrial coating that provides the greatest protection for
the roong and provides a clean white gloss nish. The domes cast iron
columns and column bases were repaired and coated as well.
When the dome was painted, the front entrance columns and all of
the exposed wood were also scheduled to be painted. The sandstone
columns were also a victim of time, good intentions, and available
materials. Being sandstone, the columns were coated early on, most
likely with a lime wash, to protect them from the weather. Over time,
repairs up to ten inches deep on the 30-inch diameter columns were
made with nonshrink grout. In an effort to further protect the columns,
hide the nonshrink grout repairs and smooth out the column nish,
the columns were coated with a cementitious parging and a waterproof
coating. This system was in line with preservation techniques at the
time, and worked fairly well as long as there were no cracks in the
parging and the coating was maintained.
Restored dome and main entrance.
Left: Failed steel channel and riveted connection at truss. Right: Repaired
connection at truss.
A Gemin the Mountains
By Carol A. Stevens, P.E., SECB and Phillip A. Warnock, AIA, NCARB
F-UpshurCourthouse-Feb10.indd 1 1/21/2010 8:58:09 AM
23
However, when hairline cracks appeared,
water penetrated the system and could
not escape. Freeze-thaw cycles and hot
days combined to break down the under-
lying stones properties, essentially rotting
the stone because water could not escape
the waterproong. Areas of parging began
to fall off, uncovering softened stone and
sometimes pulling good stone with it, as
the bonding strength of the parging was
greater than that of the stone. The parging
and waterproong were removed from
the columns and left exposed over the
winter, allowing the stone to breathe
and dry out. Many areas of stone were
much stronger after drying out, no longer
crumbling when rubbed with ngertips.
The removal of the parging also exposed
some beautiful detailing, that had been
hidden for unknown years, at the stone
capitols of the entry columns and at the
column bases. Core samples were taken
to determine the properties of the inner stone, including compressive
strength, bond strength and color.
The repair of the stone elements at the main entrance (columns,
railings, cheekwalls and foundations) turned into the third and nal
phase of the project. Matching the original stone properties, repair
mortar was created to repair portions of the stone columns, railing and
foundations. Other stones were too severely damaged to repair and were
replaced in-kind with dutchmen. Steel bracing was installed before the
deepest prior repair materials were removed due to concerns with the
structural integrity and stability of the columns. Where cracking of the
stone carried through an entire column, injection repairs complemented
stainless steel cross-pinning to stitch the column together. All areas of
grout and other cementitious repair materials were removed and repair
mortar was installed. Shallow cracks were routed and repaired; deeper
cracks were injected with repair materials. Column base and railing
sections were repaired with the repair mortar and the original stone
prole was restored.
Left: Distressed sandstone columns discovered upon parging removal. Right: Restored sandstone columns and bases.
Due to funding limitations and a con-
scious decision not to remove all traces
of work, wear and weather from the col-
umns, only the most egregious of the pits
and ruts on the stone were repaired along
with the structural issues discussed above.
This created a structurally sound set of
columns, railings and foundations while
retaining a patina of the 100 plus years of
use. The smooth-tooled areas of stone that
had historically been coated were provided
with a self-cleaning, mineral coating spe-
cically formulated for stone and approved
for historic preservation use. This coating
has a very high rate of vapor permeability
and allows the stone to breathe while
preventing liquid water from penetrating
the stone. At the rock-faced stone, color-
matched mortar and dutchman were used
to match the existing stone.
In all instances, the design team endeav-
ored to x the root cause of each problem,
while making repairs in a historically accurate and sensitive method
with the best materials and methods currently available. The Upshur
County Courthouse Renovations project has been awarded the Honor
Award for Excellence in Architecture by AIA West Virginia.
This series of projects, performed by three separate contractors, was
completed for $865,000, an amazing deal when the price of a new
courthouse is considered. The result has provided the people of Upshur
County with a courthouse complex that is stable, accessible, beautiful,
and well positioned to provide services for the next 100 years. The
Gem in the Mountains has been polished.
Scaffold around dome to facilitate repairs.
Carol A. Stevens, P.E., SECB, is president
of CAS Structural Engineering, Inc, a
consulting rm in Alum Creek, WV. Ms.
Stevens has been recognized by both AIA-
WV and AIANY for restoration projects
within West Virginia. Ms. Stevens can be
reached at calalane@aol.com.
Phillip A. Warnock, AIA, NCARB, is a
project architect for Chapman Technical
Group, in St. Albans, WV. Mr. Warnock
has been granted the Honor Award for
Excellence in Architecture from the AIA-
WV for the Upshur County Courthouse
Renovations. Mr. Warnock can be reached
at pwarnock@chaptech.com.
Structural Engineer of Record CAS Structural Engineering, Inc.
Architect of Record Chapman Technical Group
Restoration Consultant William S. Kostelic
Owner Upshur County Commission
Contractors:
First Phase Huffman Corporation
Second Phase Allegheny Restoration & Builders, Inc.
Third Phase Keystone Waterproong, Inc.
Project Team
F-UpshurCourthouse-Feb10.indd 2 1/19/2010 2:52:24 PM
INSIGHTS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
24
Soil/Cement Slurry Strengthens Weak Soils
By Jonathan Bussiere, E.I.T.
Soil/cement slurry is a mixture of Portland
cement, water and soil which has better engi-
neering properties than soil alone. Also known
as soilcrete, soil/cement slurry is created by
introducing cement and water to soil in situ
(i.e. without excavating the soil) and blending
the mixture by either mechanical mixing or by
injecting high pressure uid.
Applications
If every project site was underlain by dense
sand and gravel, soil/cement slurry would have
few practical uses. In reality, the condition
of the underlying soil is not always perfect,
so designers must recognize and address the
problems associated with building structures
on soft soils. The main structural risks posed by
soft/loose soils are excessive static settlement,
bearing capacity failure and settlement due to
seismic liquefaction.
Options such as driving piles or drilling shafts
to bedrock eliminate concern about soft soil
by transferring structure loads to stronger layers
in the subsurface. Similarly, excavating and
replacing poor quality soil is effective in some
situations. However, in other cases, neither of
these alternatives may be feasible from either
an economic or constructability viewpoint. In
many situations, soil/cement slurry can effec-
tively mitigate bearing capacity and settlement
hazards with lower cost and shorter construction
time compared to conventional deep founda-
tions or excavate/replace options.
Soil/cement slurry can be used either as a
global foundation treatment, wherein the
entire area below a uniformly loaded building
slab, bridge abutment, storage tank, etc. is
treated in a grid pattern, or in a surgical manner
by pinpointing treatment locations under
column footings, shear walls, heavily loaded
areas or other critical building components.
Techniques
Construction of soil/cement slurry foundation
elements typically utilizes four key pieces of
equipment: a drill rig to advance the slurry to
design depth, a batch plant or tank to mix the
cement slurry, a pump to push the slurry to
the drill rig, and specialized tooling to blend
the cement slurry with soil in situ. Two of
the most prevalent methods for constructing
structural soilcrete elements are jet grouting
and soil mixing.
Jet grouting is the process of injecting cement
slurry (grout) into the ground to erode and
replace the existing soil with soil/cement slurry.
This technique involves drilling a 4- to 8-
inch diameter hole from ground surface to
design depth typically 120 feet or less, but
greater depths are possible, and then injecting
grout through a set of nozzles near the bottom
of the drill rods. Grout and air or water is
pumped through the nozzles at very high pres-
sure, up to 5,000 psi, while the drill rods are
slowly rotated and withdrawn from the hole.
The resulting product is a rigid soilcrete col-
umn, typically 3 to 10 feet in diameter, which
will have average unconned compressive
strength in the range of 250 to 1,250 psi.
Jet grouting is widely used for tunnel stabi-
lization, utility support, excavation bottom
seals, and underpinning applications, particu-
larly in conned spaces. Low headroom drill rigs
are commonly used within existing buildings to
mitigate ongoing settlement beneath footings
or to upgrade older buildings to meet current
seismic codes.
Soil mixing, also known as deep soil mixing, is
a soil treatment method wherein cement slurry
(grout) is injected through a hollow mixing
tool and mechanically blended with the in
situ soil. The mixing tool consists of paddles,
blades or cutters designed for agitating and
mixing the soil/cement slurry to form soilcrete
columns of 3 to 8 feet in diameter that will
typically achieve compressive strength of 200
to 600 psi.
Cement may be injected either as slurry or, if
the soil is already saturated, injected in powder
form and completely hydrated in situ. The pro-
cess of injecting and mixing powdered cement
without water is termed dry soil mixing, and
achieves the same benets as injecting and mix-
ing the soil with cement slurry (wet soil mixing)
without creating any signicant waste.
Like jet grouting, both wet and dry soil mixing
are used to increase bearing capacity, reduce
settlement, and mitigate seismic liquefaction
hazards in soft soils. Soil mixing is especially
well suited to treating soils below structures
with large footprints, such as storage tanks or
building slabs. Interlocking soil mix columns
are commonly installed for excavation support,
either as standalone elements or to reduce
lateral loads on retaining structures such as
bulkhead walls and sheet piles. When required,
steel elements such as rebar cages or beams
can be installed in soilcrete prior to initial set,
adding strength and bending resistance to soil
mix columns.
Soil/cement slurry construction techniques,
such as soil mixing and jet grouting, are tools
for improving the strength and stiffness prop-
erties of weak soils. Like good craftsman,
designers should recognize the capabilities and
limitations of the tools in their toolbox and
choose the correct one for the given task. For
the same reason that a carpenter should think
twice about pounding a framing nail with a
sledge hammer, a structural designer should
consider soil/cement slurry techniques before
opting for driven piles, drilled shafts or other
potentially more expensive options for dealing
with weak soil.
Other applications of soil/cement slurry in-
clude shoring wall construction and support,
ground water cut offs, contaminant plume
stabilization, break ins/outs for tunneling
machines and slope and landslide stabilization.
Improved soil properties, such as greater strength and reduced
compressibility, can lead to more efcient structural designs.
Wet soil mixing to stabilize soil and reduce lateral
loads behind a sheet pile wall at the Port of Los
Angeles Harbor. Courtesy of Justin Sharman.
Jonathan Bussiere, E.I.T., is a Field
Engineer for Hayward Bakers Seattle
ofce. Jonathan can be reached via email
at jbussiere@haywardbaker.com.
D-Insights-Bussiere-Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:53:27 PM
Blank.indd 1 11/6/2009 3:16:40 PM
The Stability Continues
Minimize construction time and maximize project
cost savings. Wheeling Corrugatingthe leader in
innovation since 1890is improving the market again! This
time, we are proud to present two pioneering ways to save
you money.
Our brand new Seismic ShearLoc System
featuring the side-seam pneumatic fastening tool,
The Gatorstrong enough for seismic zones and
so fast and easy to use youll want it for every deck
project. Now ICC approved. See our Web site for details.
Value Engineeringutilizing the highest tensile
strength in the industry. Using our Super Bond
composite oor deck products that span farther
with a lighter gauge and UL heat-resistant paint
a cost-saving alternative to galvanizing.
With quality products and performance Wheeling
Corrugating has the most experience and the most plants of
any decking manufacturer in the country.
From the East to the West, even to Alaska,
Wheeling Corrugating has become the trusted
manufacturer on many projects including these:
Freedom Tower New York, NY
World Trade Center Memorial New York, NY
Comcast Center Philadelphia, PA
Mets Stadium New York, NY
11 Times Square New York, NY
353 N. Clark-40 oors Chicago, IL
155 N. Wacker-48 oors Chicago, IL
Sprint Center Kansas City, MO
Lowes Distribution Center Lebanon, OR
JL Tower Anchorage, AK
Its pretty simple really. Were the company with a history
of stability and a future of innovations and service. And
that means value and savings for you!
1-877-333-0900
www.wheelingcorrugating.com
Blank.indd 1 1/12/2010 11:38:35 AM
QUALITY ASSURANCE CORNER
meeting and exceeding requirements and expectations

A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
27
Validating the Results of Structural Engineering Software
By Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Eric J. Heller, E.I.T.
The previous Quality Assurance Corner article
discussed the limitations of structural engineering
software. This article discusses methods for validat-
ing the results of structural engineering computer
analysis using simple manual calculations.
Engineers use computers because they can
perform repetitive analysis and design cal-
culations thousands of times faster than if
performed manually with a calculator and pencil.
Obviously, if the wrong data is entered into
the computer, the results will be incorrect.
The purpose of validating a computer gener-
ated design with manual computations is to
verify that data was entered into the program
correctly, and that the software is employing
rational and valid methodologies for design
and analysis.
The goal of performing manual calculations
to verify computer generated design is not
necessarily to match the precise design pro-
vided by the computer analysis, but rather to
get an answer that is comfortably close to the
design provided by the program. As a general
rule, if quick manual computations are within
approximately10 percent of the results provided
by the software, it is reasonable to assume that
the computer analysis and design is correct.
However, if manual computations differ from
computer results by more than 20 percent,
then there is a high likelihood that an error
was made somewhere. Errors in computer-
generated designs are usually the result of
incorrect input, incorrect understanding of
program default settings or lack of under-
standing as to how the software works.
The rst thing an engineer should do when
reviewing a computerized design is to step
back, look at the big picture and ask, Does
this make sense? Although this might seem
so obvious as to not warrant stating, its some-
thing that often does not happen. The engineer
verifying if a computerized design makes
sense obviously has to be an engineer with
some level of experience. No structural en-
gineering rm should ever allow a computer
generated design produced by a junior level,
inexperienced engineer to leave the ofce
without a review by a senior level engineer.
Validating Design of
Gravity Load Framing
The strategy for validating the design of oor
framing plans is to manually design one typical
slab, beam, girder, column and foundation. If
the manual design for these members closely
matches the computer-generated design, then
there is a high likelihood that the computer
input, analysis and results for the other gravity
framing members are correct. Manual design
calculations should also be performed to
review the design of critical members such as
transfer girders. If the manual calculations do
not closely match the computer output, then
the model should be investigated for errors.
Printing reactions on structural steel oor
framing plans can be extremely benecial for
verifying that the correct design loads were
used. Manually computed reactions for typical
beams and girders should closely match the
computer generated values. Printing the re-
actions on steel framed oor plans allows the
engineer to see the ow of the load through
the structure. Mistakes that are commonly
made when using a computer program to
design gravity framing include not counting
or double counting the structure self-weight
(a software default setting) and not using or
improperly using live load reductions and im-
properly assigning design loads. The accuracy
of computer-generated designs is also highly
dependent on the geometry that is dened by
the user. Figure 1 shows a corner column in
a concrete at plate oor. On the left is the
slab edge as modeled. On the right is the nal
required slab edge location. Architectural rene-
ments such as slab edge locations often occur
when the structural design is almost complete.
In the situation illustrated in Figure 1, moving
the slab edge in from the faces of the column
can result in signicant loss of punching shear
strength at the slab-to-column connection.
Architectural changes such as this must be
updated in the structural model to investigate
what impact they have on the structure.
Validating Design of the
Lateral Force-Resisting System
The multitude of building code-mandated
load cases and combinations makes manual
review of computer-designed lateral load re-
sisting systems a bit more complex than manual
review of gravity load framing systems.
slab edge
corner
column
Slab edge as modeled Actual slab edge location
Figure 1: Illustration of discrepancy between slab edge as modeled and actual slab edge location.
The easiest to use software for calculating
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists
($100.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com
continued on next page
D-QACorner-Schwinger-Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:53:52 PM
28
While the complexity of precisely analyzing
the various wind load cases and seismic load
combinations is daunting, there is a way to
quickly compute wind and seismic forces on
regular shaped building structures to a level
of accuracy sufcient for verifying designs
produced by computer software.
The following procedures, while not precise
enough for design, are generally accurate
enough to verify that the computer results are
correct for regular shaped buildings of low to
moderate height. These procedures will ush
out signicant errors that might otherwise
have slipped by had manual computations not
been performed to validate the computer-
generated results.
Validating the Magnitude and
Distribution of Wind Loads
Investigate wind loads in each
orthogonal direction. (This
is the basic wind load case.
Investigate other load cases
if appropriate for buildings
with unusual geometries or
framing congurations.)
Compute wind pressure
(windward and leeward) at
the base of building and roof.
Interpolate linearly from
ground level to roof.
Compute the average
pressure.
Compute the total wind
load base shear.
Distribute wind loads to the lateral
force-resisting elements in proportion to
their tributary area. (Modify distribution
where stiffnesses of lateral force-resisting
elements vary signicantly.)
Analyze braced frames, moment frames
or shear walls using the proportioned
wind load.
Validating the Magnitude and
Distribution of Seismic Loads
Investigate seismic loads in each orthogonal
direction. (Note: This procedure is
appropriate for SDC A and B. For
SDC C and higher, results from manual
computations may be less than computer
generated results depending on geometry
and framing conguration.)
Compute the base shear in each direction
using the computer calculated building
period, T.
Compare the manually calculated value
to the base shear determined by the
computer analysis.
Distribute the load in a triangular load
pattern (centroid of loading located
two thirds of the building height above
the base)
Distribute loads to the lateral force-
resisting elements in proportion to the
tributary mass around each element.
Analyze braced frames, moment frames
or shear walls using the proportioned
lateral load.
The procedures above will generally be ac-
curate enough for regular shaped buildings of
moderate height in areas of low to moderate
seismicity within a level of accuracy that will
catch signicant errors in a computer analysis.
A common mistake with computer design of
lateral force-resisting systems is the failure to
consider load path issues where lateral loads
pass through oor diaphragms from one lateral
force-resisting element to another. Figure 2
illustrates a condition where an out-of-plane
offset irregularity in a braced frame transmits
lateral loads into the oor diaphragm. While
many software programs allow oor slabs to
be assigned as diaphragms, not all programs
will design the diaphragms. Validation of the
computers results in these situations requires
recognition of which structural members may
not have been designed by the software.
Conclusion
Validating computer-generated structural de-
sign with manual computations is essential
and can be accomplished quickly within an ac-
ceptable level of accuracy using rudimentary
calculations. While those calculations may not
be to a level of precision accurate enough for
design, they are usually accurate enough to help
engineers spot errors in a computer model.
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 2
DESIGN LEVEL 2 FLOOR DIAPHRAGM
FOR SHEAR AND MOMENT. THIS
DESIGN MAY NOT BE PERFORMED
BY THE SOFTWARE.
BF1
BF2
BF3
V
V
Figure 2: Illustration of a structural member
(oor diaphragm) not designed by the software.
Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB is a Vice
President at The Harman Groups King of
Prussia, PA ofce where he is the Quality
Assurance Manager. He may be reached at
cschwinger@harmangroup.com.
Eric Heller, E.I.T. is a graduate of Villanova
University and is a Design Engineer at The
Harman Group. He may be reached at
eheller@harmangroup.com.
www.quakewrap.com www.pipemedic.com www.superlaminate.com www.pilemedic.com
SuperLaminate
- Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System

Introducing the Next Generation of FRP
* * * * *
T
wenty years ago, QuakeWrap Presi-
dent, Professor Mo Ehsani helped
introduce a radical idea to the construc-
on industry, namely strengthening
of structures by epoxy bonding of FRP
products. In the following years, we
received the rst U.S. Naonal Science
Foundaon grants to study Seismic Be-
havior of Columns and Masonry Walls
retroed with FRP. These pioneering
eorts laid the foundaon for a world-
wide accepted technique for repair
and retrot of structures. Today we
lead this industry again by introducing
SuperLaminate, the next generaon
of FRP products. SuperLaminate is a
pre-cured FRP sheet manufactured in
our ISO-9000 cered plant oering
endless combinaons of strength and
sness in dierent direcons. The
thin semi-exible sheets are supplied
in 300 feet (90 m) long rolls that can
be as wide as 50 inches (1270 mm)
and oer major cost-savings for many
construcon projects. A single roll can
be used to construct innite numbers of
cylindrical shells with diameters larger
than 8 inches (200 mm).
Advantages of SuperLaminate:
One size ts all
Stronger than ber wrap
ISO-9000 cered plant
Up to 80% faster construcon me
Material properes known before
installaon
You can learn more about these prod-
ucts by vising
www.SuperLaminate.com.
Strengthening
of concrete &
masonry walls
Retrot of
beams, slabs
and columns
Repair of un-
derwater piles
without the
need for costly
divers
Repair of
columns below
grade without
the need for
costly excavaon
Trenchless
repair of pipes
and culverts,
including spot
repair
Blast retrot
of structures
Field-manufac-
tured cylindrical
shell around
square columns
(PipeMedic.com) (PileMedic.com)
(PileMedic.com)
PLEASE CALL US FOR A FREE EVALUATION BY ONE OF OUR STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERS. (520) 791-7000 OR (866) QuakeWrap [782-5397]

A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
D-QACorner-Schwinger-Feb10.indd 2 1/19/2010 2:53:53 PM
Blank.indd 1 12/30/2009 2:21:08 PM
2010 BRIDGE RESOURCE GUIDE
a denitive listing of major bridge professionals and suppliers
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTURE.org
Company Product Description
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e

V
e
n
d
o
r
ADAPT Corporation
Phone: 650-306-2400
Email: info@adaptsoft.com
Web: www.adaptsoft.com
ADAPT-ABI
An easy-to-use, cost effective, and practical bridge design software for concrete bridge types: balanced
cantilever (cast-in-place or precast), incrementally launched, span-by-span, cable-stayed, precast-prestressed
girders with eld splicing and topping slab, box girder bridges and more. Handles geometry and stress
control during construction and reports service load design values.
GT STRUDL
Phone: 404-894-2260
Email: joan.incrocci@ce.gatech.edu
Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu
GT STRUDL
Structural Design & Analysis software from the Georgia Tech-CASE Center offers linear and nonlinear
static and dynamic analysis features including response spectrum, transient and pushover analyses, plastic
hinges, discrete dampers, base isolation, and nonlinear connections. New Multi-Processor Solvers enables
the solution of static/dynamic models with over 300,000 DOF.
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com
RISA-3D
With RISA-3Ds versatile modeling environment and intuitive graphic interface you can model any
structure from bridges to buildings in just minutes. Then get the most out of your model with advanced
features such as moving loads, dynamic analysis, and over 40 design codes. Structural design has never
been so easy!
Strand7 Pty Ltd
Phone: 252-504-2282
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Web: www.strand7.com
Strand7
Strand7 is a sensibly priced FEA system. It comprises preprocessing (with CAD import, automeshing),
solvers (linear, non linear, dynamic and thermal) and postprocessing. Release 2.4s many new features
include staged construction, a moving load module, new solvers including quasi-static for shrinkage and
creep/relaxation problems.
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r
s
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.
Phone: 800-929-3030
Email: jong@ctscement.com
Web: www.ctscement.com
Rapid Set
Low-P Cement
and KSC
Type-K Shrinkage-
Compensating Cement
Rapid Set
low permeability cement for bridge deck overlays and repairs. Crack-free bridge decks are
possible using KSC
shrinkage-compensating technology.
Decon USA Inc.
Phone: 866-332-6687
Email: frank@decon.ca
Web: www.deconusa.com
Macalloy Tension Rods
Decon USA Inc. offers a wide range of high strength tension rods, compression struts and cables in
stainless steel and carbon steel, diameters of -inch up to 4-inch.
Wheeling Corrugating
Phone: 304-234-2326
Email: bensonmw@wheelingcorrugating.com
Web: www.wheelingcorrugating.com
Stay-In-Place Steel
Bridge Forms
Wheeling Bridge Form is a heavy-duty steel decking system for forming bridge slabs quickly and
permanently. High strength, galvanized Wheeling Bridge Deck is specially designed to sustain heavy loads
and adapts to pre-stressed concrete, built-up girders, or steel beam bridges. Wheeling Bridge Deck also
provides a safe, solid, working platform.
Williams Form Engineering Corp.
Phone: 616-866-0815
Email: williams@williamsform.com
Web: www.williamsform.com
150 KSI All-Thread-Bar
Williams Form Engineering Corporation has been providing threaded steel bars and accessories to the
bridge construction industry for over 85 years. Williams pre-stressing / post tensioning 150 KSI All-
Thread-Bars are high tensile steel bars available in seven diameters from 1- to 3-inch, with guaranteed
tensile strengths to 969 kips.
30
bridge guide Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:54:21 PM
Blank.indd 1 1/8/2010 10:03:08 AM
Blank.indd 1 11/5/2009 10:07:48 AM
SPOTLIGHT
award winners and outstanding projects
Structural Engineer: HNTB Corporation, Kansas City, MO
Architect: HNTB Architecture with Isaksen Glerum Wachter, LLC, Urbana, IL
Construction Engineer: Roecker Consulting Engineers, Inc., Morton, IL
Steel Fabricator: Blattner Steel, Cape Girardeau, MO
Steel Erector: Prairie States Steel, Champaign, IL
Construction Manager: Hunt Construction, Indianapolis, ID
West Stadium General Contractor: Williams Brothers, Peoria, IL
33
Upholding Tradition
Historic Structure Renovated
From the Inside Out
By Brent Bonham, P.E., S.E. and Jeffry S. Adams, P.E.
After more than 80 years in use, the historic
World War I Memorial Stadium, in Champaign,
Illinois, was due for renewal. The mandate
to preserve this remarkable assembly of 200
Doric columns and other unique faade em-
bellishments dened the design challenge that
distinguished this project. In addition, the
work had to be completed while the stadium
was occupied. The project began in January
2007, and the facility remained operational
for the 2007 football season. It had to be com-
pleted in time for the kickoff of the 2008 season
in September of that year.
The renovation included: wider public
concourses; a portal entryway system; new
restrooms and concessions; permanent seating
additions in the north end zone; an Illini Hall
of Fame; a state-of-the-art press box; luxurious
hospitality facilities, including suites; and, ad-
ditional indoor and outdoor club seating.
While most stadium renovations are ap-
proached from the outside, this one required
an inside-out solution. The additions were con-
structed inside, through and above the existing
facility to preserve the historic structure.
This design concept posed additional, sub-
stantial challenges for the structural engineers,
including:
Adapting, in-place, signicant portions
of the existing upper balcony steel and
precast bleachers below the new suites.
Limiting the deections and vibrations
of the 25-foot long cantilevered oors to
acceptable parameters.
Dealing with differential settlement
between the old and new structures.
Transferring different bay sizes from
the old to new structures. The new
structure is based on a radial grid, with
columns spaced about 30 feet of center
on the arc, and the project team had
to transfer that down to the 45-foot
spacing of the existing columns. None
of the grids aligned.
To further complicate the project, HNTB
Architecture and university ofcials determined
that the new construction needed to upgrade
the facility to comply with current seismic
code requirements; the stadium is located near
the New Madrid fault line. This decision proved
fortuitous when a 5.4 magnitude earthquake
struck southern Illinois in the spring of 2008.
The largest in a century for this region, the
quake rippled through the bedrock of the
Great Plains, the southeast and eastern seaboard
and as far north as Canada. The stadium with-
stood the brunt in shining fashion, while other
masonry structures in the region were damaged.
Designers chose structural steel because of the
complexity of the design, the height of the pro-
posed structure and the speed of construction.
The facilitys existing structural steel showed no
deterioration and was strong enough to with-
stand new construction, including modern
welding. The path, however, was circuitous.
Project teams phased the project over two ses-
sions to allow for continuous use of the facility.
To demolish portions of the main trusses,
resolve differential settlement between the old
and new foundations and minimize cracking
of the existing masonry, the project team engi-
neered the structure to incorporate a unique
jacking system. This required the existing
structure to be shored, jacked, selectively demol-
ished, re-jacked and supported while minimizing
any movement. The solution was to provide
shoring columns and beams to support the
existing trusses prior to being supported on new
transfer trusses which were erected from below.
The foundations were designed to support the
shorting columns and temporary loads. The
construction team continuously monitored the
masonry faade and other brittle elements to
ensure they were not damaged.
While the building had to remain occupied
during construction, building codes did not
address interim construction details. The project
team worked with university building ofcials,
who accepted the use of ASCE 37-02, Design
Loads on Structures During Construction, as
the source for provisions to guide the interim
construction bracing.
Thanks to the creativity of the entire team
and the Universitys leadership, the stadium
has retained its eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places and for designation as
a National Historic Landmark. The University
of Illinois Memorial Stadium is poised to
continue honoring the fallen while serving the
living for generations to come.
HNTB Corporation was presented an NCSEA Outstanding Project Award for the University
of Illinois Memorial Stadium Phased Development Plan in the 2009 NCSEA Excellence in
Structural Engineering Awards Program.
Brent Bonham, P.E., S.E., serves as
Structural Engineering Quality Manager
(bbonham@hntb.com), and Jeffry S. Adams,
P.E., serves as Structural Project Engineer for
HNTB Architecture (jadams@hntb.com).
Project Team
D-Spotlight-Bonham-Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:55:02 PM
N
C
S
E
A

N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s

f
o
r
m

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
34
NCSEA 2010 Winter Institute The Marriott Coronado Island Resort
March 12 & 13, 2010 Coronado, California
A two-day seminar featuring Seismic Design: Explaining the Y Factor From One Generation to the Next
Included in the program Friday is a tour of the Charles Pankow Structures Laboratory and the Robert and
Natalie Englekirk Structural Engineering Center at the University of California San Diego.
Friday, March 12, 2010 8.0 Professional Development Hours
7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
8:00 a.m. 8:30 a.m. ASCE 7 Chia-Ming Uang
8:30 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Underlying Concepts in Seismic Design Codes: Application to Steel Building Structures
Seismic loadings and materials design codes have evolved signicantly over the past few decades; but the underlying concept
remains more or less the same. This presentation will demystify these ever-sophisticated codes from a historical perspective.
The 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions will be used to demonstrate how these principles are implemented in the code.
Chia-Ming Uang, Ph.D., is a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego.
His research area is in seismic design methodology, large-scale testing, seismic analysis and design of steel structures.
Professor Uang is a recipient of two awards from the American Society of Civil Engineers: the Raymond C. Reese
Research Prize in 2001 and the Moisseiff Award in 2004.
10:15 a.m. 11:45 a.m. Design Issues and Evaluation Methods for Masonry Structures
This talk will cover basic concepts on the seismic design of reinforced masonry structures using the strength design method,
including issues and pitfalls in current code provisions. The expected performance of reinforced masonry wall systems
designed according to current codes will be discussed. Analytical methods for performance assessment of different masonry
systems, including older unreinforced masonry structures, will be presented.
Benson Shing, Ph.D., is a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He
has been engaged in masonry research for a number of years, including large-scale testing and nonlinear analysis
of masonry structures. His current research areas include the seismic performance of reinforced and unreinforced
masonry structures, and the development of analytical tools for performance assessment.
11:45 a.m. 12:30 p.m. Q & A with Benson Shing and Chia Ming Uang
12:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. LUNCH
1:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. Discussions enroute to UCSD Laboratory
2:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Tours of UCSD Laboratory and UCSD Shake Table Facility
Attendees will have the opportunity to visit the Charles Pankow Structures Laboratory and the Robert and Natalie
Englekirk Structural Engineering Center at the University of California San Diego. Large scale dynamic and static tests are
often performed in these two laboratories. The most recently commissioned Englekirk laboratory hosts the NEES Large
Outdoor High-Performance Shake Table, a blast simulator and two soil pits for performing soil-foundation studies.
6:30 p.m. 7:30 p.m. RECEPTION
Saturday, March 13, 2009 7.5 Professional Development Hours
7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
8:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. System Performance Factors for Concrete Structures from a Displacement-Based Perspective
One feature of displacement-based methods of analysis is that they do not rely on R-factors to derive the design lateral
forces. This presentation will compare the design lateral forces obtained using the conventional force-based methods as
prescribed in ASCE 7-05 with those obtained from a displacement-based method. The seminar will also examine the
seismic response of a full-scale 7-story, load-bearing building slice tested on the NEES-UCSD shake table. The building
slice that was designed for lateral forces was computed using a displacement-based method and was subjected to gradually
increasing intensity input ground motions, including the strong record obtained at Sylmar Hospital during the 1994
Northridge Earthquake.
Jos I. Restrepo, Ph.D., is a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and
Director of Operations of the Charles Lee Powell Structural Research Laboratories, the largest Structures Laboratory
complex in the United States and the world. Dr. Restrepo has received a number of awards, including the 2006
Chester Paul Siess Award from ACI for Excellence in Structural Research, the 2006 Charles C. Zollman Award from
the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute for the best technical paper in the PCI Journal, and the 2008 James Cooper
best-paper award at the National Seismic Conference on Bridges and Highways.
NCSEA News Feb 2010.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:55:53 PM
N
C
S
E
A

N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
35
Reservations:
The Marriott Coronado Island Resort
1-800-228-9290 or 1-619-435-3000
9:45 a.m. 11:00 a.m. Design Provisions for Wood Construction A Comparison of Past and Present
Early thinking on how to safely design with wood permeates provisions of todays wood design standards for structural
design. A comparison of wood design provisions, past and present, will highlight differences and similarities, as well as expose
underlying considerations embedded in todays wood design provisions. Wood design issues covered include design of wood
structural panel shear walls, connection design, member design, and implementation of LRFD for wood.
Phil Line, P.E., works extensively with wood industry technical committees on the development of wood design
standards, including the National Design Specication
(NDS
) for Wood Construction. He also serves on the BSSC

Provisions Update Committee, ASCE 7 Seismic Subcommittee and ASTM D07 Committee on Wood.
11:00 a.m. 12:30 p.m. Fragility of Nonstructural Components and Systems
Minimizing seismic-induced damage to nonstructural components and systems (NCSs) continues to be a difcult
task for earthquake professionals. At present, continued development and population of data for use in fragility-type
approaches provides designers the most fruitful opportunity to design against seismic loading. In this presentation,
fragility-based approaches will be discussed and design examples will be provided, specic to the most critical NCSs in
typical building systems.
Tara Hutchinson, Ph.D., P.E., is an Associate Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California,
San Diego. Her research interests include both experimental and analytical studies, primarily in earthquake
engineering, and emphasizing seismic performance assessment of structures, particularly, soil-structure interaction,
seismic response of concrete and timber structures and response of nonstructural components.
12:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. LUNCH
1:30 p.m. 2:45 p.m. Modeling Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction in a Design Environment Easy, Difcult
or Impossible?
This lecture will discuss the various aspects of soil-foundation-structure-interaction (SFSI) including when SFSI effects
may be signicant and when these effects may be ignored. Various modeling techniques for incorporating SFSI in seismic
analyses are presented and compared. The difculties in modeling SFSI in a design ofce environment are discussed.
Various simplications that may render SFSI application in a design environment feasible are presented.
Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., J.D., is the current President of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Vice
President and General Counsel for John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. in Los Angeles and a licensed patent attorney. Dr.
Naeim serves as the editor of The Seismic Design Handbook, now in its second edition, and is the coauthor of Design of
Seismic Isolated Structures. He has published more than 120 papers on various aspects of earthquake engineering and
has developed more than 45 different software systems for earthquake engineering design and education.
3:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. Development of Next-Generation Peformance-Based Seismic Design Criteria
Since the publication of the ASCE 31 and 41 standards, the performance-based design process that underlies these
standards has been widely used, not only as the basis for seismic evaluation and upgrade of existing buildings, but also as
the seismic design basis for some of the tallest buildings constructed in the Western U.S. in the past 5 years. As popular as
these rst- generation procedures have become, they are of unknown reliability, present difculties with regard to denition
of performance intent, and may create signicant liability for the design professional using them. Since 2001, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been sponsoring the Applied Technology Councils ATC-58 project to develop
Next-generation Performance-based Design Criteria. Intended to eventually replace the technology contained in the present
ASCE standards, this new methodology permits engineers to characterize performance directly in terms of probable repair
costs, occupancy interruption time, and casualties associated with building response to earthquakes. Slated for completion in
2011, the new procedures are anticipated to revolutionize the practice of performance-based earthquake engineering.
Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB, is a Senior Principal with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. in San
Francisco where he manages the rms western regional structural engineering operations. A Past-President of
NCSEA, current chair of its Code Advisory Committee and present chair of the Structural Engineering Certication
Board, Mr. Hamburger is an international expert on performance-based engineering for extreme events. He was
instrumental in the development of the ASCE 41 Standard for Seismic Rehabilitation and serves on the ASCE-7 Main
Committee, as well as the Seismic and Load Combinations Task Committees. As chair of the ASCE-7 General Task Committee, he
led the development of performance-based design criteria for adoption by the 2010 edition of the ASCE 7 standard. Since 2001 he
has served as Project Director for the Applied Technology Councils ATC-58 project to develop Next-Generation Performance-based
Seismic Design Criteria under funding from FEMA.
Mention NCSEA Winter Institute for a special
$149 room rate until February 24.
Register online at: www.ncsea.com
Registration fee: $350 per day, $595 for both days
NCSEA News Feb 2010.indd 2 1/19/2010 2:56:15 PM

T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

A
S
C
E
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

C
o
l
u
m
n
s
36
S
S
ast April, 3,400 design and
construction professionals came
together for three days of edu-
cational sessions, networking,
and exploring the industry's larg-
est exhibition hall at the 2009
NASCC: The Steel Conference
and the Annual Stability Con-
ference.
A month later, another 1,400
designers and academics met for
three days at SEI's Structures
Congress, CASE Spring Risk
Management Convocation, and
the 18th Analysis and Com-
putation Specialty Conference.
And for four days from May
1215 in 2010, everyone will
come together in Orlando for a
joint conference between all the
above groups.
More than 200 technical ses-
sions. The opportunity to meet
and network with the nation's
leading structural engineers, edu-
cators, fabricators, detailers, and
erectors. And an exhibit hall fea-
turing 200 companies showing
the latest products for the design
and construction of buildings and
bridges.
L
For more information and to register visit
www.aisc.org/nascc
Incorporating the: Annual Stability Conference 19th Analysis & Computation Specialty Conference
NISD Annual Meeting CASE Spring Risk Management Convocation
IMCA
presented by:
THE
STRUCTURE
CONGRES
MAY 1215, 2010 GAYLORD PALMS CONVENTION CENTER ORLANDO, FLORIDA
NASCC
THE STEEL CONFERENCE
SEI News Feb 2010.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:57:50 PM

T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

A
S
C
E
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

C
o
l
u
m
n
s
37
For the rst time ever, the leading conferences for the design and construction industry have combined to
present four days of education to structural engineers, steel fabricators, educators, erectors, and detailers. On
May 12-15, 2010, Orlando will host more than 4,000 professionals at a combined event that includes:
the 2010 NASCC: The Steel Conference
the Structures Congress
the Annual Stability Conference
CASE Spring Risk Management Convocation
the NISD Annual Meeting
19
th
Analysis & Computation Specialty Conference
The conference will offer more than 200 sessions, 200 exhibitors, and a great opportunity for networking
with your peers and others involved in the design and construction of buildings and bridges.
What is the Steel Conference?
NASCC: The Steel Conference is the premier event for
everyone involved in the design and construction of fabricated
structural steel buildings, including designers, fabricators,
detailers, and erectors. In addition to more than 85 technical
sessions, the Conference features a trade show with nearly
200 exhibitors showing a vast range of products, from
fabrication equipment to the latest in structural engineering
software. Its a once-a-year opportunity to learn the latest
techniques, see the most innovative products, and network with
your peers and clients. And unlike other conferences that issue
a general call for papers, the NASCC planning committee
carefully selects topics of interest and then seeks out the top
experts and presenters. Some are very well known (such as
Jon Magnusson, John Fisher, Ronald Hamburger, and Rafael
Sabelli), while others may not be household names but still
bring a distinct expertise to the program.
What is the Structures Congress?
Held annually, the Structures Congress is an opportunity for
the members of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
to come together to hear the latest advances in structural
engineering. This year, the Congress includes more than 400
papers in a variety of tracks, including: Bridges; Analysis &
Computation; Building Design; Building-Seismic; Extreme Loads
& Educational Reform; Concrete & Masonry Structures; Non-
Building Structures; Business & Professional Practice; Research;
Tall Buildings; and Education & Loading.
What is the Stability Conference?
The Structural Stability Research Councils Annual Stability
Conference has been held in conjunction with the NASCC since
2001. Presentation topics range from Lateral-Torsional Buckling
of Steel Beam-Columns under Fire Exposure to Optimization
of the Cross-Frame Spacing in Straight, Skewed and Curved
Steel I-Girder Bridges for Deck Casting Loads. The Stability
Conference also includes the 2010 Lynn S. Beedle Lecture,
which this year features Reidar Bjorhovde, president of The
Bjorhovde Group.
What is the CASE
Spring Risk Convocation?
The Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) holds
their Spring Risk Convocation annually in conjunction with the
Structures Congress. The CASE Convocation is dedicated to
reducing the frequency and severity of claims and provides a
forum to improve the quality of structural engineering through
enhancement of business practices, decreased professional li-
ability insurance, and increased protability.
What is the Analysis &
Computation Track?
Every two years, the Analysis & Computation Technical
Administrative Committee of the Structural Engineering Institute
organizes sessions to be held in conjunction with the Structures
Congress. This years track focuses on educational challenges,
advanced analysis-based design, emergent computing technol-
ogy, optimal structural design, and structural control.
General Conference Features
This years keynote speakers are Rick Fedrizzi and Kathy
Caldwell. Rick is the founding chair of the U.S. Green Building
Council (USGBC), the organization that developed the LEED
certication system. With the growing emphasis on sustainable
design, Ricks keynote should be both informative and practical.
Kathy is the president-elect of ASCE and her talk will focus on
the quality of life issues we all face clean water, sustainable
energy, and the need for infrastructure development.
In addition, the 2010 T.R. Higgins Lectureship, featuring James
O. Malley of Degenkolb Engineers, will be presented. Jims
lecture focuses on the AISC Seismic Provisions. Finally, the CASE
Breakfast Lecture will present David Ratterman, an attorney with
Stites & Harbison, discussing what structural engineers need to
know about changes to the AISC Code of Standard Practice.
Other highlights include nine pre- and post-conference short
courses on topics ranging from HSS Connection Design to
Performance-Based Plastic Design of Earthquake Resistant Steel
Structures to a workshop on the ASCE Flood Resistant Design
and Construction Standard to Wind Loads of ASCE 7-10. In
addition, a special four-part Ruby University will be presented
on The Constructability Inuence Curve.
Full registration for technical sessions (except the pre- and post-conference short courses and breakfast/lunch lectures) is just
$390 for SEI and AISC members. To view the full program or to register, please visit www.aisc.org/nascc.
SEI News Feb 2010.indd 2 1/19/2010 2:57:53 PM
T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
C
A
S
E

i
n

P
o
i
n
t
38
New CASE Tool Released
Milestone Checklist for Young Engineers
New Update for CASE Commentary on AIA Document C401
Standard Form of Agreement Between Architect and Consultant
ACEC Course Examines Markets, Methods,
Tools for Sustainable Projects, New Directions
Feb. 23-26, New Orleans Green Infrastructure and Sustainable Communities: Opportunities in New Markets
The ability to develop young staff has always been a crucial
component of the success of any rm. Recently, the CASE
Toolkit Committee released CASE Tool No. 5-2: Milestone
Checklist for Young Engineers. It is the second tool related to
CASEs Fifth Foundation of Risk Management Education. The
tool will help your engineers understand what engineering and
leadership skills are required to become a competent engineer. It
will also provide managers a tool to evaluate engineering staff.
Each item could be customized to t your rms expectations.
Tools related to the other CASE Foundations can be downloaded
from the CASE website at www.acec.org/case/tools.cfm. If you
have any questions or suggestions for new tools, please contact
the Toolkit Committee through the website and click on any of
the committee members e-mail addresses.
A few years ago, CASE set out to improve the practice of
structural engineering by reducing the frequency and severity of
claims. One of the ways CASE planned to accomplish this was
through the production of software-based tools that are made
available to CASE members through e-mail and on the CASE
website at www.acec.org/CASE.
Shown below are the CASE Ten Foundations of Risk Manage-
ment and the corresponding tool(s) for each. A summary for
each tool can be found at www.acec.org/case/tools.cfm. To
obtain these tools your rm must be a member of CASE,
or you can purchase them from ACECs Contracts Central at
www.contractscentral.net. More Tools are on the way this year!
1. Culture
Tool 1-1: Create a Culture for Managing Risks and
Preventing Claims
2. Prevention and Proactivity
Tool 2-1: A Risk Evaluation Checklist
Tool 2-2: Interview Guide and Template
3. Planning
Tool 3-1: A Risk Management Program Planning Structure
4. Communication
Tool 4-1: Status Report Template
Tool 4-2: Project Kick-Off Meeting Agenda
Tool 4-3: Sample Correspondence Guidelines
Tool 4-4: Phone Conversation Log
5. Education
Tool 5-1: A Guide to the Practice of Structural Engineering
6. Scope
Tool 6-1: CASE Contract Scope Exhibit Checklist
7. Compensation
Tool 7-1: Client Evaluation
8. Contracts
Tool 8-1: Contract Review
9. Contract Documents
Tool 9-1: A Guideline Addressing Coordination and
Completeness of Structural Construction Documents
10. Construction Phase
Tool 10-1: Site Visit Cards
Tool 10-2: Construction Administration Log
ACEC again brings together a faculty of leading practitioners,
academic and government experts in an exploration of the
growing market for sustainable design and construction. Green
Infrastructure and Sustainable Communities: Opportunities in New
Markets will be presented in partnership with Colorado State
University, February 23-26 in New Orleans, with curriculum
that examines key environmental planning and design processes
and showcases applications of sustainable engineering.
Segments of the four-day program add up to a unique practical
and systematic examination of the challenges, strategies, tools,
and bottom-line opportunities of sustainable facilities and
infrastructure markets.
Sustainability as Business Strategy
The Business Case for Delivering Sustainable Projects
Conducting Sustainability Audits and Assessments for Clients
Use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Costing
Risk Management for Sustainable Projects
Field Trip: Sustainability Principles and Practices in Metro
New Orleans
Sustainable Urban Water Management, Buildings and
Transportation Projects
Engineers and planners looking for a course that examines key
environmental planning and design processes, and showcases
applications of sustainable engineering by some of the lead-
ing practitioners in the U.S., will particularly benet from this
unique certicate program.
For details and to register contact LaCreshea Makonnen at
ACEC at education@acec.org or 202-347-7474.
Recently, the CASE Contracts Committee released CASE
Document 6 2009, Commentary on AIA Document C401. The
purpose of this document is to provide assistance to the Structural
Engineer of Record (SER) when using AIA Document C401 as
the basis of a contractual agreement. The document features:
A Commentary on certain conditions of the Agreement.
A sample cover letter for use with the Agreement.
Two matrices of Scope of Services based on the CASE
National Guidelines.
An exhibit to add to or clarify the Terms and Conditions of
AIA Documents C401 or B101.
This document was provided to all CASE members at no
charge, as another benet of CASE membership. To access
all CASE publications including its standard contracts go to
www.acec.org/case/publications.cfm.
A series of webinars on this document will be offered this spring of
2010 at a reduced cost to CASE members. Stay tuned for details.
CASE News Feb10.indd 1 1/19/2010 2:58:22 PM

C
A
S
E

i
s

a

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
C
A
S
E

i
n

P
o
i
n
t

February 2010 STRUCTURE magazine
39
Registration to Open Soon for the CASE Risk Management
Convocation in Orlando This May
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in
conjunction with the rst-ever combined Structures Congress/
North American Steel Construction Conference at the Gaylord
Palms Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, May 1215,
2010. The Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE (SEI)
and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) are
joining forces in 2010 to host this rst-ever combined event.
Registration will open very soon and will be handled at AISCs
website: www.aisc.org. A preliminary program is available for
viewing at SEIs website www.seinstitute.org.
The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to take place on Friday, May 14:
6:45 am 8:00 am CASE Breakfast: Changes to AISC Code of Standard Practice
What Structural Engineers Need to Know
Speaker: David B. Ratterman, Secretary and General Counsel, AISC
The AISC Code of Standard Practice has served as a specication guideline and statement of custom and usage in
the fabricated structural steel industry since approximately 1921. The Code is regularly updated and maintained by
a balanced committee of industry professionals; approximately one-third of the Code Committee is comprised of
practicing structural engineers. Mr. Ratterman is a graduate engineer and counsel to the Code Committee. He will
discuss the relationship of the Code to the practice of structural engineering.
8:00 am 9:30 am Steel Design Dos & Donts A Construction Friendly Perspective
Speakers: Carol Drucker, Drucker Zaidel; Other Speakers TBA
This session will be led by a licensed structural engineer, specializing in connection design, who will comment
on document quality as it relates to potential risk management issues for the structural engineer of record. Often,
problems in steel design are not so apparent until after the job has been awarded and is in detailing, fabrication or
erection. Small oversights can have big impact, and may cause delays or additional costs. Potential issues are avoidable
by understanding structural steel systems and their connections. This seminar will address different aspects of lateral
system design, main member design, connection design and avoidable problems. Actual examples from real projects
will be highlighted and discussed. The session will include discussion from a steel detailer and a steel fabricator related
to the associated construction costs and/or change orders resulting from document quality and clarity.
1:45 pm 3:15 pm A Day in the Life of a Project Manager
Speakers: John Aniol, Walter P Moore; Corey Matsuoka, SSFM International
Follow a structural project manager as he struggles through a day lled with risk and discovers tools to help him
mitigate those risks. Some of the tools he will discover include communication, corporate culture, planning and
prevention, education, scope and contracts, construction documents and construction.
3:30 pm 5:00 pm Managing Expectations and Risks During the Steel Detailing Process
Speakers: Glenn Bishop, LBYD, Birmingham AL; Will Ikerd, RLG Engineers, Dallas, TX
The AISC Code of Standard Practice provides two options for structural steel connections: either fully detailed by the
engineer or selected and completed by the detailer. After much discussion, AISC is considering adding a third option
for connection: design by a specialty structural engineer retained by the fabricator. This session will explore the needs
and expectations of both the engineer and the fabricator for each of these three options. Also discussed will be how
these expectations might change in the BIM world.
CASE News Feb10.indd 2 1/19/2010 2:58:23 PM
Copyright 2009 Design Data, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.sds2.com 800.443.0782 402.441.4000 e-mail: info@sds2.com
BUILDING INTELLIGENT CONNECTIONS.
Why settle for this?
When your software can do this?
SDS/2 is the only BIM software that designs connections intelligently. This means it recognizes and resolves erectability
issues and framing conditions while automatically designing connections.
SDS/2 takes the work out of completing your BIM model. With SDS/2s power to engineer joints and superior connections to
project partners, viewing the as-built model enables you to get the job done better, faster and smarter.
Visit sds2.com or call 800.443.0782 to learn how you can start building intelligent connections in your projects today.
Blank.indd 1 1/4/2010 11:06:53 AM
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
s

o
n

t
o
p
i
c
s

o
f

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

t
o

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L

F
O
R
U
M
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the
design and construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reect the
views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the STRUCTURE
magazine Editorial Board.

41
The Failure of the Five Es
The Pressing Need for Structural Licensing
By Barry Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB
Engineering is an honorable and admired
profession or so we like to say and
believe. But is it true? Are we as honorable
and admired as our predecessors? What
type of profession are we going to hand
over to the next generation of structural
engineers? Are we holding a hard line on
policies and procedures that will ensure
public safety, or are we focused on making
things easier for ourselves?
Twenty years ago, I remember a dear
professor holding up three fingers and
stating that the three Es are the bedrock
of the engineering profession: Education,
Experience and Examination combine to
safeguard the public and act as a bastion
of the profession. I revered that professor,
admired the passion with which he spoke,
and took his words to heart. He went on
further to exclaim that the three Es are
like the three legs of a stool, and combine
to provide the profession with stability
and the public with safety. In my mind, I
questioned the analogy; as one who had
used a three-legged stool, I knew that they
are not especially stable or safe.
It was not long after I began practicing
that I witnessed the addition of two more
Es to the list: Ethics and Enforcement. I
was told that together these ve Es provide
a strong foundation and impenetrable
fortress that will protect the public, and
ensure the quality and longevity of the
engineering profession.
As the title of this article suggests, I have
come to question that assertion. It appears
that, through the years and by degrees, the
engineering profession has been weakened
by a crumbling foundation. The safeguards
and checkpoints that were instituted to
protect the public have given way to tedious
bureaucracy lled with endless loopholes
allowing questionable individuals and
practices to become commonplace.
The consequences of a lack of attention
to our purpose and responsibilities, along
with not taking a rm and clear stance
against the internal and external struggles
that we face daily, have the potential to
wreak havoc with our professionalism
in general, and our duty to the public
in particular. It is my contention that
loopholes exist in all ve aspects of the
present system.
Education
Most engineers believe that the educa-
tion provided by their alma mater was
adequate. The problem is that there is no
requirement that a person who wants to
practice structural engineering must take
a specic set of core and elective classes.
In addition, some institutions tinker
with the classes, thus further limiting the
students options and educational op-
portunities. When I was in college, they
removed three structures classes from
the curriculum to force students to take
classes on composites and agricultural
engineering, just to increase sagging enroll-
ment. Those classes were interesting, but
for a structural engineer, classes in wood,
masonry and post-tensioned concrete
would have been more valuable.
With these loopholes, a person could
graduate with a bare minimum of
structures-related courses and still qualify
as having met the education requirement
for licensure.
Experience
Because of the above-mentioned loop-
hole, the requirement for experience
becomes even more important. In most
states, a graduate with a bachelors degree is
required to complete four years of qualifying
experience before becoming licensed as a
professional engineer. The term qualifying
experience can be a bit nebulous.
What happens when a person who wants
to practice structural engineering works
for four years in a mechanical engineers
ofce? Can such a person claim to have
qualifying experience? Unfortunately, there
is nothing to prevent that from happen-
ing. Sadly, it happens more often than
it should.
With this loophole it is easy to meet the
letter of the law, but not the intent.
Examination
A milestone is reached when individu-
als are ready to take the Principles and
Practice of Engineering (PE) exam. Having
completed the education and experience
requirements, they sit for the exam. Out
of the myriad problems offered, they
solve only a few that are structural. When
I took the PE exam, I answered questions
relating to surveying, open channel ow,
and highway design. Prevailing logic sug-
gests that I should be qualied to practice
in those areas, but am I? Absolutely not!
Passing the PE exam is an indication of
how hard I studied for the test and how
well I remembered some of the broad
spectrum of information that I learned in
college and nothing more. It is not an
indicator of the depth of my education
or the relevance of my experience, and it is
inadequate to assess my knowledge and ca-
pabilities as a practicing structural engineer.
With this loophole, it is impossible to
assess the ability of an engineer to design
a structural system correctly.
Ethics
Ethics is being taught and emphasized
less frequently in college and in practice
today. Senior engineers will tell you that
they had a semester of ethics in college.
Unfortunately, many younger engineers
will tell you that they received, at most, an
hour or two of education or instruction
in ethics, if any at all.
Why is ethics being overlooked and
ignored today? A number of engineers
have opined that it is because the Code
of Ethics is not enforceable. The Code of
Ethics, while containing grand ideals and
philosophies, is not law; or as Captain
Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean
would say, The Code is more what youd
call guidelines than actual rules. Read
C-StructForum-Arnold-Feb10.indd 1 1/21/2010 8:56:55 AM
42
any states disciplinary action list, and you will
see that, generally, the source of almost every
problem is a violation of one or more of the
canons of the Code of Ethics.
This loophole has the potential to do more
damage to the profession and jeopardize
the public than the previous three. Without
having educated our consciences by studying,
understanding and applying our Code of
Ethics, we lack rm (although intangible)
boundaries within which to work and provide
engineering services.
Enforcement
Enforcement is the publics last chance to
catch and correct inappropriate actions, and
redirect those engineers that slipped through
the other loopholes. Unfortunately, enforce-
ment despite the best efforts of those
involved is difcult and often inadequate. A
tting analogy would be to compare enforce-
ment to a police ofcer sitting by the side of
the freeway. Many cars speed by, but only one
is caught, pulled over and cited. Sure, everyone
else slows down temporarily; but then they
wipe their brows, delighted that they were not
the one caught, and after a short time begin
speeding again.
This loophole is difcult to x because it
is underfunded and the responsible agencies
are overworked.
shops a rst attempt at structural design by
a recently retired aerospace engineer? Was the
local church that your family attends designed
to meet code requirements by someone who
knew what they were doing, or by someone
who guessed and bluffed their way through a
set of plans and calculations? Was the structural
design of your childrens or grandchildrens
school prepared by an electrical engineer trying
to pick up a few extra dollars?
Maybe those questions do not matter to you,
but when the event happens, there will be
many families asking building owners, architects
and the engineering community why the cre-
dentials of the engineer designing the structure
were not checked. Suddenly tight budgets, low
fees, and all the reasons that the engineering
profession has given for not taking action to
x the problem will seem insignicant.
Unfortunately, acknowledging the elephant
in the room offends, angers, and irritates some
people, including those in the engineering
profession. Regardless, we do not have the
luxury of ignoring the situation any longer. We
cannot turn our eyes away from the obvious
and continue on an unaltered course in blissful
ignorance, leaving the public at risk.
That is the reason why I fully support sepa-
rate licensure for structural engineers and
practice restrictions in all jurisdictions. Separate
licensure by means of a specic and rigorous
examination is a clear indication that struc-
tural engineering is not your hobby, but your
profession, and that you have a higher level of
competence to practice it.
The detractors of separate licensure and
practice restrictions say, Show us the bodies!
That is the single most embarrassing and
pathetic statement that an engineer can make.
Our job and purpose is to protect the public by
removing as much risk from them as possible
so that we never have to count the bodies.
Structural licensing and structural practice
restrictions are not part of a turf war they
are a necessary addition to the ve Es if we
are to do what the rst cannon of our Code of
Ethics requires: holding paramount the health,
safety and welfare of the public.
Barry Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB is a Vice
President at ARW Engineers in Ogden,
Utah. He is a Past President of the
Structural Engineers Association of Utah
(SEAU), serves as the SEAU Delegate to
NCSEA, and is a member of the NCSEA
Licensing Committee. He can be reached at
barrya@arwengineers.com.
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
Conclusions
It is unpleasant to think that we may be
losing sight of our duty to the public and
our profession, but the situation must be
addressed preferably sooner, rather than
later. In light of the potential consequences
of inaction on the part of the engineering
community, it is essential that existing loop-
holes be removed and additional measures
be taken and enforced.
The loopholes that I have cited herein
are the tip of what could be an enormous
iceberg. Talking with engineers from around
the country, I know that this issue crosses all
boundaries and borders it exists everywhere.
Take a minute and look carefully around you.
The problem may exist in the next town, at a
competitors ofce down the street, or within
your own rm.
Before you enter another building, ask your-
self this very important question: What are
the credentials of the engineer who designed
this structure? Do you know? Most people do
not and that puts them at risk. The public
assumes that all engineers with a seal are equal
in education, experience, and other qualica-
tions. We know better. Sure, the building is
standing up now; but in an event, how will
it perform? Was your neighborhood re sta-
tion designed by a moonlighting mechanical
engineer? Is the strip mall where your family
C-StructForum-Arnold-Feb10.indd 2 1/19/2010 2:58:52 PM
Blank.indd 1 12/29/2009 9:48:55 AM
Blank.indd 1 1/14/2010 11:40:08 AM

Structure 201002

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Structure 201002

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A

magazine does not constitute endorsement

(Volume 17, Number 2). ISSN 1536-4283.

magazine. The third will appear in an upcoming issue.

. The process of analysis con-

For critical welds,

- Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System

) for Wood Construction. He also serves on the BSSC

magazine Editorial Board.

Potrebbero piacerti anche