April 2010: Concrete

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

April 2010
Concrete
April10 cover saddle stitch.indd 1 3/19/2010 12:52:13 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
Blank.indd 1 2/11/2010 8:51:01 AM
STRUCTURE magazine April 2010
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 4). 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). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of the publisher.
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
Chair
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Burns & McDonnell
Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org
Executive Editor
NCSEA
Chicago, IL
execdir@ncsea.com
STRUCTURE magazine
4
ADVERTISER PAGE #
Anthony Forest Products Co. Page 22
Computers & Structures, Inc. Page 36
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. Page 20
Fyfe Co. LLC Page 14
Hoover Treated Wood Product, Inc. Page 9
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. Page 15
KPFF Consulting Engineers Page 4
Powers Fasteners, Inc. Page 2
QuakeWrap, Inc. Page 25
RISA Technologies Page 35
SidePlate Systems, Inc. Page 13
Simpson Strong-Tie Pages 11 & 21
StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. Page 3
StructurePoint Page 24
Struware, Inc. Page 5
TEKLA, Inc. Page 6
Wood Products Council Page 26
WoodWorks Page 17
Advertiser Index free information from advertisers
I
s
s
a
q
u
a
h

T
r
a
n
s
i
t

C
e
n
t
e
r
,

I
s
s
a
q
u
a
h
,

W
A

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
C-Index-Ed-InFoc-April10.indd 2 3/19/2010 9:34:26 AM
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.
18
16
8
Northrop-Grumman Building R6, Redondo Beach,
CA, a post-tensioned concrete building using
shrinkage-compensating cement to solve diffcult
restraint-to-shortening problems. Built over 40
years ago, the building has required no unusual
maintenance or repairs, and continues to perform
well today. See more on this building in our feature
on page 18.
A
J
o
in
t P
u
b
lic
a
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

April 2010
Concrete
April10 cover saddle stitch.indd 1 3/15/2010 10:28:49 AM
Columns
Features
Departments
In every Issue
on the Cover
5
18 Shrinkage-Compensating Concrete in Post-Tensioned Buildings
By Kenneth B. Bondy, S.E., FACI
Restraint to shortening (RTS) is a major concern for designers of post-tensioned
concrete buildings. It can cause unsightly cracking in foor systems and restraining
elements (columns and walls). One proven method for solving RTS problems has
been in use for over 40 years and yet it is not well known. Shrinkage-compensating
concrete has been successfully used to construct large, jointless elevated slabs in
post-tensioned concrete structures since the 1960s.
7 Editorial
The Benefts of Networking
By Douglas Ashcraft, P.E., S.E.
8 Structural Design
Post-Tensioned Slabs on Ground
By Bryan Allred, S.E.
12 Practical Solutions
Heavily Loaded Strap Footings
By Truly Guzman, P.E. M.Sc
16 InSights
Educational Art
By Duane Ellifritt, Ph.D., P.E.
34 Structural Forum
We Need to Work Together or Risk
Being Torn Apart
By Barry Arnold, S.E., SECB
23 Risk Management
Managing the Risks of BIM
By Joseph M. Ales Jr., Ph.D., S.E.
4 Advertiser Index
26 Resource Guide
(Engineered Wood Products)
28 NCSEA News
30 SEI Structural Columns
32 CASE in Point
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

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
TOC April10.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:36:18 AM
Model image courtesy of USC School of Cinema
and Gregory P Luth & Associates
Tekla Structures BIM (Building Information Modeling) software provides
a data-rich 3D environment that can be shared by contractors, structural
engineers, steel detailers and fabricators, and concrete detailers and
manufacturers. Choose Tekla for the highest level of constructability and
integration in project management and delivery.
Greg, Kristin, and John of Gregory P. Luth & Associates (GPLA) know how to ensure the best end result
to their projects. With Tekla, GPLA has moved from design to construction-driven engineering, adding
value to clients by delivering models that are used downstream. Sharing the Tekla model allows all of
the project team members to stay in the building information loop in real-time.
FROM DESIGN TO
CONSTRUCTION
Visit us at:
NASCC
Booth #725
May 12-15 in Orlando, FL
2/26/10 10:22 AM
Blank.indd 1 3/1/2010 4:37:59 PM
Chair
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Burns & McDonnell
Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org
Executive Editor
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
Ridgefeld, 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
Editorial
7
The Benefts of Networking
By Douglas Ashcraft, P.E., S.E.
Chair, Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE)
Leaders of CASE, CAMEE, Small Firms, COPS, Land Development,
and Design Professionals Coalitions continue to work together to
develop strategies for showing other frms the many benefts of joining
ACEC and one of the design coalitions. Among the many benefts
identifed, one keeps coming up as having the most value. The ability
to network with other design professionals and discuss issues that affect
the business of engineering is seen as an invaluable beneft of becoming
a member of ACEC and CASE.
Something that CASE tried this past January shows great promise in
letting others see what CASE is about and provide incentive to join.
CASE held its Winter Meeting in Houston in January. We contacted
the leadership of the Houston/Gulf Coast Chapter of The Structural
Engineers Association of Texas (SEAoT) and asked them if we could
join them for their regular monthly meeting. They agreed, and CASE
supplied the program.
The program consisted of round table discussions about four different
issues affecting the risk profle of structural engineering frms today.
Each discussion was led by a knowledgeable leader in the industry from
different frms around the country. The four topics included Building
Information Modeling, LEED and Sustainable Design, Integrated Project
Delivery, and Collecting Fees without Counter-Claims. Attendees were
asked to choose any of the four topics, and I was amazed to see each
table fairly equally populated.
Kurtis Young, a principal in the Houston offce of Walter P Moore,
led a discussion about the benefts and risks of engaging in projects
that are delivered by the Integrated Project Delivery model. Kurt
explained that the Owner, Architect and Builder are all parties to the
same agreement, in which they agree to cooperate in the best interest
of the project and to not sue each other. All parties to the contract
have specifc responsibilities and are held accountable by an Executive
Leadership committee, consisting of senior management from the three
major stakeholders.
There were several at the table that had experience with this type of
contract. They explained that proft for the designer and builders is at
risk, being tied up in the construction contingency for the project. If
the project is delivered for less than the budget, everyone receives more
proft than anticipated. However, if some of the contingency is spent
on over-budget items, everyones proft suffers. All agreed that the key
issue for success is working with partners with which you have had
experience and can trust to perform.
Dirk Kestner, a project manger from the Austin offce of Walter P
Moore and a LEED Accredited Professional, started the conversation
about the risks associated when an owner wishes the project to be
LEED certifed. Many areas of LEED point accumulation are out of the
purview of structural engineers, and the SEs role is somewhat limited.
That does not mean there is no risk for structural engineers nor does
it mean that SEs should not get involved with the design team early
to help move the sustainable discussion along. Designers should never
allow there to be a guarantee for a particular LEED level in the contract;
there are many issues associated with construction that can impact the
projects ability to become LEED certifed. Many new products and
procedures will present themselves as sustainable and appropriate for
LEED certifcation. Designers should take appropriate actions to verify
those claims before allowing their use.
Building Information Modeling promises to enhance collaboration
and condense information. David Odeh of Odeh Engineers led a group
in discussing the contractual risks that must be addressed with BIM.
Before a model is begun, the purpose for its creation must be agreed
upon. Ownership and control of the model must be addressed in the
contract. The question of what constitutes a standard of care with a
new technology needs to be answered to properly assign risk among
the parties.
Most engineering frms spend an inordinate amount of time
managing accounts receivable. David Collings of Ames and Gough,
the Chair of CASEs Insurance Engagement Committee, helped the
group discuss ways in which design frms can collect what is owed
without getting sued in the process. Project managers should be
engaged with clients and held accountable for overdue collections.
Some frms take overdue amounts off the bottom line, to give PMs
incentive to be proactive in collecting fees. Be sure there are no valid
reasons based on your performance for not getting paid; but, if not,
aggressive actions such as stopping work may be necessary. Let the
order to stop work come from higher up, so as to not endanger the
PMs relationship with the client. Getting a Promissory Note signed is
a good way to ensure collections and makes it easier to get a judgment
against the client in case of non-payment.
Everyone agreed that the evening of networking between local
engineers and members of CASE, from diverse locations and frm size,
was a great success. Look for a CASE meeting near you, and help us as
CASE tries to reach out to a larger audience.
C-Index-Ed-InFoc-April10.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:35:02 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
STRUCTURE magazine April 2010 STRUCTURE magazine
8
Post -Tensioned Slabs on Ground
Part 2: Specifc Design Considerations
By Bryan Allred, S.E.
The January 2010 issue of Structure
Magazine contained a general overview
of the design and construction of post-
tensioned slab on ground foundations.
This article will focuses on specifc engi-
neering items that occur when designing
these types of foundations. As described
previously, post-tensioned slabs on grade
are primarily designed to support residen-
tial and light industrial construction that
is on expansive or compressible soil. The
foundations can be designed per the Post-
Tensioning Institute (PTI) method to be a
ribbed or uniform thickness foundation.
Ribbed Foundations
A typical ribbed foundation will have
a 5-inch thick slab, with interior and
exterior footings that extend from one end
of the foundation to the other (Figure 1).
The layout of the footings (ribs) will give
it an exaggerated waffe slab appearance
if it could be viewed from the soils
perspective. Due to their depth, the
footings will provide the vast majority
of the foundations section modulus
and moment of inertia, which are the
key parameters in limiting the fexural
stresses and defections. Although it may
be economically advantageous to have
a few very deep footings to generate
the same elastic section properties, the
performance of the foundation may
suffer with large gaps between ribs. The
PTI method limits the maximum spacing
of footings to be 15 feet, and requires the
spacing of adjacent footings to be 20%
of each other. The spacing limitations
are intended to have the footings close
enough such that the foundation can
respond as having a consistent stiffness
across its cross section, rather than having
localized areas of large stiffness that are
connected by a relatively thin slab. In
typical structures, the footings are around
10 to 12 feet on center in each direction.
A tighter rib spacing will also minimize
footing depth and width. In the authors
opinion, the footings should be located
under the lateral system and the load
bearing elements (walls, post or columns).
In addition to providing vertical and
lateral support for the structure, the
footings location will be linked to the
architectural plans which will minimize
dimensional discrepancies in the between
the structural and architectural drawings.
The footing width and depth will depend
on the specifc site conditions and the load
of the structure, but they are typically
around 18 to 24 inches deep (including
the slab thickness) and 12 inches wide.
Footings that are wider than 14 inches can
be constructed, but the width is limited to
14 inches for the numerical design.
Footings of different depths can be
used, but the ratio of largest to smallest
must be kept within 1.2. This is most
typically seen where deeper footings are
used on the perimeter due to larger post
loads/hold downs forces, or specifc embed-
ment requirements of the soils report.
Although the foundation will benefit
from deeper footings, the code limits the
numerical design to the 1.2 ratio. Using
very deep exterior footings to generate
section proprieties that satisfy stress lim-
its, such that interior footings are not
required or are very shallow, is not the
intent of the methodology.
Instead of adding ribs for bearing wall
loads, the PTI method contains a pro-
cedure for the slab to act as a footing. A
typical post-tensioned 5-inch slab with a
compressive strength of 3000 psi and a
precompression force of 50 pounds per
square inch (code minimum) can support
a 1,900 pound per linear foot bearing wall.
This capacity can be increased with thicker
slabs, higher strength concrete or a larger
precompression force from the strands. In
most residential construction, footings are
not required to support the bearing wall
loads. The potential to have the slab act as
a footing is also useful in home remodels
or tenant improvements, since the require-
ment for new footings can be minimized.
The same philosophy can be used for the
slab to resist post loads. For most code
compliant designs, a post-tensioned slab
can comfortably resist 1,000 pounds of
load for each inch of thickness.
For typical single family home con-
struction, the tendons in a ribbed system
are approximately 3 to 4 feet on center
in each direction. This spacing allows
easier installation and inspection while
minimizing the potential of feld person-
nel damaging the strands or pushing
them off their supports. In addition, the
relatively large spacing typically provides
suffcient room for plumbing and other
penetrations without modifcation to the
tendons. The spacing of the tendon is not
required to be placed at a specifc spacing.
Variations in the tendon locations, to avoid
penetrations, re-entrant corners or hold
downs, are permitted provided the spacing
between adjacent strands is less than 6 feet.
If a spacing of 6 feet is required, additional
rebar may be required for crack control
and continuity of the foundation.
The number of strands is primarily af-
fected by the desired precompression
force and the sub grade friction resistance.
For the same site conditions and con-
struction, a larger footprint foundation
Figure 1: Ribbed Post-Tensioned Foundation.
will have more tendons since the sub grade
friction force increases with size. The code
minimum precompression of 50 psi is calcu-
lated at the middle of the foundation, where
the affect of sub grade friction is the largest.
For larger foundations, there will most likely
be a substantial difference between the pre-
compression force at the edge of the foundation
compared to the middle.
The tendons in the majority of post-
tensioned foundations are located in the center
of the slab and run fat from anchor to anchor.
Care should be taken by the contractor and
deputy inspector to eliminate localized kinks
(vertical and horizontal) in the strands when
they extend over footings or where they are
curved to avoid penetrations. The strands
are intended primarily to provide a precom-
pression force throughout the foundation to
reduce fexural tension stresses. They are not
designed as tension reinforcement that con-
forms to the moment diagram as they would
in elevated slab and beam design. The design
of these foundations is based solely on allowable
stresses, so placing the tendons at different
locations of the slab will not provide in any
beneft in the design. Balance loads created
by vertically draping the tendons arent re-
quired since the structure is supported by
the soil. In addition, since the expansive soil
movement can occur in both vertical directions,
C-StrucDesign-Allred-April10.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:41:49 AM
April 2010 STRUCTURE magazine April 2010
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
9
not required to support the bearing wall
loads. The potential to have the slab act as
a footing is also useful in home remodels
or tenant improvements, since the require-
ment for new footings can be minimized.
The same philosophy can be used for the
slab to resist post loads. For most code
compliant designs, a post-tensioned slab
can comfortably resist 1,000 pounds of
load for each inch of thickness.
For typical single family home con-
struction, the tendons in a ribbed system
are approximately 3 to 4 feet on center
in each direction. This spacing allows
easier installation and inspection while
minimizing the potential of feld person-
nel damaging the strands or pushing
them off their supports. In addition, the
relatively large spacing typically provides
suffcient room for plumbing and other
penetrations without modifcation to the
tendons. The spacing of the tendon is not
required to be placed at a specifc spacing.
Variations in the tendon locations, to avoid
penetrations, re-entrant corners or hold
downs, are permitted provided the spacing
between adjacent strands is less than 6 feet.
If a spacing of 6 feet is required, additional
rebar may be required for crack control
and continuity of the foundation.
The number of strands is primarily af-
fected by the desired precompression
force and the sub grade friction resistance.
For the same site conditions and con-
struction, a larger footprint foundation
Figure 1: Ribbed Post-Tensioned Foundation.
Figure 2: Uniform Thickness Post-Tensioned Foundation.
will have more tendons since the sub grade
friction force increases with size. The code
minimum precompression of 50 psi is calcu-
lated at the middle of the foundation, where
the affect of sub grade friction is the largest.
For larger foundations, there will most likely
be a substantial difference between the pre-
compression force at the edge of the foundation
compared to the middle.
The tendons in the majority of post-
tensioned foundations are located in the center
of the slab and run fat from anchor to anchor.
Care should be taken by the contractor and
deputy inspector to eliminate localized kinks
(vertical and horizontal) in the strands when
they extend over footings or where they are
curved to avoid penetrations. The strands
are intended primarily to provide a precom-
pression force throughout the foundation to
reduce fexural tension stresses. They are not
designed as tension reinforcement that con-
forms to the moment diagram as they would
in elevated slab and beam design. The design
of these foundations is based solely on allowable
stresses, so placing the tendons at different
locations of the slab will not provide in any
beneft in the design. Balance loads created
by vertically draping the tendons arent re-
quired since the structure is supported by
the soil. In addition, since the expansive soil
movement can occur in both vertical directions,
load balancing may help in one condition
while hurt the system in the other. Even
though load balancing is the primary beneft
of post-tensioning in elevated slab and beam
design, it should play no part in the design
of these ground supported foundations. In
some extreme edge lift cases, specifc tendons
are anchored at the mid-depth of the slab
and immediately draped to the bottom of the
footing, where they extend across the foundation
until they are draped back up at the other
end of the foundation. This profle will create a
downturned force that is intended to coun-
teract the force of the soil moving upwards.
This type of design is primarily done in Texas
where they have very large edge lift condi-
tions. Even with expansive soils, everything
is larger in Texas.
continued on next page
10
Uniform Thickness
The uniform thickness option is designed
by converting the section properties of the
code compliant design ribbed foundation
to a single thickness slab. The conversion is
intended for the slab only, and does account
for the presence of exterior footings. Using
the section properties of the exterior footing
to minimize the uniform slab thickness is not
the intent of the PTI method or the building
code. Without interior footings, the slab alone
will be required to provide the stiffness and
strength to resist expansive and compressible
soil movement. Perimeter footings are often
requirements of the soils report or to resist
large post or hold down loads, but since their
stiffness cannot effectively be distributed over
the entire foundation, their infuence is to be
ignored in the conversion.
Typical uniform thickness slabs are in the 8
to 12 inch range (Figure 2, page 9) and have
been used to support up to 5 stories of wood
frame construction. They typically have more
concrete when compared to a ribbed foundation,
so more tendons are required to provide the
required precompression. Without interior
footings, deepened sections of concrete may
be required to resist large post loads or shear
wall hold downs. Depending on slab thick-
ness, localized footings are often used under
the lateral system to satisfy the allowable soil
pressure due to overturning.
Regardless of the slab thickness, the tendons
are still located and anchored in the middle
of slab. This layout can create slabs with 5
to 6 inches of cover from the strands to the
top of the concrete. Although this would not
be permitted in elevated slabs, there is no
additional top rebar required in these types of
foundations. Some engineers will place a grid
of rebar or mesh in the top of the slab, but this
is not a requirement of the PTI method and
may be done simply for crack control. In the
larger foundation plates, tendons can have a
required spacing of 12 to 24 inches on center.
To maximize the distance between strands, the
tendons can be grouped into bundles of twos
or threes. The bundled strands are placed side
by side, are typically tied together, and use
the same chairs or dobies for support. They
are separated near the slab edge or stressing
location to allow for the installation of the
individual anchors. In addition, this practice
will minimize having a series of tendons that
are varying lengths if the slab edge has an
angled or saw tooth confguration.
Cost a Factor
For engineers and contractors that are new to
post-tensioned foundations, a common question
is what type of foundation is best suited for
my project? As in most situations in construc-
tion, the contractors price is typically the
deciding factor. With the ribbed system, more
trenching is required, and this has been a cost
and time issue for some contractors. In addi-
tion, the ribs require maintenance during the
placement of the reinforcing and the vapor
retarded. Portions of the soil may drop into the
trench during construction, affecting the foot-
ing depth and covering the rebar with dirt. The
uniform thickness foundations will have less
trenching but more material costs in concrete
and tendons. If you are dealing with methane
issues, the uniform thickness slab option is
typically preferred since its more economical
to install the barrier relatively fat rather than
extending it through a series of overlapping
footings. In the authors experience, most single
family homes are constructed with a ribbed
foundation, while multi-level apartment/
condominium projects are designed with a
uniform thickness system.
Corrosion
For post-tensioned slabs on grade, the soils
report should include information regard-
ing the corrosiveness or the chloride content
of the site. For corrosive sites, encapsulated
tendons (Figure 3) are used to further protect
the strand, anchor and wedges from deteriora-
tion. The strand, anchor and wedges are the
same between the standard and encapsulated
system; only the sheathing and the anchor
covering is changed. The anchor assembly is
encased in a watertight connection between
the strand, sheathing, anchor and wedges.
Standard encapsulated systems are hydrostati-
cally tested to verify water tightness. For this
reason, tears in the sheathing, regardless of
length need, to be repaired and anchors that
arrive on site in a damaged condition need
immediate attention. Sealing the encapsulated
system after the tendons have been exposed to
an aggressive environment will only lock the
corrosive elements into the system, increasing
the likelihood of damage. Unlike the sulfate
table in ACI 318, there is no corresponding
corrosive chart that identifes when encapsulated
tendons should be used. Per the PTI recom-
mendations, if the soils report lists moderate
or above chloride content or if the report
lists the site as corrosive to ferrous metals (or
other similar language), encapsulated tendons
should be specifed on the structural drawings.
Shrinkage
To minimize shrinkage cracks, it is critical
that the tendons are stressed as soon as pos-
sible. The PTI design manual recommends
the tendons be stressed within 10 days of
placing the concrete. The precompression
from the strands is the primary crack control
reinforcement in the foundation. The sooner
the strands are stressed, the sooner the slab can
resist the tensile stresses generated from the
shrinkage of the concrete. These foundations
will typically have very little rebar, so until the
tendons are stressed, the concrete is essentially
un-reinforced and prone to cracking. To further
resist shrinkage cracking, some engineers will
saw cut the slab within the frst 24 hours after
placing the concrete (Figure 4). The depth and
spacing of the saw cuts will vary depending
on the slab thickness so the tendons will not
be damaged during construction. In addi-
tion, the saw cuts need to be specifed such
that the continuity of the slab is not signif-
cantly impacted.
Figure 4: Saw Cuts on a Uniform Thickness Foundation.
Figure 3: Encapsulated Tendon with a Pocket Former.
Bryan Allred is a license structural
engineer and Vice President of Seneca
Structural Engineering Inc. in Laguna
Hills CA. He can be reached via email at
Bryan@SenecaStructural.com.
E X PA N D
your frame
of reference.
2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SF10-E
Simpson Strong-Tie has nearly doubled its offering of Strong Frame
ordinary
moment frames. By adding a new 16' tall column and 14', 18' and 20' wide beams,
you not only have 368 frame congurations to choose from, but more design exibility
for larger openings and wider interior clear spans. And because our frames are
pre-engineered, you spend minutes choosing the right frame rather than hours
designing one. Contractors also appreciate our weld-free, 100% bolted installation.
Expand your options even further with a Custom Strong Frame

made to order. And download our new Strong Frame Selector
software and catalog. For more information visit
www.strongtie.com/strongframe or call (800) 999-5099.
SSTM-SF10-E_8_3-8x10_7-8.indd 1 3/5/2010 8:32:04 PM Blank.indd 1 3/8/2010 9:28:52 AM
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
i
n
g

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l

S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
S
12
Heavily Loaded Strap Footings
Design, Detailing and Behavior
By Truly Guzman, P.E. M.Sc
In dense urban environments where ev-
ery inch of construction is precious and
needs to be maximized, it is usual for
footings or pile caps supporting exterior
columns to be moved inside property
lines. This in turn creates an eccentric
load on these elements. In the city of
New York, especially in the borough of
Manhattan, where high capacity bed-
rock can be found at reasonably shallow
depths, it is common to support tall
buildings on isolated footings bearing
on rock. Strap footings are usually the
most effcient mechanism to remove ec-
centricity from exterior footings and to
accomplish a more uniform distribution
of bearing pressure.
A strap footing consists of two spread
footings linked together by a strap beam.
Its design is based on the assumption that
this beam is not in contact with the bear-
ing stratum such that no soil pressure is
exerted on the beam itself. The means
used to provide this pressure-relieving
mechanism varies; some engineers indicate
polystyrene between the beam and the
bearing soil, others prefer simply to show
a gap, and still others prescribe a tapered
beam. Most of the time, verifying that
this requirement has been satisfed dur-
ing construction is not considered crucial.
Moreover, in many cases the responsibility
for inspecting and controlling this detail
is not clear or can easily be neglected.
The question arises: How important is it
to relieve this pressure from the strap beam
in order for it to behave as designed? In
other words, can this pressure be neglected
for all practical purposes?
Case Study
An example is shown in Figure 1, where
a strap footing was designed to support
a 27-story building bearing on rock
with a bearing capacity of 25 tons per
square foot.
By performing a simple conventional
rigid static analysis and assuming that
the strap beam is not in contact with the
rock, the resulting design moment and
shear for the beam are 4,600 kips-feet
and 235 kips respectively. A 6-foot-
deep, 4-foot-wide beam is chosen as the
design section. In most cases, the depth
of the strap beam is controlled either by
the depth of footing required to avoid
punching shear failure or by the maxi-
mum amount of fexural reinforcement
allowed. Typically, minimum or no shear
reinforcement is required.
If the beam is constructed by placing
concrete directly against the rock, it is
apparent that the pressure imposed on
the beam will be a direct function of
the width of the beam. In theory, if the
beam is of infnitesimally small width
but has a comparable bending stiffness
to the original beam, the results should
be similar. In order to determine the stage
at which the resulting moments and shears
become similar, with and without bearing
pressure exerted on the beam, the author
carried out a series of numerical analy-
ses. The model had compression-only
spring elements with a subgrade reaction
modulus of 800 pounds per cubic inch
to represent the rock under the footings,
and two-thirds of this value for the rock
under the grade beam in order to account
for shape effects.
Since no tension was allowed on the
springs, the strap beam was able to relax
Figure 1: Moment and Shear Diagrams on a Strap Footing.
continued on page 14
C-PracSol-Guzman-April10.indd 1 3/22/2010 9:04:23 AM
Blank.indd 1 3/1/2010 4:49:23 PM
in the areas with less pressure and even lose contact with the rock
where required a more realistic condition than the simple rigid anal-
ysis could simulate. The width of the beam varied from the original 48
inches down to 6 inches with 5 intermediate widths, while keeping
the moment of inertia constant. In addition, a numerical analysis assum-
ing no pressure on the beam with the same variations in width served as a
basis for comparison with the original analytical results.
The increments on moment and shear at the critical section as a
function of beam width are plotted in Figures 2a, 2b and 2c.
It is clear from the results that when no pressure is allowed, the
moments and shears stay constant as the width changes. On the other
hand, when pressure is allowed, the moments and shears increase con-
siderably with width. For the original 48-inch-wide beam, an increase
of about 73% in moment and about 400% in shear can be observed. As
expected, when the width of the beam is the smallest, the difference
between the no-pressure and with-pressure analyses is small, as well.
Nevertheless, even for the 6-inch-wide beam, the difference in shear
is still considerable at about 65% while the difference in moment goes
down to about 3% .
The variation exhibited in soil pressure is also expected when the
area in contact with the soil is considerable, the total load is distributed
over a broader area creating less overall soil pressure.
A small parametric study illustrates how the relationship between total
area of footing and total area of strap beam affects the increase in forces
on the beam. The variation shown in Figure 3 can be interpreted as
mostly linear.
Conclusion
Results indicate that when a strap footing is used as part of a founda-
tion system, a detail that allows for pressure to be relieved from the
strap footing is necessary on construction
documents. Without it, a considerable un-
foreseen load path could be created that
may result in the failure of the strap beam
followed by overstress of the soil/rock under
the eccentric footing. It is also important to
emphasize the need for eld enforcement
and control of these requirements.
The author recommends the two options
shown in Figure 4 in order to avoid eld
mistakes. It is also good to emphasize that
if Option 1 is chosen, a low-density, low-
modulus polystyrene must be specified.
The thickness should be slightly greater
than the maximum expected settlement of
the footings. Furthermore, if the contractor
prefers to perform a non-monolithic pour,
construction joint keys must be oriented
as indicated. Option 2 has the advantage
of saving concrete, with the drawback of
more labor-intensive formwork. Of course,
there is always the alternative of explicitly
accounting for the pressure on the beam at
the design stage, rather than neglecting it.
However, it is obvious from the results of
this study that this can be an inefcient and
uneconomical solution.
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
14
Figure 2a: Variation in Moments (kips-ft).
Figure 2b: Variation in Shear (kips).
Figure 2c: Variation in Soil Pressure (kips per square foot).
Figure 3: Area of Footings vs. Area of Strap Beam.
T y f o
F i br wr ap
S y s t e ms
FYFE
Co.
LLC
NSF NSF NSFR
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

Fax: 858.444.2982
www.fyfeco.com
The entire magazine
ONLINE
See it now!
C-PracSol-Guzman-April10.indd 2 3/19/2010 9:44:46 AM
15
Figure 4: Suggested Construction Details.
POLYSTYRENE
in the areas with less pressure and even lose contact with the rock
where required a more realistic condition than the simple rigid anal-
ysis could simulate. The width of the beam varied from the original 48
inches down to 6 inches, with 5 intermediate widths, while keeping
the moment of inertia constant. In addition, a numerical analysis assum-
ing no pressure on the beam, with the same variations in width, served as a
basis for comparison with the original analytical results.
The increments on moment and shear at the critical section as a
function of beam width are plotted in Figures 2a, 2b and 2c.
It is clear from the results that when no pressure is allowed, the
moments and shears stay constant as the width changes. On the other
hand, when pressure is allowed, the moments and shears increase con-
siderably with width. For the original 48-inch-wide beam, an increase
of about 73% in moment and about 400% in shear can be observed. As
expected, when the width of the beam is the smallest, the difference
between the no-pressure and with-pressure analyses is small, as well.
Nevertheless, even for the 6-inch-wide beam, the difference in shear is
still considerable at about 65%, while the difference in moment goes
down to about 3% .
The variation exhibited in soil pressure is also expected when the
area in contact with the soil is considerable, the total load is distributed
over a broader area, creating less overall soil pressure.
A small parametric study illustrates how the relationship between total
area of footing and total area of strap beam affects the increase in forces
on the beam. The variation shown in Figure 3 can be interpreted as
mostly linear.
Conclusion
Results indicate that when a strap footing is used as part of a founda-
tion system, a detail that allows for pressure to be relieved from the
strap footing is necessary on construction
documents. Without it, a considerable un-
foreseen load path could be created that
may result in the failure of the strap beam,
followed by overstress of the soil/rock under
the eccentric footing. It is also important to
emphasize the need for feld enforcement
and control of these requirements.
The author recommends the two options
shown in Figure 4 in order to avoid feld
mistakes. It is also good to emphasize that
if Option 1 is chosen, a low-density, low-
modulus polystyrene must be specified.
The thickness should be slightly greater
than the maximum expected settlement of
the footings. Furthermore, if the contractor
prefers to perform a non-monolithic pour,
construction joint keys must be oriented
as indicated. Option 2 has the advantage
of saving concrete, with the drawback of
more labor-intensive formwork. Of course,
there is always the alternative of explicitly
accounting for the pressure on the beam at
the design stage, rather than neglecting it.
However, it is obvious from the results of
this study that this can be an ineffcient and
uneconomical solution.
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
Figure 2b: Variation in Shear (kips).
Figure 3: Area of Footings vs. Area of Strap Beam.
The entire magazine
ONLINE
See it now!
Truly Guzman, P.E., M.Sc, is a Project Engineer with GACE
consulting engineers pc in New York City, and member of the in-house
quality control committee. Previously he was a teacher/research assistant
at the City College of New York (CCNY). Truly can be reached at
tguzman@gace.net.
C-PracSol-Guzman-April10.indd 3 3/19/2010 12:51:21 PM
n
e
w

t
r
e
n
d
s
,

n
e
w

t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s

a
n
d

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y

i
s
s
u
e
s
I
n
S
I
g
h
t
S
16
Educational Art
A Sculpture That Teaches!
By Duane Ellifritt, Ph.D., P.E.
There are probably 40 or 50 ways to join
two pieces of steel together. Some are more
economical than others and, while stu-
dents are not expected to graduate with
the knowledge possessed by fabricators
and engineers with years of experience,
they should have a rudimentary knowledge
of the most common kinds of connec-
tions. Thus, my job each semester was
to try to teach them how to design a few
simple connections. Unfortunately, the
exercise often ended in frustration.
Beginning steel design is basically two-
dimensional; members are reduced to lines
that intersect other members at points, or
nodes. Even in 3-dimensional analysis,
members are still lines meeting at points.
After determining the forces in all those
lines, actual members can be selected that
can effciently resist those forces. Students
rarely have a problem with this; well, the
good ones, anyway.
But it is those points connecting one
member to another that give most stu-
dents trouble. Connections are graphically
3-dimensional in nature, even in a two-
dimensional analysis. Given two orthogo-
nal views with all the bolts and welds,
one should be able visualize them or so
I always thought.
How could I help students see a 3-D
connection when looking at 2-D
diagrams on a page? Field trips are
always helpful, if you happen to be
lucky enough to have a steel-framed
building going up nearby, in a stage
where the steel is still exposed. In a
small town like Gainesville, that is
not always the case. And even if you
can fnd an appropriate structure, you
have to transport the students there,
coordinate with the contractor, have
the students sign no liability forms,
get hard hats and safety glasses and
arrange the time for a tour. Add to
this the owners reluctance to allow
students to climb over a structure
that presents all kinds of physical
hazards and potential liability and it
becomes a real chore to organize and
carry out a feld trip.
My next idea was to build models of
various connections and bring them
into the classroom. I didnt get very
far with this because, at full scale and
with real steel, they would be too
heavy to carry around. Okay, we can
mount them on wheels, I thought,
and roll them into class at the right time.
But where to keep them when they were
not in use? The logistics of this scheme
were not realistic.
In the spring of 1985, I had an epiphany:
I would create a sculpture for the campus
that would do double duty as a work of
art and serve as a teaching tool. It would
feature all kinds of steel members and
the most common kinds of connections.
That would solve all the problems inherent
in my other solutions. It would be right
outside the Civil Engineering building
(no transportation involved) and students
could examine it at their own conve-
nience. Since it would be rooted to one
site, there would be no storage problem.
It was a perfect solution! But how could
I sell such an idea to the University ad-
ministration? The Chairman of Civil
Engineering and the Dean of the Engi-
neering College both gave it their blessing,
but I also had to convince the University
Facilities Planning Committee.
I spent several months designing what I
believed to be an optimum arrangement
of pieces and connections, all radiating
outward from a central free-standing
column. I then made four elevation views
of the structure, and a color isometric
rendering that would mean something to
a Committee of non-engineering types.
I included a light sketch of the Civil
Engineering building in the background,
showing my idea of where the sculpture
could be located in a prominent spot.
After I made my presentation to the
Committee, there were a lot of questions,
some about whether this could be con-
sidered art or not, but mostly about
safety and the Universitys liability. After
much discussion, the Assembly agreed to
allow me to erect the sculpture, but in
an alternate location on the south side
of Weil Hall behind an electrical substa-
tion, virtually hidden from public view. I
wasnt happy, but at least I had approval
to build it.
I had developed, over my years in
industry, some contacts with steel
fabricators, so I approached one of
them, Steel Fabricators, Inc. in Ft.
Lauderdale, about making my sculp-
ture. They agreed, but needed some
fabrication drawings which I did
not have. I had only my conceptual
drawings of how I had envisioned
the fnished product would look. In
order to fabricate, a separate drawing
is required for each piece, showing
where holes are to be punched, tabs
to be welded, angles to be attached,
etc. Fortunately, an engineering frm
who was on our Board of Visitors,
Kun-Young Chui and Associates from
Valdosta, Georgia agreed to make
the shop drawings for me.
The next hurdle was the founda-
tion. Building a foundation meant
digging a hole, but one just doesnt
go out and start digging on a Uni-
versity campus! I had to apply for
a dig permit from the Building
and Grounds department and have
the underground utilities located.
Then I could set some stakes and
The original steel teaching sculpture, erected
at the University of Florida in 1986.
Courtesy of Jeff Post.
Dr. Ellifritt pointing out the various connections on his
sculpture to students. Courtesy of Ron Franklin of
Engineering Publications.
get students to help with the digging, placing
reinforcing, and pouring concrete.
The fabrication of the sculpture was
completed in October. Steel Fab loaded it
onto a fat-bed trailer and transported it to the
campus, where they engaged a mobile crane
to lift the piece from their trailer and set it on
the anchor bolts. I had set the bolts myself, so
University of Western Ontario. Courtesy of
Duane Ellifritt.
Download a FREE Demo at
www.woodworks-software.com
Engineering Software for Wood Design
Produced with technical guidance from the wood industrys
codes and standards engineers.
SEISMIC & WIND LOADS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
CONNECTION DETAILS
Design Office
SIZER SHEARWALLS CONNECTIONS
Sizer
Shearwalls
Connections
CSA O86
NBCC
NDS
IBC
ASCE 7
8
D
e
s
i
g
n

O
f

c
e

9
C
o
m
i
n
g

S
o
o
n
!
C-InSights-Ellifritt-April10.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:46:27 AM
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
17
After I made my presentation to the
Committee, there were a lot of questions,
some about whether this could be con-
sidered art or not, but mostly about
safety and the Universitys liability. After
much discussion, the Assembly agreed to
allow me to erect the sculpture, but in
an alternate location on the south side
of Weil Hall behind an electrical substa-
tion, virtually hidden from public view. I
wasnt happy, but at least I had approval
to build it.
I had developed, over my years in
industry, some contacts with steel
fabricators, so I approached one of
them, Steel Fabricators, Inc. in Ft.
Lauderdale, about making my sculp-
ture. They agreed, but needed some
fabrication drawings which I did
not have. I had only my conceptual
drawings of how I had envisioned
the fnished product would look. In
order to fabricate, a separate drawing
is required for each piece, showing
where holes are to be punched, tabs
to be welded, angles to be attached,
etc. Fortunately, an engineering frm
who was on our Board of Visitors,
Kun-Young Chui and Associates from
Valdosta, Georgia agreed to make
the shop drawings for me.
The next hurdle was the founda-
tion. Building a foundation meant
digging a hole, but one just doesnt
go out and start digging on a Uni-
versity campus! I had to apply for
a dig permit from the Building
and Grounds department and have
the underground utilities located.
Then I could set some stakes and
The original steel teaching sculpture, erected
at the University of Florida in 1986.
Courtesy of Jeff Post.
get students to help with the digging, placing
reinforcing, and pouring concrete.
The fabrication of the sculpture was
completed in October. Steel Fab loaded it
onto a fat-bed trailer and transported it to the
campus, where they engaged a mobile crane
to lift the piece from their trailer and set it on
the anchor bolts. I had set the bolts myself, so
was a little tense during this operation, but the
base plate slipped over the bolts quite easily.
Shortly after the installation, I gave a brief
discussion of my creation at a national steel
meeting and several professors approached me
and asked if I was willing to share the plans
with them. I was frankly fattered to be asked
and made them available to anyone who
wanted them. A few universities, like the U. of
Toronto and the U. of Houston built a copy
and sent me pictures.
A few years later, the American Institute of
Steel Construction heard of this and thought
it was a great teaching tool and would be a
good device for establishing relations between
engineering schools and steel fabricators. I
was approached by Fromy Rosenberg, AISCs
Director of Education, about their taking over
the plans and promoting it as a teaching tool.
I gave permission to use my idea and AISC
took the plans, scaled the structure down to
around eight feet high (my sculpture was 14
feet high), changed some of the connections,
and began a vigorous campaign to get more of
them built on college campuses.
This effort has been hugely successful, and as
of this date (early 2010) there are 135 of these
sculptures on campuses within the United
States, with an additional 18 in Canada, 5 in
Mexico and one in India.
Duane Ellifritt is Professor Emeritus of
Civil Engineering at the University of
Florida. He is an accomplished artist in
his own right and some of his work can be
viewed at www.ellifritt.com. He may be
contacted at delli@ce.uf.edu.
University of Western Ontario. Courtesy of
Duane Ellifritt.
Virginia Tech. Courtesy of Dr. Thomas M. Murray.
Download a FREE Demo at
www.woodworks-software.com
Engineering Software for Wood Design
Produced with technical guidance from the wood industrys
codes and standards engineers.
SEISMIC & WIND LOADS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
CONNECTION DETAILS
Design Office
SIZER SHEARWALLS CONNECTIONS
Sizer
Shearwalls
Connections
CSA O86
NBCC
NDS
IBC
ASCE 7
8
D
e
s
i
g
n

O
f

c
e

9
C
o
m
i
n
g

S
o
o
n
!
C-InSights-Ellifritt-April10.indd 2 3/19/2010 9:47:11 AM
18
Shrinkage-Compensating Concrete
in Post-Tensioned Buildings
A Four-Building Survey Part One
By Kenneth B. Bondy, S.E., FACI
R
estraint to shortening (RTS) is a major concern for designers of
post-tensioned concrete buildings. It can cause unsightly cracking in
foor systems and restraining elements (columns and walls). Although
the total volume change in post-tensioned concrete buildings is not very
different than it is in non-prestressed buildings (shrinkage is the biggest
contributor in both), post-tensioned buildings shorten differently than
non-prestressed buildings and present unique RTS problems.
In non-prestressed buildings, the total concrete volume change con-
sists of the sum of many closely spaced cracks that develop between
the ends of the foor system, each with relatively small width. The ends
stay roughly in the same position in which they were originally placed.
Restraint forces are minimal because the many distributed cracks relieve
stress in the foor system and the connected columns and walls.
In a post-tensioned building, however, the prestressing force fully
or partially closes cracks which develop in the foor system, and the
ends tend to move inwards. This movement is resisted by restraining
members, and can generate large forces that produce severe cracking
in the foor system and in the walls and columns. Typical solutions to
mitigate RTS cracking have included joinery details (expansion joints,
pour strips and slip joints) and added non-prestressed reinforcement
to distribute cracking. These measures, while effective, are expensive,
cumbersome, and can impact resource usage and construction time.
There is another proven method for solving RTS problems that has
been used for over 40 years, yet it is not well known and deserves wider
recognition. Shrinkage-compensating concrete has been successfully
used to construct large, jointless elevated slabs in post-tensioned
concrete structures since the 1960s. Made with ASTM C845 Type K
cement, the concrete expands slightly during the frst seven days of
curing, after which it undergoes a normal amount of drying shrinkage,
for net volume change closely approaching zero.
For the short period of time after placement when shrinkage-
compensating concrete expands, growth of the foor system is restrained by
connected members. Restraint forces are minimal because the stiffness
of the restraining members is not fully developed. After expansion,
normal drying shrinkage begins and restraint forces decrease with time,
approaching zero as the magnitude of the shrinkage approaches the initial
expansion. Long-term volume change is greatly reduced, permitting the
elimination of, or greatly increased spacing between, expansion joints
and pour strips.
This article, in two parts, presents case studies of four projects on
which shrinkage-compensating concrete was used. Two of these
projects were built more than 40 years ago; one has been in service for
12 years, and one is new, completed just 19 months before this writing.
On two of the projects (the newest and one of the oldest) measurements
of volume change versus time were made. In this frst part, the two
oldest buildings are described. The other two buildings surveyed will
be presented in a second article to be published in a future issue of
STRUCTURE
. These four projects demonstrate the effective use of

shrinkage-compensating concrete to mitigate RTS cracking in post-
tensioned concrete buildings.
Santa Monica Parking Structure #2
In the late 1960s, the city of Santa Monica, CA, built six municipal
parking structures. All were designed by the structural engineering frm
T.Y. Lin and Associates, Van Nuys, CA, where I was employed and
did some structural work (seismic load analysis) on several of them,
including Structure #2 discussed here.
Each building was designed for eight elevated levels; four to be built
initially, with the capacity for an additional four levels to be added as the
need for parking increased. Floors were framed with monolithic cast-in-
place post-tensioned lightweight concrete using one-way slabs spanning
to clearspan beams (Figure 1). Plan dimensions are approximately 150
feet (three beam spans) by 200 feet (9 slab spans.) One slab construction
joint was used, running in the short direction at roughly the third point
of the long direction (some of the upper foors used two construction
joints). There were no pour strips.
Of particular note is Structure #2, located at 1235 2
nd
Street. The
original four levels (370 cars capacity) were built in 1968, with Type K
shrinkage-compensating concrete in the foor systems. Around 1980,
an additional four levels were added using conventional portland
cement concrete. A series of pins were set into the original deck so
that measurements of strain in the slab concrete could be made. These
measurements were made at the following points in time:
Prior to post-tensioning (frst seven days after placing concrete)
During and immediately after slab post-tensioning (seventh and
eighth day after placing concrete)
At intervals for the subsequent fve years
The total shortening strain measured fve years after concrete place-
ment was 0.00034 in./in. In the same study, total shortening strain
in a similarly framed industrial building in Pasadena, CA, built using
lightweight concrete with Type II portland cement, was measured at
0.00112 in./in., more than three times higher.
I inspected the entire foor area of Structure #2 in November, 2009,
41 years after completion of the lower four foors. I carefully observed
the areas most susceptible to cracking: the four corners, two with stair/
elevator shafts and two without, the ends of the central longitudinal
concrete shearwalls, and the areas around the girder framing at each
turn-around aisle.
I measured a total of 80 lineal feet of cracks in the lower four foors
built with shrinkage-compensating concrete. All of this cracking was
on the frst elevated slab in the northeast and southwest corners of the
building, near the two elevator/stair shafts. The orientation of cracking
was consistent with RTS, aggravated not only by the shafts, but by the
proximity of a length of basement wall in each location. The largest
crack width I measured was 3/32 inch and the longest crack length was
about 18 feet. The cracks were visible at the top and bottom of the slab
(when both were accessible), and I saw no evidence of efforescence at
the bottom of any crack, suggesting there was no signifcant moisture
penetration. The southeast and northwest corners of the frst elevated
slab, lacking shafts and basement wall conditions, were crack free.
I saw no cracking in any structural member (slab, beam, girder,
concrete shearwall, masonry shearwall or column) anywhere else in the
lower four foors. I observed some minor spalling between the edge of
the slab and the masonry wall at the northeast stairshaft at a few levels.
Most experienced observers would rate the condition of these lower
foors as excellent, with less than 100 lineal feet of cracking in about
120,000 square feet of elevated deck. This is particularly impressive
considering the structure has been extensively loaded and unloaded with
automobiles on a daily basis for over 40 years. It has also experienced
two major earthquakes of Richter 6.0 or larger (San Fernando in 1971
and Northridge in 1994).
Buildings M5 and R6 (plan view). These two buildings required elevated concrete
decks with no control joints or pour strips. Shrinkage-compensating concrete was
successfully used to cast all foor members. The buildings continue to perform well
more than 40 years later. Courtesy of CTS Cement Mfg.
South Elevation Building R6 Looking Down 439-foot Length at Plaza Level.
Courtesy of Phillip Yee of Northrop-Grumman.
Figure 1: Beam and Slab Framing (4
th
Level).
F-Bondy-April10.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:48:20 AM
19
concrete structures since the 1960s. Made with ASTM C845 Type K
cement, the concrete expands slightly during the frst seven days of
curing, after which it undergoes a normal amount of drying shrinkage,
for net volume change closely approaching zero.
For the short period of time after placement when shrinkage-
compensating concrete expands, growth of the foor system is restrained by
connected members. Restraint forces are minimal because the stiffness
of the restraining members is not fully developed. After expansion,
normal drying shrinkage begins and restraint forces decrease with time,
approaching zero as the magnitude of the shrinkage approaches the initial
expansion. Long-term volume change is greatly reduced, permitting the
elimination of, or greatly increased spacing between, expansion joints
and pour strips.
This article, in two parts, presents case studies of four projects on
which shrinkage-compensating concrete was used. Two of these
projects were built more than 40 years ago; one has been in service for
12 years, and one is new, completed just 19 months before this writing.
On two of the projects (the newest and one of the oldest) measurements
of volume change versus time were made. In this frst part, the two
oldest buildings are described. The other two buildings surveyed will
be presented in a second article to be published in a future issue of
STRUCTURE
. These four projects demonstrate the effective use of

shrinkage-compensating concrete to mitigate RTS cracking in post-
tensioned concrete buildings.
Santa Monica Parking Structure #2
In the late 1960s, the city of Santa Monica, CA, built six municipal
parking structures. All were designed by the structural engineering frm
T.Y. Lin and Associates, Van Nuys, CA, where I was employed and
did some structural work (seismic load analysis) on several of them,
including Structure #2 discussed here.
Each building was designed for eight elevated levels; four to be built
initially, with the capacity for an additional four levels to be added as the
need for parking increased. Floors were framed with monolithic cast-in-
place post-tensioned lightweight concrete using one-way slabs spanning
to clearspan beams (Figure 1). Plan dimensions are approximately 150
feet (three beam spans) by 200 feet (9 slab spans.) One slab construction
joint was used, running in the short direction at roughly the third point
of the long direction (some of the upper foors used two construction
joints). There were no pour strips.
Of particular note is Structure #2, located at 1235 2
nd
Street. The
original four levels (370 cars capacity) were built in 1968, with Type K
shrinkage-compensating concrete in the foor systems. Around 1980,
an additional four levels were added using conventional portland
cement concrete. A series of pins were set into the original deck so
that measurements of strain in the slab concrete could be made. These
measurements were made at the following points in time:
Prior to post-tensioning (frst seven days after placing concrete)
During and immediately after slab post-tensioning (seventh and
eighth day after placing concrete)
At intervals for the subsequent fve years
The total shortening strain measured fve years after concrete place-
ment was 0.00034 in./in. In the same study, total shortening strain
in a similarly framed industrial building in Pasadena, CA, built using
lightweight concrete with Type II portland cement, was measured at
0.00112 in./in., more than three times higher.
I inspected the entire foor area of Structure #2 in November, 2009,
41 years after completion of the lower four foors. I carefully observed
the areas most susceptible to cracking: the four corners, two with stair/
elevator shafts and two without, the ends of the central longitudinal
concrete shearwalls, and the areas around the girder framing at each
turn-around aisle.
I measured a total of 80 lineal feet of cracks in the lower four foors
built with shrinkage-compensating concrete. All of this cracking was
on the frst elevated slab in the northeast and southwest corners of the
building, near the two elevator/stair shafts. The orientation of cracking
was consistent with RTS, aggravated not only by the shafts, but by the
proximity of a length of basement wall in each location. The largest
crack width I measured was 3/32 inch and the longest crack length was
about 18 feet. The cracks were visible at the top and bottom of the slab
(when both were accessible), and I saw no evidence of efforescence at
the bottom of any crack, suggesting there was no signifcant moisture
penetration. The southeast and northwest corners of the frst elevated
slab, lacking shafts and basement wall conditions, were crack free.
I saw no cracking in any structural member (slab, beam, girder,
concrete shearwall, masonry shearwall or column) anywhere else in the
lower four foors. I observed some minor spalling between the edge of
the slab and the masonry wall at the northeast stairshaft at a few levels.
Most experienced observers would rate the condition of these lower
foors as excellent, with less than 100 lineal feet of cracking in about
120,000 square feet of elevated deck. This is particularly impressive
considering the structure has been extensively loaded and unloaded with
automobiles on a daily basis for over 40 years. It has also experienced
two major earthquakes of Richter 6.0 or larger (San Fernando in 1971
and Northridge in 1994).
The upper four foors, added at a later date without the use of
shrinkage-compensating concrete, contain some widely distributed
random cracks, most of them visible on the top level. Of particular
interest is a very noticeable crack running in the north-south direction
on the top (9
th
) level at the north end of the building, in the exterior
slab span along the grid line separating the west and center aisles. This
crack is about 15 feet long, visible at the top and bottom of the slab,
measuring 1/16 inch wide at the top and hairline at the bottom. A similar
crack is visible in the asymmetrical location near the southeast corner,
but smaller with a measured width of 12 inch at the top of the slab.
I did not observe this crack at the same location on any other foor.
The crack at the top level may have been aggravated by temperature
effects since it is fully exposed to the environment, but the presence of
this crack on a foor built with conventional concrete, and its absence
on lower foors built with shrinkage-compensating concrete with more
severe RTS conditions, suggests that shrinkage-compensating concrete
made the difference.
The plan dimensions and restraint conditions of this building are
modest. The slab-to-wall joinery details were typical for the time and
were the same as those normally used in buildings with conventional
concrete. Nonetheless, the unusually good condition of the lower four
foors of this building can be, in my opinion, attributed to the use of
shrinkage-compensating concrete.
TRW Buildings M5 and R6,
Redondo Beach, California
In 1968, the TRW Corporation (now Northrop-Grumman) added
two new buildings to its complex in Redondo Beach, CA. One was
for manufacturing (called M5), the other for research (R6). Atlas
Prestressing Corp. in Southern California, my employer at the time,
provided consulting services for the design of the post-tensioned foor
system to the Architect/Engineer, Albert C. Martin & Associates (now
A.C. Martin Partners), and furnished and installed the post-tensioning
tendons and non-prestressed reinforcing steel in both buildings for the
general contractor, Swinerton & Walberg. I was personally involved in
both the design and construction of these buildings.
Each building has three stories, a large frst foor plaza level, a second
foor, and a roof. The second foors and roofs of the buildings are identical
in plan dimension, each 199 feet x 363 feet. The frst foors of each
building are adjacent, separated by an expansion joint, and orthogonal
dimensions are very large: for M5, 422 feet x 243 feet; for R6, 439
x 407 feet. All construction was cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete
with unbonded tendons. Column spacing was large, with typical bay
sizes of 40 feet x 64 feet. Floor system framing was a one-way slab (shallow
South Elevation Building R6 Looking Down 439-foot Length at Plaza Level.
Courtesy of Phillip Yee of Northrop-Grumman.
Santa Monica Parking Structure #2.
Figure 1: Beam and Slab Framing (4
th
Level).
20
pan joists in R6 for extra stiffness) spanning be-
tween beams located on and midway between
column lines. The intermediate beam was
supported by a girder spanning between col-
umns. Seismic framing for both buildings was
provided by moment-resistant beam-column
frames in both directions.
Aside from the large plan dimensions, these
buildings presented major challenges for the
designers in the mitigation of RTS cracking:
Other than the joint separating the two
Plaza Levels, no other expansion joints
were permitted by the owner due to the
highly sensitive precision research and
manufacturing equipment that would be
housed in both buildings.
Temporary separation joints, such
as pour strips, were ruled out by the
contractor because of the diffculty of
passing them through heavily reinforced
beams and girders.
Axial prestress compression was
high, slightly above 300 psi in each
direction, thus aggravating the effects
of axial shortening.
Lightweight concrete was used in the foor
systems, further increasing the effects of
axial shortening and creep because of the
reduced modulus of elasticity.
Columns below the Plaza level were large
(37 inches square with 16-#14 vertical
bars) providing signifcant restraint to
foor shortening.
Considering these diffcult conditions, a de-
cision was made by the designers to use Type
K shrinkage-compensating concrete for all
foor members in both buildings.
The use of shrinkage-compensating concrete
was highly successful in the TRW buildings.
Recently, more than forty years after con-
struction, I had the opportunity to observe
the buildings, in the presence of Northrop-
Grumman facilities personnel. The structural
condition of the observable portions of the
foor system and columns was excellent, virtu-
ally crack-free after four decades of continuous
service. Northrop-Grumman facilities personnel
(Jimmy Guerrero, P.E., Facilities Project
Manager, and Phillip Yee, Facilities Risk
Manager), who have worked onsite at this
facility for years, report that the structural per-
formance of the buildings has been excellent
and they have required no unusual mainte-
nance or repairs over their entire service lives.
Conclusion
RTS is one of the two biggest problems faced
by the post-tensioning industry (the other
being tendon corrosion). Looking back over
the growth of post-tensioned concrete for 5
decades, and the early efforts to solve the
shortening problems, it seems that the use of
shrinkage-compensating concrete could have
made the solution to the RTS problem easier.
The two buildings discussed in this article
clearly demonstrate the utility of shrinkage-
compensating concrete to solve RTS problems.
Their long-term performance is testimony to
the durability of this technology. They show
(as we shall also see in the second part of this
article) that when properly mixed, placed, fn-
ished and cured, it can substantially eliminate
pour strips, and with due consideration of
temperature effects, can realistically increase
the maximum length between expansion
joints to approximately 500 feet, with equiva-
lent or superior performance.
The author gratefully acknowledges the staff
of CTS Cement Manufacturing, Inc., whose
products include KSC shrinkage-compensating
cement, and in particular its president, my
old friend Ed Rice, for their assistance with
this article.
The shortening strain study measurements
referenced in this article are from: Liljestrom,
W. P. and Polivka, M., A Five-Year Study of the
Dimensional Stability of Shrinkage-Compensating
Lightweight Concrete Used in Post-Tensioned Slabs,
American Concrete Institute, Special Publica-
tion SP-38-13, January 1, 1973, pp. 273-288.
Kenneth B. Bondy, S.E., FACI, is the current
President of the Post-Tensioning Institute
(PTI) and was, in 2005, inducted into
the PTI Hall of Fame, Legends of Post-
Tensioning. He serves on numerous ACI
committees. He has been widely published on
a variety of design issues concerning concrete
and post-tensioning. Mr. Bondy can be
reached via www.kenbondy.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
Building M5, southeast corner showing dramatic cantilevered post-tensioned beams at Plaza Level. Courtesy of
Phillip Yee of Northrop-Grumman.
IN THE SPECS
ON THE JOB
AT YOUR SERVICE
Anchors that crack the code.

2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. THDSBSETXP09-S
Since the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) has been adopted by
the majority of the states, choosing concrete anchors has become more
complicated. Some applications now require anchors to perform in cracked
concrete, while others may not. Rest assured that Simpson Strong-Tie
has the products to meet both types of anchoring challenges. Our
Titen HD
screw anchor, Strong-Bolt
wedge anchor and SET-XP
anchoring adhesive are all ICC-ES code listed for use in cracked and
uncracked-concrete applications. And we still offer a full line of traditional
wedge, sleeve and drop-in anchors for almost any anchoring project.
When you have questions, look to us for answers. For more information
visit www.simpsonanchors.com or call (800)999-5099.
|tc 00
8treq8e|t
8|KP
|00|8 |88tI18 |00|8 |881II1 |00|8 |88t508

Cracked-Concrete Solutions
Cracked&
Uncracked
CONCRETE
IBC
2006
ICC-ES
Listed
Blank.indd 1 12/10/2009 10:47:51 AM
P.O. Box 1877 El Dorado, AR 71731 800-221-2326 www.anthonyforest.com
SuStainable
ReSponSible
available
affoRdable
Anthony Forest Products Company

Power Beam
Treated Glulam Power Joist
SYP Lumber
Thi s i s our hoME. . . LETs TakE carE of i T
CeRtified GReen wood pRoduCtS
warranted for 25 trips around the sun
Blank.indd 1 3/11/2010 11:08:47 AM
Risk ManageMent
risk management topics for structural engineers
23
Managing the Risks of BIM
By Joseph M. Ales Jr., Ph.D., S.E.
T
he future of Building Information
Management (BIM) is now. With the in-
creasing acceptance of BIM in the architectural-
engineering-construction (AEC) industry, it
has moved past the buzzword phase and has
hit, and likely passed, the all important tipping
point. Though you may still be resistant to
the idea of having to waste time modeling
your work in 3D, at some point in the very
near future you will not have an option. Making
such a disruptive change in your production
process can be scary.
Is BIM Required
on Your Project?
More than likely, the answer to this question
is no. Though everyone seems to be talking
about BIM, the application of the process
on any given project is probably voluntary.
The more forward-thinking and larger design
frms have transitioned to using BIM software
for production, and may or may not request
their sub-consultants to do the same. In these
situations, the end product, which will be
paper contract documents, will be arrived
at by doing BIM, but more as a glorifed
drafting tool than as the application of a new
production paradigm. In this case, are there
any legal concerns or additional risks that come
into play by using BIM? Assuming you have a
properly trained staff who can produce good
quality paper documents, probably not. There
are, however, many sophisticated owners, and
large public entities, such as the states of Texas
and Wisconsin, that now require BIM for their
projects. In cases where BIM is required on
a project, a careful reading of the criteria for
implementation on the project is necessary,
and review by an attorney familiar with BIM
contract language is strongly recommended.
What about those cases where the design
team would like to take full advantage of the
BIM production process, and not just use it as
a glorifed drafting tool? Are there any docu-
ments or standards that provide a framework
for this situation? Fortunately, yes. Two of the
more commonly used documents are:
1) AGC ConsensusDOCS 301 BIM
Addendum, created by the Associated
General Contractors (AGC) of
America. The primary purpose of
this document is to fll the void left
by typical standard form agreements,
which inadequately, or do not at all,
address BIM. This document covers
areas such as defnitions, information
management, the BIM execution plan,
risk allocation, intellectual property
rights, and collaboration.
2) AIA E202-2008 Building Information
Modeling Protocol, created by the
American Institute of Architects (AIA).
The purpose of this document is to
provide a framework for determining
model content, model usage, and
model element responsibility.
Whether these documents are adopted as for-
mal contract exhibits or, more informally, are
adopted to provide internal team guidance on
a project, they are excellent tools in managing
the risks associated with implementing the
relatively new technology called BIM.
What Are The
Owner/Client Expectations?
Most structural engineers have probably heard
at one time or another that we have the amazing
ability to design everything with the push of
a button. That is, we have this amazing soft-
ware that just designs everything for us, with
minimal thought and effort on our part. That
same ability has migrated to the world of BIM,
where those with just enough knowledge to be
dangerous make the assumption that the design
team can produce a perfectly coordinated set
of documents by using BIM. And that we can
do it for the same fee, or preferably a smaller
fee, because BIM makes our job easier. Waving
around pieces of paper with a bunch of legalese
does not replace the need to manage the ex-
pectations of your client. The champions of
BIM (of which I am one) do a great job of
expounding on the promise and advantages
of BIMnot so much on the challenges and
obstacles to implementing it. Obviously, there
is a need to properly educate and manage the
expectations of your client.
Standard of Care
Consider the following scenario. You have just
won a large and complex building project. You
and the architect use BIM software to produce
the contract documents, as you have made the
leap from the world of 2D. You do not, how-
ever, spend much time discussing how BIM
will be implemented, and do not make use of
any standard BIM documents to help defne
model content or responsibilities. Your contract
documents are produced and, as is typical with
most projects, changes occur, RFIs cover your
desk, and change orders are produced nothing
that hasnt occurred on thousands of projects
before. And the owner says, But wait, dont you
do BIM? You know about clash detection (which
in the mind of the owner is the same as BIM).
Why didnt you run clash detection and avoid all
these problems? Why, I do believe you are violating
the Standard of Care! Though this is a hypothet-
ical situation at the moment, it may not be in
the near future.
What Are The Requirements
Of The Deliverables?
If you are asked to implement BIM on a
project, one of your frst questions should be,
What are the deliverables? A set of contract
documents is likely and expected. That means
the extraction of 2D views from your model,
which will require you to do enough modeling
to accurately represent your structure on plan,
and perhaps in section or elevation. Is clash
detection going to be performed on this proj-
ect? If so, those kickers and gusset plates and
sloped slabs that were either typical details or
annotations for your contract documents, now
need to be in the model. Are you going to turn
this over to a fabricator so shop drawings can
be produced? Oh, boy. That means connection
plates, anchor bolts, edge angles, rebar, etc.
Your scope on a project is directly related to
the deliverables required. These deliverables
impact the schedule, determine your staffng
requirements, dictate the expertise required of
your staff, and of course affect your fee.
Who Owns What?
In the world of 2D CAD, the ownership of
the documents was pretty straight-forward
(for the purposes of this discussion, we are
not referring to intellectual property rights).
The architect created his plans and details,
the structural engineer and MEP engineer
likely traced over and copied the architectural
backgrounds to initially create their drawings,
and there was really no discussion or issues
related to the ownership of the various lines
in the CAD fles. With the implementation of
BIM, these fairly clear-cut distinctions be-
come quite blurred. In the ideal BIM world,
D-RiskMan-Ales-April10.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:50:59 AM
STR 6-09
StructurePoints suite of productivity tools are so easy
to learn and simple to use that youll be able to start saving
time and money almost immediately. And when you use
StructurePoint software, youre also taking advantage
of the Portland Cement Associations more than 90 years
of experience, expertise, and technical support in concrete
design and construction.
Visit StructurePoint.org to download your trial
copy of our software products.
For more information on licensing and pricing
options please call 847.966.4357 or e-mail
info@StructurePoint.org.
Analysis, design
& investigation of
reinforced concrete
beams & slab systems
Finite element analysis & de-
sign of reinforced, precast
ICF & tilt-up concrete walls
Analysis, design
& investigation of
reinforced concrete
beams & one-way
slab systems
Design & investigation
of rectangular, round
& irregularly shaped
concrete column sections
Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.
Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete
foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade
StructurePoints Productivity Suite of powerful software tools
for reinforced concrete analysis & design
Blank.indd 1 7/8/2009 10:02:43 AM

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
25
the architect creates and owns architectural
objects, the structural engineer creates and
owns structural objects, and the MEP engi-
neer creates and owns the MEP objects. On
the face, it appears easy to distinguish between
model element ownership. As the structural
engineer, I am going to determine the thickness
of the slab, the reinforcement required, and I
will specify any other parameters related to the
design. The architect, however, is probably going
to establish the slab edge, where penetrations
are required (with input from the MEP), and
what slopes may be required. Considering all
this, who owns the slab? If it is determined
that I own the slab, I am liable for the cost
that may be incurred for a slab edge that is
improperly located? Establishing the owner-
ship of model elements at the start of a project,
perhaps through the use of the E202 BIM
protocol, will help to establish clear divisions
of ownership.
Moving from the element level to the model
level, is there such thing as ownership of the
BIM model? Well, that depends on how many
BIM models there are. In most projects im-
plementing BIM, it is likely there are several
BIM models, typically one for each discipline.
These separate and distinct models can then
be linked together to form a single federated
model. The distinct models that are provided
by the various disciplines cannot be altered in
the federated model, and each model creator
retains ownership of his model. A common
use of a federated model is for clash detection.
There is no one owner of a federated model.
At some point in the future, a truly integrated
model will become a reality, in which all parties
do their work in a single model.
What Are The Technical
Challenges That Affect
Your Risk?
In addition to the issues of model ownership
that are evident in this process, an organization
must be aware of various technical challenges
that create risk so that it may implement
mitigation measures. Some technical issues to
highlight are interoperability, software limita-
tions, and le storage and transfer limitations.
The ability to interoperate between various
software platforms provides engineers and
companies with visions of grandeur. The con-
cept of your analysis les driving the engineering
deliverables, providing a platform for creating
a more efcient and accurate product, is too
much for any company to ignore. While the
technology exists to perform these types of tasks,
organizations should try to move deliberately
and cautiously in its implementation. The in-
teroperability bells and whistles marketed by
the software venders are never quite as seamless
as the brochures indicate. Dont believe every-
thing the software vendors tell you.
Dene some specic goals to integrate your
software processes. Then ask yourself the tough
questions. What do you want to accomplish
with the integration of various software tools?
Does the software have the ability to do this
out of the box? Can an application program-
ming interface (API) be developed to perform
the interoperation in a manner consistent with
your desires and, if so, do you have the person-
nel available and capable to develop, maintain,
trouble shoot, and efciently roll out the tools.
Reasonable rst steps would be to research the
software limitations, test run some of the
standard applications, evaluate their usefulness
and implement on a small scale. Then use the
successful applications in ways that will that
will add value to your process.
Also understand that a variety of information
technology (IT) issues may need to be evalu-
ated. The data les produced by some BIM
software can get very large. The size of these
les may require you to rework project le
size limits, corporate storage capacity, upgrade
hardware, and improve backup capabilities.
The opportunity to share this data upstream
and downstream to various parties will pres-
ent itself. While working through the legal
ramications of this activity is equally impor-
tant, be prepared to implement data transfer
systems that are robust enough to handle large
le transfers.
Reduce Your Risk with
Proper Implementation
When the decision is made to implement
BIM, consideration must be given to the train-
ing required. While individual staff research is
important, a focused plan on the rm wide
training effort is mandatory. This can be
challenging, as the development of this plan
affects all aspects of the project production.
Managers will need to be trained to under-
stand software capabilities, technicians will
need to be trained in the efcient use of the
software, and engineering staff will often times
be caught in the middle between the production
issues of the technicians and the grand vision
of the managers and marketing personnel.
Managing expectations is critical to making sure
this process in implemented at the right pace.
Organizations will often go through the fol-
lowing experiences during the integration of
BIM into their production process:
Cautious investigation
Trial and Error on a small level
Recognition of value
The big sale on the big project
then reality strikes
Implementation of standards
BIM efciency
The order of these events may vary from
organization to organization, but BIM efciency
is likely never to come before the implementa-
tion and transition of corporate standards. This
process needs to be considered and worked into
the plan. While time consuming, it will aid in
transitioning your organization from the 2D
world into an efcient 3D BIM practice. An-
other issue that organizations will grapple with
is the quality of the product. A concerted
effort and investment can be required to get the
new software to produce drawings that appear
the same as your old deliverables. Sometimes
it is wise to consider alternatives in the product
output. It may be less time consuming to con-
sider a change in the standard output and tailor
it to what the software can do, rather than
SuperLaminate
- Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System

Introducing the Next Generation of FRP
Advantages of SuperLaminate
One size fts all
Stronger than fber wrap
ISO-9000 certfed plant
Up to 80% faster constructon tme
Material propertes known before
installaton
You can learn more about these
products by visitng
www.SuperLaminate.com
www.QuakeWrap.com
www.PipeMedic.com
www.PileMedic.com
Strengthening of concrete & masonry walls
Retroft of
beams, slabs &
columns
Repair of under-
water piles with-
out the need for
costly divers
Repair of columns
below grade without
the need for costly
excavaton
Trenchless repair of
pipes and culverts,
including spot repair
Blast retroft of structures
Field-manufac-
tured cylindrical
shell around
square columns
(PipeMedic.com) (PileMedic.com)
(PileMedic.com)
PLEASE CALL US FOR AN EVALUATION BY
ONE OF OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
(520) 791-7000 OR
(866) QuakeWrap [782-5397]
WALL W WHERRE OCCUR RS
I-J JOI IST WEB B FILLE ERR
AS S R REQUIRE ED
3-116d NAIL LS
WoodWorks Ad for April 2010 Structure Magazine Live Area: 7.5 wide X 10.25 tall TRIM: 8.375 X 10.875 Bleed Size: 8.875 x 11.375
WoodWorks is an initiative of the Wood Products Council, which includes all of the major North American wood associations.
CALI FORNI A GEORGI A I LLI NOI S MI NNESOTA NORTH CAROLI NA SOUTH CAROLI NA WI SCONSI N
Photo credit: APA The Engineered Wood Association (left and center), Tom Weir, Brandow and Johnston, Inc. (right).
Design and
building support for
the non-residential
marketplace
woodworks.org
Visit WoodWorks online for resources that can help
you design and build non-residential structures more
easily and at less cost.
Professional development Stream webinars for free
or pay a nominal fee and earn AIA credits at your
desk, any time
Web-based tools CAD/REVIT details, calculators,
span tables, product and design guides
Technical support Access to WoodWorks experts
and information from wood associations nationwide
Event calendar Wood Solutions Fairs, workshops,
in-house presentations
Visit us at woodworks.org
FRA-138_WW_Struc_Ad_APR10.indd 1 3/5/10 9:29 AM
Blank.indd 1 3/8/2010 5:39:06 PM
27
implement the strict performance guidelines
developed during the CAD era.
Conclusion
The decision to implement BIM at your
rm is not one to be taken lightly. You will
need to make the transition if you are to re-
main competitive in the AEC industry. Either
your clients will be demanding that you
make the change, or the projects that you
typically bid on will require BIM as part of
the contract. As with any new technology,
Joseph M. Ales Jr., Ph.D., S.E., is a Principal
and Managing Director of the Los Angeles
ofce of Walter P Moore. He is the vice-
chair of the Joint SEI-CASE Committee
on Building Information Modeling and
is the chair of Walter P Moores BIM
Implementation Task Force. Joe can be
reached at JAles@walterpmoore.com.
there will be resistance to the change and
trepidation at the disruptive nature of your
production process. Though the process will
not be easy, you can take several steps to re-
duce your risks as you embark on the imple-
mentation and on-going use of BIM. Most
of these steps are simple common sense,
such as dening and knowing your scope,
managing the expectations of your client,
developing a properly trained staff, make
use of standard BIM agreements, and getting
the advice of an attorney for projects requiring
BIM. For more information on building infor-
mation modeling, please visit www.seibim.org
for useful links and documents.
2010 ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS GUIDE
a denitive listing of wood product manufacturers and their product lines
Company Product Description
American Wood Council
Phone: 202-463-2766
Email: awcinfo@afandpa.org
Web: www.awc.org
Codes and Standards AWC develops internationally recognized building codes and standards for engineered wood products. A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
Southern Pine Council
Phone: 504-443-4464
Email: info@southernpine.com
Web: www.southernpine.com
Glued Laminated Lumber
The Southern Pine Council (SPC) is a joint promotional body supported by members of the Southern Forest Products
Association (SFPA) and the Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association (SLMA). Both associations represent
manufacturers of Southern Pine lumber. SPC is the leading source of information about Southern Pine products for
design/build professionals.
WoodWorks Software
Phone: 800-844-1275
Email: sales@woodworks-software.com
Web: www.woodworks-software.com
WoodWorks
Software
WoodWorks
produced by the Canadian Wood Council with technical guidance from the American Wood Council of
the American Forest & Paper Association. Quickly design light-frame or heavy timber structures based on 2005 edition
of the AF&PAs National Design Specication
(NDS
) for Wood Construction.

Simpson Strong-Tie
Phone: 925-560-9000
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
VTCR Valley Truss Clip
Simpson Strong-Tie introduces the VTCR connector for valley trusses. It quickly installs on top of roof sheathing into
framing with either nails or screws for higher uplift loads. The VTCR conveniently installs from one side, uses fewer
fasteners than the VTC2 and is designed for new construction or retrot applications.
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
s
Anthony Forest Products Company
Phone: 870-862-3414
Email: info@anthonyforest.com
Web: wwww.anthonyforest.com
Power Preserved Glulam Beams

and Columns
Stock Power Preserved Glulam beams and columns treated with Hoover Cop-Guard and covered by 25 year warranty.
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
e
d

L
u
m
b
e
r
Stock 24F Glulam 24F Stock Glulam for residential and light commercial construction.
Bentley Systems
Phone: 800-236-8539
Email: structural@bentley.com
Web: www.bentley.com/Structural
STAAD Pro and RAM Elements
STAAD.Pro supports AITC 1984 or 1994, CSA086-01 or EurocodeEC5, 1995-1-1:2004 codes; extensive database
of standard sections from the AITC and Canadian suppliers. RAM Elements supports design per the latest NDS
(2005) code (ASD and LRFD) and allows for optimization of members; comprehensive database of sawn lumber
and glulam sections.
Cascade Consulting Associates, Inc.
Phone: 800-279-1353
Email: sales@strucalc.com
Web: www.strucalc.com
StruCalc
8.0 for Windows

Software solution for the design and analysis of beams, columns, joists, rafters and footings using solid sawn lumber,
steel and tube steel, structural composite, glulams, itch beams, and I-joists. Includes full AISD 13
th
Edition Steel
Calculations, hip beams, stud walls, and many other exciting features.
Hoover Treated Wood Products, Inc.
Phone: 800-531-5558
Email: marketing@frtw.com
Web: www.frtw.com
Exterior Fire-X
Exterior Fire-X:Exterior re retardant treated lumber and plywood tested in accordance with ASTM E-84.
PYRO-GUARD
PYRO-GUARD: Interior re retardant treated lumber and plywood, tested in accordance with ASTM E-84.
iLevel by Weyerhaeuser
Phone: 888-453-8358
Email: ilevel@weyerhaeuser.com
Web: www.iLevel.com
iLevel Shear Brace
A prefabricated, engineered wood panel with more predictable and consistent performance than site-built shear
walls, the iLevel Shear Brace has high allowable loads at narrow widths of 12" and 24". It can be used in multi-story
applications and can be eld trimmed for custom heights.
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com
RISAFloor
RISAFloor and RISA-3D for wood design Create 3D models of your entire structure and get full design of wood walls
(with and without openings), exible wood diaphragms, dimension lumber, glulams, parallams, LVLs, joists and more.
Custom databases for species, hold-downs-and panel nailing offer total exibility.
Southern Pine Council See above information
TrimJoist Corporation
Phone: 800-844-8281
Email: marty.hawkins@trimjoist.com
Web: www.trimjoist.com
TrimJoist
TrimJoist is the combination of an open web oor truss and a trimmable wood-I-joist, bringing the best features of
each together to form a trimmable oor truss. As the name indicates, it can be trimmed on the construction site for
a custom t.
Universal Forest Products
Phone: 574-532-6102
Email: dsill@ufpi.com
Web: www.ufpi.com
Open Joist
Speed of installation and superior load-bearing strength have made Open Joist
a preferred choice for building designs

that require longer joist spans or wider joist spacing and reduced framing costs. Open Joist features an open web design
for quick and easy installation of mechanical systems.
Wheeler
Phone: 800-328-3986
Email: info@wheeler-con.com
Web: www.wheeler-con.com
Timber Bridges
Wheeler specializes in the design and supply of custom engineered timber bridges for recreation and
vehicular applications.
Not listed? Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org/guides.aspx and opt-in to our email reminder list.
Listings are provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE
magazine is not responsible for errors.

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
NCSEA Winter Institute, Coronado, CA
March 12-13, 2010
NCSEAs Winter Institute attendees took advantage of a great opportunity to learn from the experts about
seismic design in steel, masonry, concrete and wood, as well as nonstructural components and systems, SFSI,
and performance-based design.
Friday afternoon, March 12, provided a
unique learning opportunity, when attendees
visited the Charles Pankow Structures
Laboratory and the Robert and
Natalie Englekirk Structural
Engineering Center at UCSD,
which hosts the NEES Large
Outdoor High-Performance Shake
Table, a blast simulator and two
soil pits for performing soil-
foundation studies.
28
The New Structural Exam
NCEES Raises the Bar
The National Council of Examiners for
Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) is
introducing a new 16-hour Structural PE
examination. The current Structural I
(SE I) and Structural II (SE II) exams will
be replaced by the new exam starting in April 2011. Therefore, the
current exams will be offered for the last time in October 2010.
Currently, NCEES offers three different structural engineering
exams: the 4-hour structural module of the Civil PE exam, the
8-hour SE I exam, and the 8-hour SE II exam. In addition,
California and Washington administer an 8-hour, state-specifc
Structural III (SE III) exam. Oregon also uses the exam developed
by Washington. There are at least eight different combinations
of these exams that various jurisdictions use to qualify structural
engineers for licensure.
NCEES adopted the Model Law Structural Engineer (MLSE)
designation in 2004 as a guideline to a national standard for
minimum competence for structural engineering licensure. To
qualify for the MLSE, a candidate must meet specifc education
and experience requirements and pass 16 hours of structural
engineering exams. The exams can be a combination of SE I and
SE II, a combination of SE II and an 8-hour state-specifc exam,
or a 16-hour state-specifc exam taken prior to 2004.
As a result of all this, there have been questions and confusion
about requirements to become a licensed structural engineer
from state to state. In 2006, NCEES established the Struc-
tural Exam Task Force (SETF) to address these issues. The
SETF recommended the development of a new 16-hour exam
for structural engineering licensure, to be designed in such a
manner that its content and format would be acceptable to all
jurisdictions that already offer such licensure. The SETF also
recommended maintaining a structural module of the Civil
PE exam and discontinuing the use of the 8-hour SE I exam
for P.E. licensure. In August 2007, the SETFs recommenda-
tions were offcially adopted at the NCEES Annual Meeting in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
To determine the new exams content, NCEES formed a
committee composed of structural engineers from all states that
require 16 hours of exams for structural engineering licensure,
as well as from many other states that do not. The committee
developed a survey that was sent to licensed structural engineers
to determine the knowledge areas most relevant to current
professional practice. The committee subsequently reviewed
the results of the survey and developed the exam specifcation
accordingly. Most of the committee members are now involved
in the preparation, assembly and review, and scoring of the
new exam.
The test will be offered in two components on successive days.
The 8-hour Vertical Forces (Gravity/Other) and Incidental
Lateral component will be offered on Friday, and the 8-hour
Lateral Forces (Wind/Earthquake) component will be offered
on Saturday. The morning sessions will consist of 40 multiple-
choice questions covering a comprehensive range of structural
engineering topics. The afternoon sessions will have four one-
hour essay questions and focus more closely on a single area of
practice in structural engineering. Examinees will have to choose
either buildings or bridges and work the same topic area both
days. The two 8-hour components may be taken and passed in
different exam administrations.
At the 2009 NCEES Annual Meeting, a motion was passed
to change the NCEES Model Law and Model Rules to in-
clude a 5-year window for passing both components. Once
the candidate passes one component, whether Vertical Forces
or Lateral Forces, the candidate will have 5 years to pass the
second component. If the candidate does not pass both the
components within the 5-year window, the candidate will
have to retake the frst component again. Currently, it is up
to the state licensing boards to amend their rules in order for
these changes to take effect.
The implementation of the new 16-hour exam will affect
currently licensed engineers, as well as individuals taking the test
for the frst time, since several licensing boards have indicated
that they are adopting the new exam as a requirement to become
licensed as a structural engineer. However, other licensing
boards will require passage of only the 8-hour Civil exam with
the structural module, in order to practice structural engineering
in those states as a P.E.
The licensing board in Washington has indicated that it plans
to discontinue its use of their state-specifc exam in favor of the
new 16-hour exam. Other states, such as California, are also
considering this option. This will be benefcial to examinees
that do not live in these states, because they will now be able
to have the new exam proctored in their own state or a nearby
state, reducing travel time and expenses. Washington will offer
its state SE III exam for the last time in October 2011. After that
date, the only way to become licensed as a structural engineer
in Washington and Oregon will be to take the new 16-hour
exam, even if the person has previously passed the SE II exam.
Therefore, engineers who practice structural engineering will
want to plan ahead and check with the local licensing boards in
the states where they practice.
The new 16-hour NCEES Structural exam is raising the bar
for the structural engineering profession and has the poten-
tial to improve consistency in requirements among the various
jurisdictions that have implemented separate licensure. This
development appropriately refects the unique and important
responsibility that structural engineers have, for protecting the
safety, health, and welfare of the public, no matter where their
projects are located.
A more detailed version of this article is posted on the NCSEA
website (www.NCSEA.com).
By Peter Vaccaro, P.E.
Pete.Vaccaro@hdrinc.com
Call for Entries
NCSEA 2010 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards Program
Next NCSEA Webinar April 20
Wind Design using the 2009 IBC
Presented by Don Scott
Don Scott, Chairman of NCSEAs CAC Wind Engineering
Subcommittee, has been with PCS Structural Solutions since
1982 and became a Principal in 1986. He has led many of the
frms educational, commercial, institutional and private projects
for new and renovated construction and has authored and co-
authored many technical publications on wind. He is also Vice
Chairman of the ASCE 7 Wind Load Committee (since 1996),
shaping future IBC provisions for wind design and Chairman of
the SEAW Wind Load Committee.
The cost is $250 per internet connection. Several people may attend for one connection fee. This
course will award 1.5 hours of continuing education, with a $5 fee for each continuing education
certifcate requested. The times will be 10:00 Pacifc, 11:00 Mountain, 12:00 Central, and 1:00
Eastern. Register at www.ncsea.com. Approved in All 50 States. Diamond
Reviewed
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
I N
U
I N
G
E
D
U
C
A
T
IO
N
E
N
G
IN
E
E
R
S
NCSEA
NCSEA announces the 13
th
annual Excellence in Structural
Engineering Awards Program. Up to three Excellence in
Structural Engineering Awards will be presented in each of the
following eight categories: New Buildings under $10M, New
Buildings $10M to $30M, New Buildings $30M to $100M,
New Buildings over $100M, New Bridge and Transportation
Structures, International Structures, Forensic/Renovation/
Retroft/Rehabilitation Structures, and Other Structural Design
Projects. In each category, one of the three projects will be cho-
sen as an Outstanding Project.
NCSEA News-April10.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:53:10 AM
April 2010
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
NCSEA Winter Institute, Coronado, CA
March 12-13, 2010
NCSEAs Winter Institute attendees took advantage of a great opportunity to learn from the experts about
seismic design in steel, masonry, concrete and wood, as well as nonstructural components and systems, SFSI,
and performance-based design.
Friday afternoon, March 12, provided a
unique learning opportunity, when attendees
visited the Charles Pankow Structures
Laboratory and the Robert and
Natalie Englekirk Structural
Engineering Center at UCSD,
which hosts the NEES Large
Outdoor High-Performance Shake
Table, a blast simulator and two
soil pits for performing soil-
foundation studies.
Professor Jose Restrepo had just
returned from Chile and added
some new slides to his presentation.
29
either buildings or bridges and work the same topic area both
days. The two 8-hour components may be taken and passed in
different exam administrations.
At the 2009 NCEES Annual Meeting, a motion was passed
to change the NCEES Model Law and Model Rules to in-
clude a 5-year window for passing both components. Once
the candidate passes one component, whether Vertical Forces
or Lateral Forces, the candidate will have 5 years to pass the
second component. If the candidate does not pass both the
components within the 5-year window, the candidate will
have to retake the rst component again. Currently, it is up
to the state licensing boards to amend their rules in order for
these changes to take effect.
The implementation of the new 16-hour exam will affect
currently licensed engineers, as well as individuals taking the test
for the rst time, since several licensing boards have indicated
that they are adopting the new exam as a requirement to become
licensed as a structural engineer. However, other licensing
boards will require passage of only the 8-hour Civil exam with
the structural module, in order to practice structural engineering
in those states as a P.E.
The licensing board in Washington has indicated that it plans
to discontinue its use of their state-specic exam in favor of the
new 16-hour exam. Other states, such as California, are also
considering this option. This will be benecial to examinees
that do not live in these states, because they will now be able
to have the new exam proctored in their own state or a nearby
state, reducing travel time and expenses. Washington will offer
its state SE III exam for the last time in October 2011. After that
date, the only way to become licensed as a structural engineer
in Washington and Oregon will be to take the new 16-hour
exam, even if the person has previously passed the SE II exam.
Therefore, engineers who practice structural engineering will
want to plan ahead and check with the local licensing boards in
the states where they practice.
The new 16-hour NCEES Structural exam is raising the bar
for the structural engineering profession and has the poten-
tial to improve consistency in requirements among the various
jurisdictions that have implemented separate licensure. This
development appropriately reects the unique and important
responsibility that structural engineers have, for protecting the
safety, health, and welfare of the public, no matter where their
projects are located.
A more detailed version of this article is posted on the NCSEA
website (www.NCSEA.com).
By Peter Vaccaro, P.E.
Pete.Vaccaro@hdrinc.com
Call for Entries
NCSEA 2010 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards Program
Next NCSEA Webinar April 20
Wind Design using the 2009 IBC
Presented by Don Scott
Don Scott, Chairman of NCSEAs CAC Wind Engineering
Subcommittee, has been with PCS Structural Solutions since
1982 and became a Principal in 1986. He has led many of the
rms educational, commercial, institutional and private projects
for new and renovated construction and has authored and co-
authored many technical publications on wind. He is also Vice
Chairman of the ASCE 7 Wind Load Committee (since 1996),
shaping future IBC provisions for wind design and Chairman of
the SEAW Wind Load Committee.
In this webinar, Mr. Scott will review the
development of the Alternate Wind Load
Provisions of the 2009 International Building
Code (IBC), to allow the user to understand
the proper application of these provisions for building design.
The limitations of the procedure will also be reviewed, to give
guidance to the user as to when these provisions are valid and
when the provisions of ASCE 7-05 are required to be used.
The cost is $250 per internet connection. Several people may attend for one connection fee. This
course will award 1.5 hours of continuing education, with a $5 fee for each continuing education
certicate requested. The times will be 10:00 Pacic, 11:00 Mountain, 12:00 Central, and 1:00
Eastern. Register at www.ncsea.com. Approved in All 50 States. Diamond
Reviewed
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
O
N
T
I N
U
I N
G
E
D
U
C
A
T
IO
N
E
N
G
IN
E
E
R
S
NCSEA
Entries are due July 9, and awards will be presented at the
Hyatt Regency on the Hudson in Jersey City, NJ on October 2,
at the conclusion of the NCSEA Annual Conference. Winning
projects will be featured in future issues of STRUCTURE
magazine. For awards program rules and eligibility, as well as

entry forms, see the Call for Entries on the NCSEA website:
www.ncsea.com.
NCSEA announces the 13
th
annual Excellence in Structural
Engineering Awards Program. Up to three Excellence in
Structural Engineering Awards will be presented in each of the
following eight categories: New Buildings under $10M, New
Buildings $10M to $30M, New Buildings $30M to $100M,
New Buildings over $100M, New Bridge and Transportation
Structures, International Structures, Forensic/Renovation/
Retrot/Rehabilitation Structures, and Other Structural Design
Projects. In each category, one of the three projects will be cho-
sen as an Outstanding Project.
NCSEA News-April10.indd 2 3/19/2010 9:54:02 AM

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
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our
publications at www.SEInstitute.org. Click on
Publications on our menu, and select Errata.
If you have any errata that you would like to submit,
please email it to Jim Rossberg at jrossberg@asce.org.
30
Survey of Structural Engineering
(SE) and Building Information
Modeling (BIM)
This is the third year of a respected and internationally rec-
ognized survey on the topic of Building Information Modeling
(BIM) in the profession of Structural Engineering. The sur-
vey considers several key areas of BIM in the profession that
include frm demographics, structural system defnitions,
interoperability, implementation, and the direction the tech-
nology should take in structural engineering. It also provides
an important opportunity to collectively voice our opinion
on the topic of this technology and our profession. Please
take a few moments to participate in the online survey by
visiting www.seibim.org/survey2010.htm.
The survey is a collaborative effort of the Joint Structural
Engineering Institute (SEI) Council of American Struc-
tural Engineers (CASE) Committee on Building Information
Modeling (BIM) and the Structural Engineers Association
of Texas (SEAoT) Information Technology (IT) Committee
on BIM. The results of the 2010 third annual survey will be
presented at the Structures Congress this spring in Orlando,
Florida. For questions or comments on the survey, please visit
www.seibim.org/survey.htm.
2010 Structures Congress with
NASCC the Steel Conference
Making Connections
May 12-15, 2010
Gaylord Palms Convention Center
Orlando, Florida
For the frst time ever, the leading programs for those involved
in the design and construction of buildings and bridges will all
be held under one roof. And with the uncertain economy, the
combined conferences are happening at a propitious moment
now you can pay one low fee of just $390 (SEI and AISC
members) and have your choice of more than 200 seminars,
network with colleagues and potential clients, and visit the
industrys largest exhibit hall.
Technical sessions cover the full gamut of structural design,
ranging from serviceability issues to the seismic design of bridges
and from wind effects to legal issues. There also are special
sessions for those involved in construction, including steel
fabricators, erectors, and detailers.
See the SEI Website at www.seinstitute.org for information on
the Structures Congress Technical Sessions, Advance Program,
and the Schedule at a Glance.
For complete conference information and the NASCC sessions,
please visit www.aisc.org/nascc.
SEI/ASCE Structural Seminars
and Webinars
SEI/ASCE offers a full range of structural seminars which
qualify for CEUs and take place each month across the nation.
For a list of upcoming seminars see our website at:
www.asce.org/conted/seminars/seminar.cfm?cat=7
Webinars are live, interactive continuing education programs
which can be attended without leaving your offce. Not only
will these practice-oriented programs help you stay current, but
they also help you earn Professional Development Hours toward
Professional Engineer license renewal. All thats required is a
computer with high-speed Internet access and a speakerphone.
For additional information on upcoming webinars and to
register, visit www.asce.org/webinar/list.
Upcoming titles for April and May 2010 include:
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Deterioration and Repair of Concrete
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Foundations for Metal Building Systems
Friday, April 16, 2010
Reinforced Masonry: Design and Construction
Monday, April 19, 2010
Renovation of Slabs on Grade
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Wind and Seismic Retroft of Wood-Framed Buildings
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Design of Masonry Shear Walls
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Strengthening Concrete Buildings
Monday, May 3, 2010
Designing and Procuring Pre-Engineered Buildings
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Best Practices in Design and Renovation of Masonry Veneer
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Design of Wood Connections
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Strengthening Structural Steel Beams
Design of Wood Diaphragms and Shear Walls
Friday, May 21, 2010
Deciphering Building Code Provisions for Structural Renovation
Monday, May 24, 2010
Overview of Seismic Design for Buildings According to ASCE 7-10
Practical Design of Bolted and Welded Steel Connections
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Investigation and Repair of Wood Structures
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Lessons From Failures of Pre-Engineered Buildings
ACI-SEI Joint Committee 343 on
Concrete Bridge Design
The joint ACI-SEI Committee 343 on Concrete Bridge Design
is working on updating and developing several ACI documents
related to concrete bridges, as follows:
ACI 358.1R-03: Analysis and Design of
Reinforced and Prestressed-Concrete
Guideway Structures
A sub-committee of Committee 343, headed by Bruce Kates,
has worked to develop a draft of this revised document that
has been balloted by the committee. It is expected that the
document will be jointly approved by the ACI and SEI, and will
be published in summer 2010.
ACI 343R-95: Analysis and Design of
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Structures
Several sub-committees continue to work in developing
individual chapters of this revised document, as follows:
Preliminary Design (headed by Claudia Pulido), Analysis
(headed by Sameh Badie), Loads (headed by Andrej Nowak),
and Design (headed by Riyadh Hindi). The state-of-the-art
guideline will be completed in 2011.
New Document: Bridge Deck Design
This new document is being developed to include various
existing and new concrete bridge deck design methodologies.
The pros and cons of the methods will be included. The
Professional Development Hours (PDHs)
Earn up to 27 PDHs by attending technical
sessions and short courses.
Registration is open register today!
Hotel Information:
Gaylord Palms Hotel & Convention Center
6000 West Osceola Parkway
Kissimmee, FL 34746
407-586-2000
Hotel reservations through the NASCC
website: www.aisc.org/nascc.
Schedule for Committee Meetings at the 2010
Structures Congress Available on Website
The schedule for committee meetings during the 2010
Structures Congress in Orlando, Florida has been posted
on-line. The schedule will be updated weekly and will also
appear in the fnal Congress program. There are close to
60 meetings scheduled between Wednesday, May 12 and
Saturday, May 15. To view the schedule, visit our website
at www.seinstitute.org.
SEI News April 2010.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:55:01 AM
April 2010

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

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
31
Survey of Structural Engineering
(SE) and Building Information
Modeling (BIM)
This is the third year of a respected and internationally rec-
ognized survey on the topic of Building Information Modeling
(BIM) in the profession of Structural Engineering. The sur-
vey considers several key areas of BIM in the profession that
include frm demographics, structural system defnitions,
interoperability, implementation, and the direction the tech-
nology should take in structural engineering. It also provides
an important opportunity to collectively voice our opinion
on the topic of this technology and our profession. Please
take a few moments to participate in the online survey by
visiting www.seibim.org/survey2010.htm.
The survey is a collaborative effort of the Joint Structural
Engineering Institute (SEI) Council of American Struc-
tural Engineers (CASE) Committee on Building Information
Modeling (BIM) and the Structural Engineers Association
of Texas (SEAoT) Information Technology (IT) Committee
on BIM. The results of the 2010 third annual survey will be
presented at the Structures Congress this spring in Orlando,
Florida. For questions or comments on the survey, please visit
www.seibim.org/survey.htm.
2010 Structures Congress with
NASCC the Steel Conference
Making Connections
May 12-15, 2010
Gaylord Palms Convention Center
Orlando, Florida
For the frst time ever, the leading programs for those involved
in the design and construction of buildings and bridges will all
be held under one roof. And with the uncertain economy, the
combined conferences are happening at a propitious moment
now you can pay one low fee of just $390 (SEI and AISC
members) and have your choice of more than 200 seminars,
network with colleagues and potential clients, and visit the
industrys largest exhibit hall.
Technical sessions cover the full gamut of structural design,
ranging from serviceability issues to the seismic design of bridges
and from wind effects to legal issues. There also are special
sessions for those involved in construction, including steel
fabricators, erectors, and detailers.
See the SEI Website at www.seinstitute.org for information on
the Structures Congress Technical Sessions, Advance Program,
and the Schedule at a Glance.
For complete conference information and the NASCC sessions,
please visit www.aisc.org/nascc.
2011 SEI/ASCE Student
Structural Design Competition
The Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE sponsors a struc-
tural design competition for universities. Innovative projects
demonstrating excellence in structural engineering are invited
for submission.
Awards include cash prizes and an opportunity to present win-
ning designs at the 2011 SEI Structures Congress in Las Vegas,
Nevada, April 14-16, 2011
Deadline for Submissions: June 30, 2010
For competition guidelines, entry form and a poster to promote
the competition, visit: www.SEInstitute.org.
Committee News
ACI-SEI Joint Committee 343 on
Concrete Bridge Design
The joint ACI-SEI Committee 343 on Concrete Bridge Design
is working on updating and developing several ACI documents
related to concrete bridges, as follows:
ACI 358.1R-03: Analysis and Design of
Reinforced and Prestressed-Concrete
Guideway Structures
A sub-committee of Committee 343, headed by Bruce Kates,
has worked to develop a draft of this revised document that
has been balloted by the committee. It is expected that the
document will be jointly approved by the ACI and SEI, and will
be published in summer 2010.
ACI 343R-95: Analysis and Design of
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Structures
Several sub-committees continue to work in developing
individual chapters of this revised document, as follows:
Preliminary Design (headed by Claudia Pulido), Analysis
(headed by Sameh Badie), Loads (headed by Andrej Nowak),
and Design (headed by Riyadh Hindi). The state-of-the-art
New Document: Bridge Deck Design
This new document is being developed to include various
existing and new concrete bridge deck design methodologies.
The pros and cons of the methods will be included. The
Progressive Collapse Committee
The SEI Committee on Progressive Collapse has a subcommittee
tasked with compiling references and other pertinent research
information related to the topic of disproportionate collapse. To
date, a Wiki website has been established, and we are looking
for additional contributions to the information that has already
been added. Please take a moment to review the information
already included on the Wiki and add any contributions you
feel are appropriate. The following information can be used to
access the Wiki:
The WIKI link is www.disproportionatecollapse.com/wiki
Login to input articles to the Wiki:
USERID = guest
Password = structure
ASCE Seismic Rehabilitation of
Existing Building Committee
The ASCE Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing building
committee reconvened on December 9, 2009, after a three
year hiatus, to initiate the process of updating ASCE 31 and 41
within the next three years. It is being chaired by Chris Poland
of Degenkolb Engineers. The committee agreed to reorganize
itself into an ASCE 7 style structure comprised of regular
members and affliate members, and operate using an executive
committee and subcommittees. Those interested in getting
involved with the committee should contact Robert Pekelnicky
(RPekelnicky@degenkolb.com), who is serving as committee
vice-chair and secretariat.
ASCE 31 and 41 are national consensus standards dealing
with the seismic evaluation and upgrade of existing buildings,
respectively. Both are rooted in a performance-based design
philosophy, giving engineers greater control over the evaluation
and upgrade process than traditional code-based design methods
do. Also, because they deal specifcally with existing buildings
which have structural elements of varying ductility and
robustness, the standards provide guidance on how to evaluate
those types of elements and also incorporate those elements with
new, ductile elements into an upgrade design. The committee
welcomes ideas for updates, revisions, and new material. Please
contact Robert Pekelnicky if you have anything you wish the
committee to consider.
Schedule for Committee Meetings at the 2010
Structures Congress Available on Website
The schedule for committee meetings during the 2010
Structures Congress in Orlando, Florida has been posted
on-line. The schedule will be updated weekly and will also
appear in the fnal Congress program. There are close to
60 meetings scheduled between Wednesday, May 12 and
Saturday, May 15. To view the schedule, visit our website
at www.seinstitute.org.
SEI News April 2010.indd 2 3/19/2010 9:55:18 AM
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

STRUCTURE magazine
32
CASE Risk Management Convocation
Comes into Orlando Next Month
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in conjunction with the frst-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 frst-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 SEs Need to Know
Speaker: David B. Ratterman, Secretary and General Counsel, AISC
The AISC Code of Standard Practice has served as a specifcation 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 the
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 flled with risk and discovers tools to help him mitigate
those risks. Some of the tools he will discover will cover 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 to Conduct Code Complexity Panel Discussion
at NASCC in Orlando
ACEC Annual Convention
Takes On Economic, Business
Challenges Facing Firms
Across the board, ACECs 2010 Annual Convention and
Legislative Summit will address current business conditions and
opportunities. To be held in Washington, D.C., April 25-28, the
Convention will feature more than two dozen top-tier business
sessions tackling pressing management concerns, including how
to restore frm growth and win projects in a changing and highly
competitive marketplace. Procurement offcers from key federal
agencies including NASA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
General Services Administration, State Department, Department
of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Energy will describe
new contracting opportunities. Gregory Ip, U.S. economics
editor for The Economist magazine, will provide a market
forecast. Leaders of three of the nations largest engineering frms
will discuss current and future industry challenges. The group
includes Robert Uhler, chairman and CEO of MWH Global;
Leonard Rodman, chairman, president and CEO of Black &
Veatch; and George Pierson, CEO of Parsons Brinckerhoff.
A Bentley Systems-sponsored panel on cyber-engineering will
feature CIOs from AECOM, Jacobs Engineering, Malcolm
Pirnie, and WSP Flack & Kurtz.
CEO Roundtables, organized by frm size, will address
operational issues affecting frms. For more information go to
www.acec.org.
ACEC Business Course Identifes Contract Red Flags
ClosingtheDealWithA/E/CContracts:RecognizePitfalls,NegotiateWinners
May20 -21,SanFrancisco
Identify and demystify red-fag contract provisions, acquire
the skills and principles of toe-to-toe negotiating to maintain
professional standards and protect your business. Learn the
differences between custom contracts and model contracts, the
pitfalls, and how to negotiate to win-win agreements. Closing the
Deal With A/E/C Contracts: Recognize Pitfalls, Negotiate Winners
is an in-depth course designed to meet the contract needs of
engineers, architects, contractors, project managers, contracting
offcers, specifers, and those responsible for procuring construc-
tion or design services. Presented by a faculty of experts with
In addition to the CASE Risk Management Convocation in
Orlando next month at the 2010 Structures Congress, CASE
is conducting a program on the business impacts and risks
associated with code complexity at the North American Steel
Construction Conference (NASCC). As reported earlier, the
Structures Congress and the NASCC are combining their events
for the frst time. Code Complexity Risks and Cost to the Profession,
and how this issue is affecting the bottom line, will feature
a panel discussion moderated by Edward W. Pence, Jr, Stroud,
CASE News April10.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:56:05 AM
April 2010

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

April 2010 STRUCTURE magazine
33
CASE Risk Management Convocation
Comes into Orlando Next Month
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in conjunction with the frst-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 frst-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 SEs Need to Know
Speaker: David B. Ratterman, Secretary and General Counsel, AISC
The AISC Code of Standard Practice has served as a specifcation 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 the
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 flled with risk and discovers tools to help him mitigate
those risks. Some of the tools he will discover will cover 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 to Conduct Code Complexity Panel Discussion
at NASCC in Orlando
ACEC Outreach Leads to
String of QBS Victories
ACEC, working in close coordination with ACEC/Kansas
and the Joint Forces National Guard, secured another victory
last month for Qualifcations-Based Selection (QBS). This is
the latest in a series of successful interventions by ACEC in
recent months that have led to federal agencies bringing their
procurement policies into compliance with the Brooks Act. The
latest victory occurred when a Member Firm notifed ACEC/
Kansas of an apparent Brooks Act violation in a National Guard
RFP. Kansas alerted the national headquarters, which contacted
the Guard to raise the issue and reinforce the benefts of QBS both
for taxpaying citizens and for the overall public safety. Kansas
National Guard procurement offcials were very responsive to
ACECs concerns, not only fxing the problem contract but
offering to work with the Council to educate their managers
on A/E procurements. Scott Heidner, Executive Director of
ACEC/Kansas, underscored the signifcance of this offer, saying
Making sure they comply with Brooks moving forward is the
lasting success. ACEC has successfully intervened on behalf
of Member Firms a dozen times since last summer with DOD
agencies, FEMA, GSA and other federal agencies to promote
QBS and full compliance with the Brooks Act. In many cases,
procurement offcials were unaware of the benefts offered by
QBS and its required application.
ACEC Annual Convention
Takes On Economic, Business
Challenges Facing Firms
Across the board, ACECs 2010 Annual Convention and
Legislative Summit will address current business conditions and
opportunities. To be held in Washington, D.C., April 25-28, the
Convention will feature more than two dozen top-tier business
sessions tackling pressing management concerns, including how
to restore frm growth and win projects in a changing and highly
competitive marketplace. Procurement offcers from key federal
agencies including NASA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
General Services Administration, State Department, Department
of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Energy will describe
new contracting opportunities. Gregory Ip, U.S. economics
editor for The Economist magazine, will provide a market
forecast. Leaders of three of the nations largest engineering frms
will discuss current and future industry challenges. The group
includes Robert Uhler, chairman and CEO of MWH Global;
Leonard Rodman, chairman, president and CEO of Black &
Veatch; and George Pierson, CEO of Parsons Brinckerhoff.
A Bentley Systems-sponsored panel on cyber-engineering will
feature CIOs from AECOM, Jacobs Engineering, Malcolm
Pirnie, and WSP Flack & Kurtz.
CEO Roundtables, organized by frm size, will address
operational issues affecting frms. For more information go to
www.acec.org.
ACEC Business Course Identifes Contract Red Flags
ClosingtheDealWithA/E/CContracts:RecognizePitfalls,NegotiateWinners
May20 -21,SanFrancisco
Identify and demystify red-fag contract provisions, acquire
the skills and principles of toe-to-toe negotiating to maintain
professional standards and protect your business. Learn the
differences between custom contracts and model contracts, the
pitfalls, and how to negotiate to win-win agreements. Closing the
Deal With A/E/C Contracts: Recognize Pitfalls, Negotiate Winners
is an in-depth course designed to meet the contract needs of
engineers, architects, contractors, project managers, contracting
offcers, specifers, and those responsible for procuring construc-
tion or design services. Presented by a faculty of experts with
years of industry experience, the course will update attendees
knowledge in critical contract areas including:
Controversial contract provisions, from every angle
The elements of good negotiating and errors to avoid
The latest revisions to the most-used contracts
Recent court rulings involving construction contracts
Protecting the bottom line: how profts can be won or lost
in negotiations
For details and to register contact LaCreshea Makonnen at
ACEC at education@acec.org or 202-347-7474.
In addition to the CASE Risk Management Convocation in
Orlando next month at the 2010 Structures Congress, CASE
is conducting a program on the business impacts and risks
associated with code complexity at the North American Steel
Construction Conference (NASCC). As reported earlier, the
Structures Congress and the NASCC are combining their events
for the frst time. Code Complexity Risks and Cost to the Profession,
and how this issue is affecting the bottom line, will feature
a panel discussion moderated by Edward W. Pence, Jr, Stroud,
Pence and Associates with three practicing structural engineers
who are responsible for the operation of their respective frms.
The panelists include James C. Parker, Simpson, Gumpertz &
Heger; Art Johnson, KPFF Consulting Engineers; and Jaime
Vasquez, Walter P Moore and Associates, Inc.
CASE News April10.indd 2 3/19/2010 9:56:27 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 refect the
views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the STRUCTURE
magazine Editorial Board.

34
We Need to Work Together or Risk Being Torn Apart
By Barry Arnold, S.E., SECB
Engineers, as a whole, are an impressive
collection of the best and brightest
graduates coming out of our universities.
Their ability to think deeply and focus
their attention on problems, analyze a
variety of possible solutions, and fnd a
viable answer is unparalleled. Engineers
minds are geared toward critical thinking
and problem solving. We have reason to
be proud as long as our pride does not
get in the way of a greater good.
That fact was brought out when I ar-
rived early for an important meeting with
a client. Alone in the large conference
room, I busied myself making notes and
answering e-mails. A few minutes later,
I was joined by a woman and her male
assistant. They sat at the far end of the
room talking loudly so that their con-
versation could easily be overheard. The
exchange went like this:
Did you know therell be twelve engi-
neers in the meeting today? the woman
stated somberly, with an apprehensive
quality in her voice.
Twelve! Oh no! Well never get anything
done, was her companions lament.
After a labored pause, the woman de-
clared, All engineers do is argue about
what and who is right, all the while look-
ing for someone to blame when things go
wrong and devising a strategy to get more
credit than they deserve when the projects
a success.
The man stated, Big egos, huh?
The worst! replied the lady without let-
ting a second go to waste. She quickly
followed up the comment, saying, Work-
ing with engineers is a lot like herding
cats. They all tend to go in the same general
direction, but all at different speeds, in-
different to those around them, and each
with their own agenda.
Having heard enough, I went to my
companions and introduced myself as a
structural engineer. I was hoping for a
look of surprise or guilt, or some minor
act of repentance in the form of a retrac-
tion of their gross generalizations. All I
received was a look of sympathy.
I believe what hurt the most was the fact
that, to a large degree, the lady was correct.
As a group, structural engineers are very
fragmented across a number of superfuous
lines. We compare and contrast ourselves
against those around us based on:
Education: Ivy Leaguer schools vs.
state universities;
Degree: PhD vs. MS vs. BS;
Offce Size: Large vs. medium vs.
small vs. working out of your house;
Offce Location: East coast vs. west
coast vs. no coast;
Project Size: Big vs. medium vs.
small; and,
Pending Disasters: Earthquake vs.
hurricanes vs. foods vs. tornados vs.
ice storms, etc.
As structural engineers, our primary goal
and purpose is to hold paramount the
health, safety and welfare of the public.
Everything else is secondary and likely
of little consequence.
Psychologists tell us that we create these
artifcial boundaries as a means of pro-
moting our own self-worth. It is the
same old routine that is practiced on
playgrounds across America today: I
did this (fll in the blank) and you
didnt; therefore, Im better. The logic is
erroneous seriously fawed, in fact and
detrimental to the health and vitality of a
state-level SEA, as well as NCSEA, CASE
and SEI at the national level.
It is vital that our professional organiza-
tions not become fragmented over petty
differences. As a group of peers, we must
respect input and advice from all of our
members, along with non-member en-
gineers and other interested parties. You
do not need to watch very many nature
programs on television to realize that a
fragmented herd is easily hunted. The
goal of the predator is to frighten, sepa-
rate and ultimately cull the heard. When
we as individuals distance ourselves from
our professional organizations, we lose in
two important areas: We are not able to
support the goals, objectives and growth
of those groups; and, we cannot reap the
rewards, opportunities and benefts that
membership offers.
Take, for example, a member structural
engineer who will not attend local mem-
bership meetings because a particular
competitor, to whom they lost a project,
might be in attendance. This is unfortu-
nate and counterproductive. Although it
is always disappointing to see someone
else receive work that we were actively
seeking, this alone should never preclude
us from participating in and contributing
to an organization to which both parties
belong. We can and should still work
together for our common interests, keep-
ing our eyes on the big picture instead of
getting sidetracked by hard feelings over a
short-term setback.
As individual structural engineers acting
alone, we will not be able to progress
much in promoting the causes of our
profession. You may make some headway,
but it will be painfully slow and will usu-
ally have little lasting effect. By contrast,
as a contributing member of your SEA,
CASE and/or SEI, your impact will be
signifcant, substantial and long-term;
you can help establish goals and defne
objectives that may guide the profession
for many years to come. You can set stan-
dards and make improvements that will
beneft the membership and society today
and for generations into the future.
One fact remains certain: If we do not
work together as a collection of valued
and respected peers, we will certainly be
torn apart, leaving the growth and value
of the profession in question. Together
we need to focus on the biggest possible
picture, solve the most pressing problems,
and chart a course to achieve the worthy
goals of our professional organizations.
The work is easier and more swiftly
accomplished when everyone supports
these organizations by providing input
and assistance.
Barry Arnold, 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. Barry can be
reached at barrya@arwengineers.com.
All engineers do is
argue about what and
who is right,...
C-StructForum-Arnold-April10.indd 1 3/19/2010 9:57:23 AM
Blank.indd 1 3/4/2010 8:53:51 AM
Blank.indd 1 3/9/2010 4:28:21 PM

April 2010: Concrete

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

April 2010: Concrete

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A

(Volume 17, Number 4). ISSN 1536-4283.

is a registered trademark of National Council of

. These four projects demonstrate the effective use of

. These four projects demonstrate the effective use of

Anchors that crack the code.

screw anchor, Strong-Bolt

wedge anchor and SET-XP

|00|8 |88tI18 |00|8 |881II1 |00|8 |88t508

Anthony Forest Products Company

Treated Glulam Power Joist

- Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System

) for Wood Construction.

8.0 for Windows

a preferred choice for building designs

magazine is not responsible for errors.

magazine. For awards program rules and eligibility, as well as

magazine Editorial Board.

S-ar putea să vă placă și