Sunteți pe pagina 1din 36


October 2009

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

NCSEA 17 th Annual Conference Scottsdale, Arizona October 15 th 17 th

Nick Ciminello, P.E.


Patrick Buckley, I.E.


Powers knows that understanding the newly adopted building code and DOT requirements is vital for everyone involved in the construction industry. Powers dedicated team of experts can help clarify the code, and how it impacts your project lists. When you call our Code Compliance Hotline at (888)745-CODE (888-745-2633) you get accurate answers to your specific anchoring questions. Powers is committed to providing products and real time solutions that satisfy the new code, and is continuously developing new code compliant solutions. In fact, Powers has the most code compliant anchors* on the market. So call our experts today, and see how Powers can help make your next project code compliant.


*As of August 2009

Powers Fasteners, Inc. 2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300 Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483

18 Accelerated Bridge Construction Keeps Tappan Zee Bridge Open
By Helena Tam, P.E., Mohammad Shams, Ph.D., and Kenneth Standig, P.E.

The New York State Thruway Authority held a Federal Highway Administrationsponsored Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT) workshop in 2005 to afrm its approach to use prefabricated systems to quickly repair deteriorating bridge decks with minimum disruption to trafc. The FHWA selected the Tappan Zee Bridge as an ACTT project because of the immediate need for the repairs, the function of the bridge as a lifeline structure, and the limitations imposed by an unremitting high-volume trafc stream.

22 Creating the Ideal Bridge for Phoenix Sky Harbors Taxiway Sierra
By Ted Bush, P.E., S.E., Kent Bormann, P.E., S.E. and Rob Turton, P.E., S.E.

A new ve-span cast-in-place, post-tensioned concrete box girder underpass was recently constructed as part of a $35 million design-build project for the City of Phoenix. The project consisted of reconstructing Taxiway Sierra at Sky Harbor International Airport, which included replacing the taxiway pavement and the two single-span reinforced concrete rigid-frame structures.

5 Editorial 7 InFocus
An Honest Living

10 Structural Forensics


Douglas Ashcraft, P.E., S.E.

LTBP Program Moving Ahead

By Dr. Hamid Ghasemi and John Penrod, P.E.

Does the Building Code Need Simplication?

14 InSights

BIM Power: Interoperability

By Richard L. Hess, S.E., SECB

8 Structural Performance

By Andrew W. Gayer, P.E., S.E., LEED AP, M. ASCE

Tall Buildings and Structural Collapse

By Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski, FIEAust

28 NCSEA News 30 SEI Structural Columns 32 CASE in Point 34 Advertiser Index 22

27 Spotlight


I-280 Veterans Glass City Skyway

By Daniel Meyer, P.E. and Denney Pate, P.E.


ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit

Structural Engineering Software The easiest to use software for calculating wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on these codes ($195.00). Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00). Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists ($100.00). Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00). Demos at:

StruWare, Inc




October 2009

NCSEA 17 th Annual Conference Scottsdale, Arizona October 15 th 17 th

The Cedar Avenue Pedestrian Bridge completes the nal link between the Flagstaff Urban Trail System and the Arizona Trail System, and provides a safe crossing for hikers and bikers over a busy city street in northeast Flagstaff. After reaching consensus through preliminary design studies, citizens input and approval of the City Council, T.Y. Lin International, the prime designer, recommended a concrete variable depth cast-in-place, post-tensioned box girder. The bridge in its nal form resembles a very graceful arch.

Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE magazine does not constitute endorsement by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole responsibility for the content of their submissions.

STRUCTURE magazine

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

October 2009

Civil, Structural & Geotechnical Engineering Journals from Taylor & Francis
Bridge Structures: Assessment, Design and Construction
Bridge Structures is endorsed by the Bridge Engineering Association
Volume 5, 2009, 4 issues per year Print ISSN: 1573-2487 Online ISSN: 1744-8999 Bridge Structures: Assessment, Design and Construction aims to present the transformation of theoretical knowledge into guidelines and specications that are compliant with the technical constraints of bridge engineering design. The focus of the Journal is on practical issues and on how certain techniques can be adopted in the work of the bridge engineer. This journal is intended to narrow the gap between researchers and practitioners and to provide state-of-the-art solutions to the emerging challenges and problems confronting the bridge engineering community.

The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering

Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore
Volume 2, 2009, 4 issues per year Print ISSN: 1937-3260 Online ISSN: 1937-3279 The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering draws on the international resources of the Institution of Engineers, Singapore, maintaining an international outlook whilst having a strong focus on research and development works from Asia.

International Journal of Pavement Engineering

Endorsed by the International Society for Concrete Pavements
Volume 10, 2009, 6 issues per year Print ISSN: 1029-8436 Online ISSN: 1477-268X The International Journal of Pavement Engineering is dedicated to the publication of cutting edge research and development in structures and facilities, including advanced analytical and computational techniques, pavement mechanics, laboratory techniques, non-destructive testing, innovative design approaches and their implementation, construction, performance, maintenance and rehabilitation techniques. The Journal publishes the latest research ndings from all over the world together with case records of successful (and not-so-successful) usage and performance results.

Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems

Volume 5, 2009 , 4 issues per year Print ISSN: 1028-6608 Online ISSN: 1029-0249 Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems is devoted to the discussion, dissemination and development of systems techniques and their underlying assumptions through the spectrum of civil engineering activity and environmental decision-making and management. The Journal provides a comprehensive approach to the practical application and development of hard and soft systems methodologies.

Construction Management and Economics

Volume 27, 2009, 12 issues per year Print ISSN: 0144-6193 Online ISSN: 1466-433X Construction Management and Economics is the leading international refereed journal that publishes original research concerning the management and economics of building and civil engineering, while also including the management of built facilities.

Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation

Now included in the Science Citation Index
Volume 24, 2009, 4 issues per year Print ISSN: 1058-9759 Online ISSN: 1477-2671 Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation publishes letters, papers and review articles describing the results of research and development in the underlying theory, novel techniques and applications of nondestructive testing and evaluation. Articles concerning both the investigation of physical processes and the development of mechanical processes and techniques are welcomed.

Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An International Journal

Volume 4, 2009, 4 issues per year Print ISSN: 1748-6025 Online ISSN: 1748-6033 Geomechanics and Geoengineering will be a major publication channel for research in the areas of soil and rock mechanics, geotechnical and geological engineering, engineering geology, geoenvironmental engineering and all geo-material related engineering and science disciplines. The Journal provides an international forum for the exchange of innovative ideas, especially between researchers in Asia and the rest of the world.

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance
Volume 5, 2009, 6 issues per year Print ISSN: 1573-2479 Online ISSN: 1744-8980 Structure & Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management and Life-Cycle Design & Performance is an international journal dedicated to recent advances in maintenance, management and life-cycle performance of a wide range of infrastructures. The aim of this Journal is to present research and developments on the most advanced technologies for analyzing, predicting and optimizing infrastructure performance.

Volume 3, 2009, 4 issues per year Print ISSN: 1749-9518 Online ISSN: 1749-9526 Georisk covers many diversied but interlinked areas of active research and practice, such as geohazards (earthquakes, landslides, avalanches, rockfalls, tsunamis, etc.), safety of engineered systems (dams, buildings, offshore structures, lifelines, etc.), environmental risk, seismic risk, reliability-based design and code calibration, geostatistics, decision analyses, structural reliability, maintenance and life cycle performance, risk and vulnerability, hazard mapping, loss assessment (economic, social, environmental, etc.), GIS databases, remote sensing, and many other related disciplines.

To view online sample copies of these journals please visit
Please quote the following code when ordering: UC18001S

An Honest Living
By Douglas Ashcraft, P.E., S.E. Chair, Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) I really enjoy the profession that I chose. Besides having the opportunity to design structures that improve peoples lives, I get the opportunity to work with some of the most honest and forthright people that I know. Admittedly, my sample size is rather small compared to the whole of our community, but the general population has a similarly high opinion of our profession. Independent polls taken of Americans consistently rank engineers among the top ten of the most honest and ethical professions. It is interesting when looking at these lists to note that most of the professions in the top ten are those that involve personal one-on-one contact with the customer, such as doctors, nurses, emergency responders, etc. Engineers enjoy the same reputation even though our contact with the public is passive and mostly anonymous. Perhaps it is that anonymity that leads the majority to believe in the honesty and integrity of the engineers that design such magnicent and highly functional structures. They ask, How can someone be the creative mind behind such a major achievement and we dont know who it is? They then conclude that engineers must be willing to help people by what they design because of the duty they owe to society. This duty is the linchpin of engineering ethics. Engineers hold the safety, health and welfare of the public as the paramount purpose of their profession. All other interests, personal or professional, are subrogated to this purpose. In fact, engineers hold a ...a good time to remind your colleagues of your core values and your focus on customer service. duty to their clients, employers and their own professional community at a higher plane than their own personal interest. That is the ideal behavior of engineers and, for the most part, it represents the actual behavior as well. This behavior is manifested by an altruistic attitude of putting others interests before their own, and an evaluation that a human life is more valuable than material gain or ones own reputation. All things, unfortunately, are not ideal. There are many pressures that weigh against this idealistic behavior. A persons normal instinct for selfpreservation can certainly stand in the way of putting others interests ahead of their own. People often feel the need to inate the value they place on their own reputation over a sense of duty. And let us not forget greed, which is a demon that aficts many of us in some fashion and in varying degrees.
of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Managers of engineering rms should be alert during this present economic downturn for signs of stress among your partners and employees that may arise due to anxiety over economic conditions. It is this type of stress that may lead some to sacrice their long held ethical mores and do something to protect their own nancial situation or personal reputation at the expense of the company. It may be a good time to remind your colleagues of your core values and your focus on customer service. Let them know that you are open to hear their concerns, and that those that blow the whistle will be listened to and protected. Employees of engineering rms must likewise take responsibility for the ethical behavior of their colleagues. Be alert for, and ready to report, behavior that you question and believe may lead to problems for the company. If your rm does not have a values statement and code of proper behavior, I would urge you to develop one. The culture of a company is driven from the top down. If your employees see you as a manager ...engineers hold a duty to their clients, employers and their own professional community at a higher plane than their own personal interest. take ethical behavior and strong customer service as a priority, your employees will follow you in that same behavior. Your code of ethics must state things that should not be done and also express the positive duty you expect your employees to provide to the public and clients. A great resource to help develop a code of ethics for your rm is the book, Better Ethics NOW written by Christopher Bauer, PhD., published by Aab-Hill Business Books, Nashville, TN. The subtitle of the book is How to Avoid the Ethics Disaster You Never Saw Coming. It was the inspiration for this article. I heard Dr. Bauer speak at an ACEC conference a couple of years ago. This was before the economic collapse, and his book is even more pertinent now. There are also good resources through ASCE and NSPE. These organizations have published codes of ethics on their websites. Use these as a starting point, and then make your code specic for your practice. Let us all do what we can to keep the engineering profession one that continues to be recognized by the public as honest and ethical.

STRUCTURE magazine

October 2009

NCSEA Annual Conference

Scottsdale, AZ October 15 17, 2009

National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE Executive Director 312-649-4600 David Bixby Director, Coalitions 202-347-7474

Register at

ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit

Council of American Structural Engineers

Stronger Than Steel

Structural Engineering Institute

of the American Society of Civil Engineers


High tensile strength Lightweight Conforms to all shapes Full cure in 24 hours Ease of installation Non-toxic No odor Waterproof

John E. Durrant, P.E. Manager ASCE Engineering Programs 703-295-6360





Interactive Sales Associates Dick Railton
Western Sales 951-587-2982


Concrete Masonry Steel Wood Underwater Piles Blast Protection

Pioneered since the 1980s by QuakeWrap President, Professor Mo Ehsani, Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) is applied like wallpaper, reaching 2 to 3 times the strength of steel in 24 hours. TURNKEY SOLUTIONS:
Design Materials Installation

Chuck Minor
Eastern Sales 847-854-1666


Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE Editor Associate Editor Graphic Designer Web Developer

Christine M. Sloat, P.E. Nikki Alger

Rob Fullmer

ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit

William Radig

STRUCTURE (Volume 16, Number 10). ISSN 15364283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $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, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board. STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA).

Published By:

C3 Ink

C3 Ink

A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc. 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432

Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at Visit Visit STRUCTURE STRUCTURE magazine magazine on-line online at at

STRUCTURE magazine

October 2009

By Richard L. Hess, S.E., SECB

thoughts from a member of the Editorial Board

Does the Building Code Need Simplication?

In a recent meeting of the SEAOSC Building Code Committee, the only participant whose business had not slowed precipitously during the recession was one who does (all of the?) structural plans review for the City and County in which he worked. The reason: the jurisdictions plans examiners were confused by the complexity of the new Code and needed outside, expert help. Has the Building Code become overly complicated? Does it take up substantial shelf space on your bookcase with all of the reference standards and specications? And does all of that cost a small fortune to buy every three years? If anyone can say NO to any of these questions, I hope you will write in and tell STRUCTURE magazine readers about it. Is every new edition of the Code an improvement over the last one, or does it react to a problem, perhaps a building failure, by requiring additional calculations or design constraints that likely add cost to the project, do not always address the real cause of failure and can sometimes result in a detrimental effect? There seems to be a general feeling, at least among those who participate in the code writing process, that it wasnt possible to design buildings as well with an old code as with the current one. And yet, recently designed and constructed buildings have failed while older ones remain standing. The difference is not as much in the contents of the Building Codes that were used as it is in the knowledge of the engineer who designed them. That knowledge has to include large amounts of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and geology. But it must also include knowledge of how building elements are produced and fabricated and, most importantly, how they are constructed. One does not gain that knowledge from looking at two-dimensional representations of the structure and its elements on a computer screen. One has to experience how it is actually put together at the construction site how the construction documents are perceived and interpreted, and how the details and processes that may not be shown or explained completely can be accomplished. An example is the failure of many light frame buildings in the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake that relied on stucco shearwalls to resist lateral forces. The reaction in the Code was to drastically reduce allowable forces on these walls. However, these failures only occurred in buildings built after the early 1970s when the Code mandated a metal drip screed at the bottom of the wall, which was generally not penetrated by contractors nail guns, leaving the wall unattached to the sill plate. Another example is a brand new parking garage that failed during the 1994 Northridge earthquake because its vertical support elements were rigidly attached to diaphragms that deected laterally. You can introduce elaborate mathematical procedures to deal with that problem. But if the designer is plugging those factors into his computer program rather than looking at how the entire structure reacts as a unit, you are bound to have a similar result occur again. In reading comments about the Building Code and the development of new editions, there is always the statement that these revisions represent advancements in building design. Never is it stated that some of the revisions may have been required to correct advancements in previous editions that did not recognize how those provisions would be interpreted by practicing designers and contractors, or what provisions of other codes or standards would be brought into conict. Now, with the greater reliance on reference standards, it is much more difcult to introduce corrections and to do so in a timely manner is virtually impossible. I discussed the problem that was created by the provisions of the 2006 IBC for concrete anchors that resist earthquake forces in light frame construction (STRUCTURE magazine, August 2008). No one seems to believe that the new Code provisions make any sense for this condition; and yet, rather than remove the mistake from the Code, revisions are being offered to require additional calculations, subject to more differing interpretations, to compensate for the unnecessary analyses now required. One response often made to engineers who appear to be complaining about the complexity and confusing features of the Building Code is to say then contribute your time to participating in the code writing process. To this I am able to say that I have, I am, and I will continue to do so. However, I also want to encourage a discussion of how the major problems with the current process can be improved. Another often heard response is that we just need to be educated in how to use the new provisions. However, I do not believe that we need more education in how to live with the convoluted elements of the Building Code we need to understand how to replace them with provisions that facilitate better construction. When engineers, and especially code writers, have that knowledge, the occurrence of mistakes and unnecessary complexity will be far less and corrections will be swift. The result will be a Code that is not simple but one that is smart. Richard L. Hess, S.E., SECB is a consulting structural engineer in Southern California, specializing in the retrot, repair and alteration of buildings and other structures. Richard currently serves on the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board. He can be reached at

Editorial Board
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB Burns & McDonnell Kansas City, MO


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

Brian J. Leshko, P.E. HDR Engineering, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA John A. Mercer, P.E. Mercer Engineering, PC Minot, ND Brian W. Miller AISC Davis, CA

Mike C. Mota, P.E. CRSI Williamstown, NJ Evans Mountzouris, P.E. The DiSalvo Ericson Group Ridgeeld, CT Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E. Dokken Engineering Folsom, CA

Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E. KPFF Consulting Engineers Seattle, WA Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. Kramer Gehlen & Associates, Inc. Vancouver, WA John Buddy Showalter, P.E. AF & PA/American Wood Council Washington, DC

Executive Editor
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE NCSEA Chicago, IL

STRUCTURE magazine

October 2009

Tall Buildings and Structural Collapse

By Dr. Gregory Szuladziski, FIEAust ulti-story buildings are usually well-designed and carefully built. When subjected to normal loads, such as wind and earthquake, and when such loads are within expected bounds, the chance of collapse is practically nil. The concern about such an event comes from unexpected loads, such as certain impacts or the action of explosives, whether accidentally or malevolently imposed.

Protection Strategy
It is not possible to protect a tall structure against any unknown loads. For example, an explosion can be made powerful enough and/or happen so close to the building that it can overcome virtually any resistance. The only sensible way to mitigate such a scenario is to increase the chance of survival by avoiding conditions that may bring about a total collapse. This can be achieved in at least two ways: 1) Eliminating any known weak spots, as they may become the local sources of failure. 2) Shaping the structure so that a local failure does not lead to a chain reaction in the form of a progressive collapse. The problem with weak spots is that they are not readily recognizable, and their response under strongly dynamic conditions is not always appreciated, unless the analyst has considerable relevant experience. It may be argued that such weak details were present, for example, in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, and contributed to their failure. What seems safe under normal design loads often becomes critical under intensely dynamic conditions. To be more specic with respect to the case of WTC, the author believes that one such weak link was the attachment of the oor-supporting angles to the columns at both ends. This type of arrangement happens to be quite sensitive to dynamic loading. Of course, it would be unreasonable to blame the engineer for the additional developments that he could not have predicted; namely, sagging of the oors under re conditions and the associated catenary tension on the critical connections.
Ground Zero, New York City, N.Y. (Sept. 17, 2001). Courtesy of U.S. Navy Chief Photographers Mate Eric J. Tilford.


One should keep in mind that the simultaneous requirements of structural safety and economy with functionality are often contradictory. To get a safer building, from a collapse viewpoint, the owner must pay more for design of details, as in Item 1 above. Also, satisfying Item 2 means a higher cost of additional members to increase redundancy and therefore safety. Modern buildings tend to have much fewer columns than in the past. While they are sufciently strong under normal loads, they may be more susceptible to collapse when partially damaged. It does not take great insight to recognize the following: If there are only 40 rather than 80 columns in a building, each of them carries twice as large a percentage of the building weight, so the relative consequences of removing or damaging one such column will be greater.

Roles and Responsibilities

The job of a (conventional) structural engineer is to shape and design a safe structure, when normal loads are involved. The additional part of the process assuring maximum safety under unexpected loads belongs to a structural analyst, who is also a structural engineer but of a different prole. This individual is wellversed in advanced structural dynamics so that he or she can create and examine various postulated disaster scenarios. These two types of engineers would typically work in separate teams. The second team, usually an external consultant, has a leader who should understand well

performance issues relative to extreme events

how the structure works and what may cause its collapse under unusual loading conditions. The team members must be experienced not only in structural dynamics, but also in detailed stress analysis, as it will be the details that make the structure fail or survive. The leader must be capable of anticipating and verifying the analysts results by performing simplied estimates. Other members of this team would have a much narrower knowledge and would work to create nite element models, execute computer programs, try to make sense of the results and create graphical representations. In searching for potential weak spots, traditional computer modeling software is of somewhat limited value. Unless such locations can be anticipated ahead of time, the model of the structure may be constructed in such a way that they are missed, and subsequent simulation will not necessarily point to their existence especially since there are many more weak spots under extreme loads than under normal conditions. In this sense, one can state that the collapse safety of a building hangs, to a large extent, on the insight of the lead analyst. If this person was advanced to the lead position merely on an administrative basis, rather than by virtue of possessing outstanding knowledge, then his or her report will be meaningless.

Critical Expertise
The behavior of structures under strongly dynamic loads, such as explosions, is a difcult subject. Even among the specialists in the eld, knowledge is not uniformly

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

October 2009

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit

distributed in the sense that their know-how overlaps. This means that, given the same structure, not every such specialist will recognize the same weak spots and consequences of local failures. The results of accidental loading analysis are almost always condential. This means that if the work is faulty, it will never be known, except perhaps in a post mortem analysis, after a collapse. What does faulty or incorrect mean? One of the ways to dene it is to say that predictions resulting from such analyses would not agree with physical test results. Unfortunately, most errors are such that they result in unsafe predictions, meaning that the structure is presented as more resilient than it really is. In a minority of cases, where the analysis under-predicts the structural strength, the penalty is relatively small: The requested size of elements to meet a specied threat is larger than necessary. While the reports dealing with postulated explosive attacks and eventual collapses are condential, their authors publish papers, which often reect on their methodology. It is apparent that misconceptions resulting from inadequate knowledge of either structures or dynamics may sometimes be involved. To get the best results possible, the architect or the building owner should carefully investigate

the technical capability of the team leader of the analysts, be it an independent consultant or an employee of a large rm. There are several ways to get a better appreciation of the leaders competence. One is the length of his or her experience; this should include at least 20 years of related engineering work to accumulate enough knowledge helpful in this complex eld. There also is a simple test, which can be conducted in a face-to-face encounter. After the candidate delivers an impressive presentation of computer-aided work, a question can be asked: How much of this could you do if I took your computer away? The proper answer should be something like this: Quite a lot can be done by hand calculations, but it would not be nearly as accurate. Still, it may be sufcient for preliminary estimates, and employing such calculations early could result in substantial cost savings. If, on the other hand, the reaction is a lasting puzzlement, then the persons expertise is much in doubt. One should be aware that the safety and survivability of a structure under extreme conditions relies largely on the expertise of that one person. To improve the odds, the architect or owner should request that the collapse analysis be at least independently reviewed, if not independently conducted again.

As in other cases of engineering endeavor, much depends on the attitude of the project owner. Yet, such attitudes can change remarkably fast, as the author has once witnessed. The owners of a certain industrial project were unhappy about a postulated aircraft impact condition that could affect a sensitive part of the facility. Although forced to engage a specialist to help their engineers address the problem, they thought that such fairy tales should not be imposed on them. Their frustration showed itself in the amount of time that it took them to compensate the specialist for his work. Then came September 11, 2001; the payment was mailed two days later. The structural design team has a role to play, too. Are they really serious about dealing with extreme conditions, or do they just want to demonstrate some attention to the matter? What will their actions be, if they know that two different specialists are likely to give them overlapping, but different opinions? Will they accept less than credible opinions only because the computer says so? The attitude of every inuential person in a project can contribute to the safe and economical design and construction of multistory buildings.

Dr. Gregory Szuladziski, FIEAust (, is the Director of Analytical Service Pty Ltd in Sydney, Australia. STRUCTURE magazine

October 2009

LTBP Program Moving Ahead

By Dr. Hamid Ghasemi and John Penrod, P.E. In April 2008, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) launched a major new strategic initiative, the FHWA Long Term Bridge Performance (LTBP) Program. The LTBP Program is intended to be a 20+ year undertaking, with the global objective of collecting scientic quality data from a representative sample of highway bridges nationwide. The knowledge gained from the LTBP Program will be used to solve a variety of bridge condition assessment and management problems, and to develop new tools and advance knowledge of bridge design, maintenance and preservation. Knowledge and data gained are expected to lead to: 1) Improving knowledge of bridge performance, 2) Determining how and why bridges deteriorate (i.e., advances in deterioration and predictive models), 3) Determining the effectiveness of various maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation strategies, as well as management practices, 4) Determining the effectiveness of durability strategies for new bridge construction including material selection, and 5) Enabling improvements in bridge management practice using quality, quantitative data. The LTBP Program is a large and complex undertaking that requires a well thought out process for its success. The strategic action plan shown in Figure 1 provides the overall direction to the program. The strategic action plan is based on a top down heuristic approach in which Bridge Performance (Step 1 in Figure 1) rst had to be dened and understood before initiating the data collection phase. This is not a linear strategic plan, and
Step 1
Defining Bridge Performance

Step 4
Designing the Experimental Program

Step 3 Step 2
Identifying Data to be Collected Developing Data Management System

Program Objectives

Step 5
Collecting Data

Step 6
Analyzing Data & Developing Predictive Models

Step 7
Disseminating Findings

Figure 1: The Strategic Action Plan for the LTBP Program.

requires quality control and assurance between steps 2 through 6 as needed. This is expected to be an iterative process yielding new information during the life of the program.


Step 1 Dening Bridge Performance

The logical starting point of the LTBP Programs path to a better understanding of bridge performance is to break down bridge performance into specic issues, and to evaluate the existing gaps in knowledge that hinder this understanding. In the early development of the LTBP Program, it was clearly understood that, in dening bridge performance, the program must be responsive to the needs of the primary program stakeholders the state and local Departments of Transportation (DOTs), federal agencies, and private toll authorities, who own and manage the bulk of the nations bridge infrastructure and subsequently to the bridge engineering community at large. These are stakeholders

B rid g e P e rfo rm a nc e

S tru ctu ral C o n dition - D urability and S erviceability

S tructu ral In teg rity - S afety and S tability*

Fu n ctio n ality - U ser safety and Level of Traffic S ervice

C o sts - U sers and A gency

*Stability is a measure of probability of a failure (risk assessment) which may be related to; 1 Scour, settlement and movement; 2 accidents (blasts, impacts and re); 3 Natural hazards; and 4 Structural redundancy. Figure 2: Main Categories of Bridge Performance Issues.

who will apply the knowledge and lessons learned from the LTBP Program. To best serve these stakeholders, one of the early decisions made for the program was to establish an overall denition of bridge performance that addresses four broad categories structural condition, structural integrity, functionality, and costs. Figure 2 illustrates this concept, which is expected to be rened and expanded as the LTBP program moves forward. Many relevant factors combine to affect performance under each of these four main categories. Table 1 lists the relevant factors that might combine to impact the various aspects of bridge performance. Within these categories there are many specic performance issues that are of importance to the bridge community, and that could be studied over the long term to achieve a better understanding. For each of these specic performance issues there are multiple data items that could be gathered to assist in the evaluation of performance. A critical factor in the effort to create a more specic denition of bridge performance was a process of outreach to the state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Focus group meetings were held at the ofces of ten states across the nation. Members of the LTBP research team met with DOT bridge experts who were responsible for design, construction, inspection, management, and maintenance of bridges. The purpose of the meetings was to determine what aspects of bridge performance were the highest priorities from a state DOT perspective. Major ndings from the focus group meetings were remarkably similar from

investigating structures and their components

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

state to state. Around the country, regardless of the geographic region, the highest bridge performance issues related to concrete decks, joints for bridge decks, scour at substructures and deterioration of concrete substructure units. Based on the internal research and the input from stakeholders, 20 bridge performance issues were identied. These performance issues are currently being rened and prioritized. Table 2 presents a number of high priority performance issues.

Table 1: Four Main Categories of Bridge Performance & Relevant Factors.

Steps 2 Through 4
The process by which Step 2 the identication of bridge data to be collected is achieved will be by addressing each high priority bridge performance issue and by identifying the knowledge currently available to analyze each issue, and the critical gaps in current knowledge. This will require identifying the specic parameters that might be useful in characterizing the issue, identifying the methodology required to obtain high quality data for each parameter (i.e., deciding amongst visual inspection, destructive or nondestructive testing, and sensors for short- or long-term monitoring), and adopting/developing specic data protocols for each of the chosen data collection methodologies. continued on next page

Structure type Structural materials & material specications As-built material qualities & current conditions As-built construction qualities & current conditions Trafc loads trucks Structural Condition Environment climate, air quality, marine atmosphere Durability & Serviceability Snow & ice removal operations Type, timing & effectiveness of preventive maintenance Type, timing & effectiveness of restorative maintenance, minor & major rehabilitation Hydraulic design and scour mitigation measures Soil characteristics - settlement

Structural Integrity Safety & Stability

Seismic performance Hurricane and Flood resistance Collision and blast impacts Fire resistance Structural redundancy and load redistribution Structure geometry clear deck width, skew, approach roadway alignment Skid resistance and ride quality of riding surface Vertical clearances over & under Trafc volumes and percentage of trucks Posted speed Users Accident costs Detour & delay costs Agency Initial construction costs Maintenance, repair & rehabilitation costs Trafc maintenance costs

Functionality User Safety & Level of Trafc Service

Costs (User & Agency)

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit

When the design hits a wall, make sure its ours.

Your clients want bigger windows and larger door openings. You want enough wall space to make your designs work. Our Steel Strong-Wall shearwalls provide both. Available in widths as narrow as 12 inches, our engineered and pre-manufactured walls have some of the highest allowable loads in the industry between two and three times higher than our original Wood Strong-Wall shearwalls. And our Steel Strong-Wall shearwalls have multiple uses, including standard single-story, balloon framing and two-story applications. For strong, reliable and code-compliant shearwall solutions, look to Simpson Strong-Tie to keep your projects moving. For updated loads, see our new code report (ICC-ES ESR-1679)visit or call (800) 999-5099.

Balloon Framing Assembly

2009 Simpson

Strong-Tie Company Inc. SSW09-S

Now 2006 IBC Code Listed (ICC-ES ESR-1679)

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

Table 2: High Priority Performance Issues.

Category Decks Joints Steel Bridges Concrete Bridges Scour

Issue Performance of Untreated/Treated Concrete Bridge Decks Performance, Maintenance and Repair of Bridge Deck Joints Performance of Coatings for Steel Superstructure Elements Performance of Embedded or Ducted Prestressing Wires and Post-tensioning Tendons Direct, Reliable, Timely Methods to Measure Scour; Performance of Scour Countermeasures a representation of the typical types of structures and range of environmental conditions experienced throughout the United States. The states selected for the pilot program are California, Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Utah and Virginia. While the Pilot Study will focus heavily on the validation of the protocols, methods and guidelines for data collection, the pilot bridges will not be viewed as independent from the long-term data collection phase. It is important that the selection, instrumentation, and data collection of the Pilot Study bridges be consistent with the objectives of the overall long-term data collection anticipated for the program. This will ensure that the information gathered will feed directly into the long-term phase and provide early results to important questions that can be answered on the basis of the short-term data and knowledge that the program creates. The wealth of data collected through the LTBP Program, and the subsequent data analysis, when combined with legacy data, will pave the way for greater understanding of the Nations overall bridge performance and bridge health. Dr. Hamid Ghasemi manages the FHWA LTBP Program. He has been involved with numerous research studies and projects addressing the needs of the bridge community with emphasis on seismic related issues, structural health monitoring, posthazard evaluation, computer modeling, and structural analysis. He was named FHWAs Engineer of the Year in 2001. Dr. Ghasemi can be reached via email at John Penrod is currently the FHWA LTBP pilot study manager. He has 8-plus years of design experience and is a licensed professional engineer. Mr. Penrod can be reached via email at

Step 2 provides critical input into Steps 3 and 4, and feedback from these steps helps rene and improve the conclusions of Step 2. In Step 3, the LTBP research team developed an open, scalable, and extensible data management and data analysis infrastructure. State-of-the-art data warehousing and data mining techniques will be used to enable an efcient verication and large scale testing of new research hypotheses. Utilizing recent advances in visualization technologies, and to support the varying needs of a large group of potential users, the data infrastructure will include both an interactive, map-based user interface to directly interact with data, and a set of automated interfaces for programmatic access to the data. In addition, the data infrastructure will provide access to raw, unstructured data and will also provide interfaces to obtain clean, high-quality, data that has been pre-processed to support specic analysis tasks. Design the Experimental Program, Step 4, provides the detailed framework for each experimental study developed to address one of the high priority bridge performance issues. The thought process behind each separate study also provides input into the nal stage of Step 2. Once each specic study is designed, the nal approach to collection of data on the critical parameters can be revised as necessary. This may mean eliminating or adding parameters to measure, ne-tuning the data collection protocols, and even modifying the testing frequencies.

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit

The LTBP Program Pilot Study

Concurrent with Steps 2 through 4, the Pilot Study will be initiated. At this point, an extensive array of NDE equipment and sensors for long term monitoring have been selected for use in the program. A protocol for visual inspection of the LTBP bridges has been developed, as well as protocols for each of the testing and monitoring regimens. The Pilot Study will be initiated in the Fall of 2009, with the primary objective being to validate the methods and protocols developed for data collection under the rst phase of the program. The LTBP team selected seven states (with one bridge in each state) that provide STRUCTURE magazine

For more information on the LTBP program, visit, or contact Hamid Ghasemi at FHWA, 202-493-3024 (email:


October 2009

midas for Structural Engineering Solutions

midas Gen
Building & General Structures Design

Building model generation wizard 3-D Construction stage analysis reflecting change in geometry, supports & loadings 3-D Column shortening analysis reflecting change in modulus, creep & shrinkage Wind & Seismic load generation Dynamic, Pushover, Inelastic time history, pre/post-tensioning, cable structures, etc. Design codes: AISC, ACI, CSA, BS, Eurocodes, IS, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc.


Highrise Tower

midas Civil

Integrated Solutions for Bridges & Civil Structures

Segmental PT Bridge

Cable Bridge

Construction stage analysis reflecting change in modulus, creep, shrinkage and all prestress losses. Segmental post-tensioning wizards (Balanced cant., Incrementally launched, span by span, etc.) Cable stayed bridges (forward & backward stage analyses) & cable tuning Dynamic nonlinear dampers & isolators Pushover analysis & Fiber model Live load optimizers to AASHTO LRFD, CAN.CSA-S6, BD37, BS5400, Eurocode 1, IRC, Chinese, Japanese & Korean standards

midas FEA

Advanced Finite Element Nonlinear & Detail Analysis System

Intuitive Geometry Modeling: built-in CAD modeler & various CAD interfaces Easy Mesh Generation: Shell & Solid auto-mesh generators Concrete cracking with reinforcement and tendons placed irrespective of mesh General Heat Transfer & Heat of Hydration CFD model for bridge section profiles Construction stage analysis Nonlinear material, geometry and interface analysis Time History, Dynamic, Buckling, Contact, Fatigue, etc.
US / Canada United Kingdom Netherlands Tel: +1 800 584 5541 Tel: +44 23 9270 4175 Tel: +31 15 276 3250 Email: Email: Email:

Steel Box Bridge

Staged Extradosed Bridge

BIM Power: Interoperability

By Andrew W. Gayer, P.E., S.E., LEED AP, M. ASCE If one were to compile a list of the latest buzzwords for the A/E/C industry, BIM (Building Information Modeling) would arguably be at the top of that list. As structural engineers who are continually searching for ways to produce project deliverables better and more efciently, we are naturally curious about BIM and have a lot of questions: What is it? Does it really work as advertised? How does it help my rm be more accurate, efcient, and protable? Can it really help me today? With all that is promised by BIM, structural engineers could be justly excused if they feel overwhelmed by the visions of grandeur surrounding the topic. But, of all the advantages that BIM offers to the industry, interoperability is one promise that is delivering real benets today. Imagine, if you will, the following scenario Your rm has just landed a hot new project: a multi-story, steel framed ofce building atop a multi-story, post-tensioned, cast-in-place concrete podium that is on a fast-track schedule. The project is located in a high seismic region and the local building ofcial requires a push-over analysis. Also planned for a portion of the ofce tower is a tness center, which will offer aerobics classes throughout the day. Due to the fast-track schedule, both the structural steel fabricator and the concrete formwork supplier have made requests to obtain your 3-D model, in lieu of paper drawings, on a weekly basis during the design process in order to get a head-start on their detailing. At the same time, the construction manager is requiring weekly
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues











Figure 1: Potential interoperabillity work ows.

updates of structural quantities in order to maintain control over the budget, which is of primary importance to the project developer. In an effort to eliminate waste and duplication of effort, you decide to utilize a BIM process for all structural modeling and documentation. The analysis and design can then proceed through a series of round trip efforts through the various structural analysis software packages being used, each retrieving from and storing to the structural BIM database as required. The utilization of BIM also allows you to

Figure 2: Dialog box for exporting from Revit Structure to RAM Structural System.

share, via weekly emails or ftp updates, a highly accurate 3-D model with the subcontractors while also providing the construction manager the ability to pull material takeoffs for cost estimating. Does the BIM solution to the project sound too fantastic to be real? Do you not believe that the technology exists today to perform such seamless integration? A data rich structural BIM database offers a multitude of opportunities to save time and money, while increasing accuracy by capitalizing on the interoperability capabilities of the BIM software (Figure 1). Whether the interoperability a structural engineer seeks is upstream with the architect linking the structural BIM into the architectural BIM for clash detection, sidestream with the structural engineer automating data transfer of steel beam design (e.g. beam size, studs, camber, and end reactions), or downstream with the contractor pulling quantities directly from the structural BIM, the technology does exist today to exploit the use of BIM for a structural engineers interoperability needs. Structural engineers will typically use BIM interoperability in many different forms. The easiest and simplest form of interoperability is by using software that can directly read the proprietary Figure 3: Dialog box for Importing from RAM le format native to the BIM software application. One example of this direct Structural System to Revit Structure. interoperability comes when different


STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

applications of the same software suite are being used, such as when a structural engineer links a Revit MEP model into the Revit Structure model in order to coordinate piping penetrations. A second example is an outgrowth of BIM software vendor agreements to share their proprietary le formats (i.e. the announcement by Autodesk and Bentley to advance A/E/C software interoperability in July 2008). This type of interoperability, while very powerful and easy to use, is also very limited. Seldom do structural engineers perform all of their work using tools from the same software vendor, nor do they hold sway over software use decisions of other design team members. A second type of interoperability comes when software vendors incorporate an Application Programming Interface (API) into their product. An API is a set of routines, data structures, object classes and protocols provided by libraries in order to support the building of applications. By exposing a well dened set of functions, the BIM software vendor allows other software vendors, as well as structural engineers to develop an interface between the BIM software and various other computer programs. Many software companies and structural engineers have taken advantage of this form of interoperability to write translation programs that allow linking of data between a structural BIM and structural analysis software. For example, Bentley has created an interface between Autodesks Revit Structure and Bentleys RAM Structural System that allows for round-tripping of design data. By using the link software (which relies on APIs in both Revit Structure and RAM Structural System), a structural engineer can begin the modeling process in Revit Structure, export the BIM geometry to RAM Structural System (Figure 2), cleanup the transferred geometry and add loads, design the beams, and then send the updated beam sizes, camber, and end reactions back to Revit Structure (Figure 3). The structural engineer can then reframe a bay around a new stair opening in the structural BIM and perform the transfer process all over again. This process allows a structural engineer to take full advantage of interoperability with the structural BIM to eliminate mistakes common to the engineer/red-mark/drafter/backcheck traditional workow. While interoperability through APIs is exible and very common today, it does require many different translators to be written (one for each different program that wants to interact with the BIM software). Also, if the API is poorly written or does not expose the proper functions, its usefulness will be degraded. For example, when transferring data from Computer and Structures ETABS to Revit Structure,

material properties that were modied in ETABS will not be updated in Revit Structure because the Revit Structure 2009 API does not allow updating of material property parameters. Finally, a third type of interoperability comes when software vendors support the use of open data exchange formats. Through the use of open standards, such as the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC), all software vendors can concentrate on creating one translation application which can serve many different programs. The IFC specication is a neutral data format to describe, exchange, and share information typically used within the build-

ing and facility management industry sector. The IFC specication is developed and maintained by buildingSMART International ( An example of where the open standards approach has been successfully implemented is the steel industrys development of CIMSteel Integration Standards (CIS/2). In developing the CIS/2 standard, the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) created an open le format that can be written and read by many different types of software applications (e.g. BIM, structural analysis, detailing, fabrication) very easily. continued on next page

Powder Primed T ubing

Cut it. Weld it. Paint it. Ship it.
Are you ready to uncover more profit? EPOX Z KOTE:

Square 1.5" 2" 7" 8" Square x1 1" 10" xx 4" Rectangle 2" 3" x /" 10" 4" Rectangle Round 1.25 NPS 8 NPS Round 2 NPS 8 NPS through .500 Square, .083 Rectangle & Round Gauges in a wide variety up to 42'of gauges. Lengths
1 2

Now Available!

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit

Weld spatter doesnt stick No VOCs or harmful fumes No special welding procedures Reduces cleaning & preparation Compatible with powder & paint systems Save space, store EPOX Z KOTE outdoors!
Division of the John Maneely Company MADE WITH PRIDE - IN AMERICA -

USA 800-733-5683 CANADA 800-265-6912

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

While interoperability through open standards is full of promise, the lack of robust infrastructure and limited implementation surrounding predened exchange formats limits its usability. As such, efforts like the ATC-75 Project are currently underway to augment the current IFC denitions to enhance their usefulness for structural applications. In the A/E/C industry today, structural engineers are under an ever increasing set of demands to produce work faster, at less cost, and with higher quality. By our nature, structural engineers are problem solvers and continually search for ways to leverage the latest technology to produce our work. Today, that includes embracing BIM and interoperability. However, as described above, there is no one standard method for achieving interoperability; likewise, there is no standard denition of what structural engineers expect interoperability to be. But as the software industry progresses from direct le formats, through APIs, to fully embracing open standards, structural engineers can use the power of BIM to develop their own unique process of software interface that works best for their rm today. APIs and IFCs will be expanded as the subject of a future article.

Tekla Structures image showing a critical lift and crane sequence at the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts. Courtesy of Ruby + Associates, Inc.

Andrew W. Gayer, P.E., S.E., LEED AP, M. ASCE, is a Vice President and a Structural Engineering Principal with HOK in St. Louis, MO. He can be reached at Andrew is a member of the Joint SEI-CASE Committee on Building Information Modeling (

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit


Review for the Illinois State Board of Examination November 9, 2009April 5, 2010

The Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (SEAOI) offers an in-depth review of structural engineering principles and applications to help prepare candidates for the Illinois Structural Engineers State Board Examination (to be held April 1617, 2010). Classes are taught by practicing structural engineers with experience as university faculty and in professional practice. Continuing Education credits are available for many sessions. Geotechnical Design Earthquake-Resistant Design Structural Steel Design Structural Concrete Masonry Bridge Design Timber Design Exam Details November 9, 12, 16, 2009 November 19, 23, 30, December 3, 7, 10, 2009 December 14, 17, 21, 2009, January 4, 7, 11, 14, 21, 25, 28, February 1, 2010 February 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 22, 25, March 1, 2010 March 4, 8, 2010 March 11, 15, 18, 2010 March 22, 25, 29, April 1, 2010 April 5, 2010



This course, either in its entirety, or by particular content area, can be accessed via the Web. Continuing education credit may be available. The course will be offered in downtown Chicago. All sessions are from 6:007:45 p.m. on Mondays and Thursdays. The cost is $1,250 for the entire course ($1,100 for SEAOI members). For a particular content area, the cost is $85 per session ($75 for members). Contact the SEAOI office at 312.726.4165 x200 or visit the website at
STRUCTURE magazine



October 2009

Dont let your plans go sideways.

Strong Frame ordinary moment frames

Wood and Steel Strong-Wall shearwalls

Anchor Tiedown System

Whether youre designing a custom home or a light-frame multi-story building, Simpson Strong-Tie has the lateral-force resisting system to t your project and help hold it together during a wind or seismic event. Our code-listed Wood and Steel Strong-Wall shearwalls allow for narrow wall sections while providing high loads. Our Anchor Tiedown Systems are restrained (tied off) at each oor level to provide the necessary load capacity and overturning resistance for mid-rise buildings. And our new Strong Frame ordinary moment frames are engineered in 196 congurations to save you time and create larger wall openings. Learn how our entire line of Lateral Systems can keep your projects standing tall and strong. Visit or call (800) 999-5099.

2009 Simpson

Strong-Tie Company Inc. LATSYTM09-S

Accelerated Bridge Construction Keeps Tappan Zee Bridge Open

By Helena Tam, P.E., Mohammad Shams, Ph.D., and Kenneth Standig, P.E.

Aerial photo of Tappan Zee Bridge. Courtesy of New York State Thruway Authority.

ocated 13 miles north of New York City, the 53-year old Tappan Zee Bridge is a 3-mile long Hudson River crossing connecting the New York State communities of Nyack and Tarrytown. The bridge is part of Interstates 87 and 287 and with an annual average daily trafc of 140,000 vehicles, reaching 170,000 vehicles a day during major holidays, is considered heavily travelled. This is signicantly more than the 18,000 vehicles the bridge averaged daily when it went into service in 1955. The aging bridge deck experienced more than 100 punch-throughs (holes) from 2002 to 2003. Without bridge deck replacement, the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) estimated more than 900 punch-throughs would occur annually by 2020. The NYSTA held a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-sponsored Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT) workshop in 2005 to afrm its approach to use prefabricated systems to quickly repair deteriorating bridge decks with minimum disruption to trafc. The FHWA selected this project for the following reasons: the immediate need for the repairs; the function of the bridge as a lifeline structure connecting New York City to points north and west; the limitations imposed by an unremitting trafc stream; and its trafc volume. The entire bridge consists of four types of structural systems. The main span is a central 2,400-foot three-span through truss. There is a 3,100-foot-long deck truss to the east of the central truss and a 1,750-foot-long deck truss to the west. Finally, there is an 8,300-footlong steel stringer-supported causeway at the western extent of the bridge. The bridge is seven lanes wide, with three lanes northbound (NB), three lanes southbound (SB), and a center lane that can be converted into either direction via a movable barrier system to accommodate rush hour trafc. HDR was retained to work with NYSTA staff to implement the recommendations of the ACTT conference. HDR was responsible for designing the deck replacement for the outer two lanes for both the NB and SB directions of the main span over the navigation channel, as well as the West Deck Truss, while NYSTA staff designed the deck replacement for the outer two lanes in each direction on the causeway. The central three lanes, which exhibit less deck deterioration, are programmed for replacement at a later date.

Project Description
The scope of work called for replacing the concrete deck plus its supporting stringers with a prefabricated superstructure system for the two-outer lanes for the Northbound and the Southbound lanes. The stringers were included as part of the prefabricated deck panels to enhance constructability by making handling and installation easier. This ensured that sections of the bridge deck could be removed, replaced and opened to trafc within a single night work shift. The innovative pre-engineered panels also included saw-cut grooving, permanent steel barriers, and pavement striping, making them ready for the immediate use of the roadway. Tolerances between existing/new and new/new panels were tight enough that a simple joint system could be employed, thus eliminating an additional construction stage.
Installation of exterior precast deck panel, including permanent steel barrier, at main span, ready for vehicles to ride on in the morning.

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

Social, Economic, Sustainable Design Consideration

As a result of the stringent trafc criteria, the deck replacement scheme was developed with strict limitations on lane closures to minimize trafc delays. (The contractor was required to open all lanes at the end of each night shift, in time for the morning rush hour, and was subject to penalties of a minimum of $500 per minute for missing the deadline.) Three local contractors were contacted during preparation of the design to obtain feedback on the construction staging sequence and associated productivity rates. Based on these meetings, each prefabricated module was designed to be supported by two steel stringers with a concrete edge beam. They were sized to cover one lane of trafc, making it easy to lift and handle for installation during a single overnight shift. Also, since the deck of the main span and the West Deck Truss are at high elevations Deck panels are fabricated in this large precast plant in New Jersey. above the river, and because of the overhead members of the through truss, delivery from a barge was not practical. Therefore, the overall size of the deck module was determined based Y O U B U I L D I T. on roadway delivery constraints. Panels were W E L L P R O T E C T I T. transferred from atbed trucks and set in place using on-roadway or barge-mounted cranes.

The West Deck Truss

The West Deck Truss (WDT) consists of two longitudinal main trusses with a length of 250 feet per span. The transverse oorbeam trusses are spaced at 25 feet, connecting to the longitudinal main trusses. Fifteen steel stringers support the 6-inch thick concrete deck. The stringers are continuous over the 250-foot length of the main trusses. The stringers are connected to the top chord of the oorbeam trusses using steel bearing stools. The location of cut lines in the deck were determined based on three considerations: a) pre-cutting of the existing deck can be performed during the daytime work shift, b) eliminating temporary and permanent support for the remaining three-inner lanes, and c) minimizing the temporary support for the existing outer lanes. A comprehensive work procedure was developed to ensure that the two adjacent outer lanes could be replaced during one night work shift. continued on next page


Stand firm. Dont settle for less than the seismic protection of Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers. As a world leader in the science of shock isolation, we are the team you want between your structure and the undeniable forces of nature. Others agree. Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers are currently providing earthquake, wind, and motion protection on more than 240 buildings and bridges. From the historic Los Angeles City Hall to Mexicos Torre Mayor and the new Shin-Yokohama High-speed Train Station in Japan, owners, architects, engineers, and contractors trust the proven technology of Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers.

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit

Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers give you the seismic protection you need and the architectural freedom you want.
w w w. t a y l o r d e v i c e s . c o m

North Tonawanda, NY 14120 - 0748 Phone: 716.694 .0800 Fax: 716.695 .6015

Barge-mounted crane is used to replace deck. Courtesy of New York State Thruway Authority.

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

Main Span
The main span consists of deep oorbeams which are connected to the bottom chord of the through truss at approximately 34-foot spacing. Fifteen steel stringers span between the two adjacent oorbeams. A 6-inch thick concrete deck is supported by the steel stringers. The same design approach as the WDT was employed for the deck replacement in the main span portion of the bridge. Due to the complexity of the main span structural system, and to ensure that the deck replacement for two adjacent outer lanes can be accomplished during one nightly work shift, new seat brackets for the new stringers were placed between existing stringers. This operation was performed prior to the deck removal during daytime work shift. Figure 1 shows a typical seat bracket installed for the new stringers. An expansion joint detail was developed to prevent out-ofplane bending of the oorbeams due to the thermal movement of stringers.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit

Figure 1: Installed seat bracket at Main Span.

Steel Bearing Stools Rehabilitation

The project also provided an opportunity to address a long-standing problem of cracking in the fabricated steel bearing stools supporting the stringers in the West Deck Truss. This involved the replacement of 500 steel stub columns, or stools, in the superstructure that are cracking. HDR utilized three-dimensional (3-D) Finite Element (FE) modeling for the analysis of these overstressed structural components. The stool components were modeled both globally as one span of the truss structure, and locally as the stringer with its stool connections to determine the overall solution to the problem (Figure 2). Over the years, engineers had stiffened the columns in an attempt to prevent further cracking; however, the computer analysis determined that an opposite approach was necessary. A connection detail was designed

that includes elastomeric bearing pads and slotted bolt holes to increase the exibility of the columns connections. The new connection details enable the columns to continue to support the same vertical elements, but also allow them to ex with the bending movements that the bridge experiences.

A Successful Project
Exceptional team work between the bridge owner, designers, fabricators and the contractor was needed to complete this successful Accelerated Bridge Construction project. Up to 18 deck panels were replaced during one nightly work shift without incurring a single morning trafc delay. Helena Tam, P.E. is a Project Engineer in HDRs Manhattan ofce. She can be reached at Mohammad Shams, Ph.D. is a Professional Associate in HDRs Manhattan ofce. He can be reached at Kenneth Standig, P.E. is a Vice President in HDRs Manhattan ofce. He can be reached at

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the New York State Thruway Authority Engineering Division: Christopher Waite, Jay Wagner, Mike Cox and Gary Tatro, and NY Division: Theodore Nadratowski and Charlie Johnson for their support and guidance. The authors would also like to thank the HDR design team, Jeffrey Han and Boris Ofenheim who made the design possible.

Figure 2: Finite Element model of existing bearing stool and stringer system.

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

Creating the Ideal Bridge for Phoenix Sky Harbors Taxiway Sierra
By Ted Bush, P.E., S.E., Kent Bormann, P.E., S.E. and Rob Turton, P.E., S.E.

The new Taxiway Sierra Bridge at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix. Courtesy of Richard Strange.

ridges built to accommodate airplane trafc are becoming more common throughout the United States. Existing airport site constraints have forced the use of runway and taxiway bridges to carry aircraft across roadways, railroads or other facilities. Airside design issues vary signicantly from those encountered in the design of traditional highway and railroad bridges. Issues regarding applicable design specications, bridge geometry, aircraft loading and other Federal Aviation Administration requirements need to be addressed by the designer to assure a long-lasting and low-maintenance facility.

Taxiway Sierra Underpass

A new ve-span cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete box girder underpass was recently constructed as part of a $35 million design-build project for the City of Phoenix. The project consisted of reconstructing Taxiway Sierra at Sky Harbor International Airport, which included replacing the taxiway pavement and the two single-span reinforced concrete rigid-frame structures. The new 406-foot-long continuous taxiway bridge spans both eastbound and westbound Sky Harbor Boulevard and provides three interior spans for future under-deck use.

Planning Considerations
During the planning phase, the City of Phoenix was consulted to determine specic airside and landside constraints and concerns.
1 0 33 6 Clear Zone 106 0 35 0 Shoulder 11 1 37 6 Taxiway Constr. C L

Through discussions, the design team identied several structure goals for the Taxiway Sierra Reconstruction project. First, the client wanted to minimize interruptions to airside and landside operations during construction. Shutting down Taxiway Sierra to reconstruct the bridge would increase congestion on other taxiways. In addition, the falsework and drilling operations necessary to construct the bridge required detours and lane closures that would signicantly impact Sky Harbor Boulevard motorists. Second, the design team needed to provide an aesthetically compatible, cost-effective and maintenance-free facility. Taxiway Tango Underpass, located approximately 100 feet from Taxiway Sierra, is a cast-inplace post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge that has required no maintenance during its 15 years of operation. The owner wanted the new Taxiway Sierra Bridge to be just as trouble-free and compatible with the adjacent bridge and facilities. Finally, the design needed to eliminate potential conict with future facilities. An area beneath the Taxiway Tango Bridge was being used for parking, and the owner was interested in using future under-deck areas as revenue-generating facilities. To meet these goals, the following superstructure types were considered during the type, size and location phase of the project: Cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete box girder Precast prestressed concrete I-girder Precast prestressed concrete box girder
106 0 37 6 Taxiway 2 0 Profile Grade Line Taxiway Centerline Lighting 35 0 Shoulder 11 1 Taxiway Edge Lighting 1% Slope Conc. Curb Edge of Deck 33 6 Clear Zone 1 0

214 0

Edge of Deck

Conc. Curb

Taxiway Edge 1 2 diam. Lighting Utility Conduit (Taxiway Edge Lighting) 1% Slope

6 0

6 4 diam. Utility Conduits (Future FAA Communications)

4 2 diam. Utility Conduits (Future Airfield Power)

5 4 diam. Utility Conduits (Future APS)

Cast-in-Place Post-Tensioned Conc. Box Girder

1 2 diam. Utility Conduit (Future Taxiway Centerline Lighting)

1 2 diam. Utility Conduit (Taxiway Edge Lighting)

4 4 diam. Utility Conduits (Future City Communications)

1 6 diam. Cont. Steel Casing Pipe (SW Gas) 4 4 diam. Utility Conduits (Future FAA Communications)

Figure 1: Typical bridge section. STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

Steel girders were not considered due to the relatively high cost of steel in the Phoenix area, and the perceived aesthetic incompatibility with adjacent concrete facilities. The precast girders offered several advantages, the most prominent being reduced taxiway closure time and ease of construction. Dapped-end variations of the precast girder alternatives were also considered to optimize vertical clearance and minimize impact to future under-deck facilities. The cast-in-place posttensioned concrete box girder option offered consistent aesthetics with the adjacent box girder bridge, optimal vertical clearance, reasonable construction cost and minimal maintenance. A detailed analysis of the alternatives was performed in collaboration with the City of Phoenix and included the following considerations: Cost Taxiway closure time Potential use of under-deck area Constructability Aesthetics Serviceability As a result of the alternative analysis, a cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge was selected.


20 MAX (6m) (2m) 8 60 min 100 max (18m) (30m)


70 min (21m)

55 max (17m) 20 (6m)


The typical bridge section shown in Figure 1 illustrates how the airside requirements were addressed by the design team. A bridge width of 214 feet was used to meet the taxiway safety area width requirement for a Design Group V aircraft. The structure was designed to maintain full strength across its full-width to accommodate service and emergency vehicles, and potentially errant aircraft. Curbs were provided at the edge of each deck to divert drainage and help restrain wayward vehicles. Taxiway centerline and edge lighting were spaced along the deck as
30 max (9 m)

70 min (21m)

20 (6 m)

Figure 2: Typical design aircraft gear congurations.

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009


were used at these piers to transfer the longitudinal braking force. The bridge length required for this project resulted in the use of non-integral abutments. Aircraft surcharge forces acting 12 ft 7 in on the abutment resulted in a 5-foot-thick stemwall and (3.84 m) 36 in (0.91 m) 36 ft 1 in two rows of drilled shafts (Figure 5). Seismic loading did (11.00 m) not control the substructure design/detailing because the 41 ft 4 in bridge is located in a low seismic region. (12.60 m) Both an approach slab and anchor slab were used at the ends 44 in (1.12 m) (Typical) of the bridge. An approach slab thickness of 20 inches was re(NOT TO SCALE) quired to satisfy exural demands from aircraft loads. An anchor slab was used between the approach pavement and the bridge approach slab. A 3-inch-wide expansion joint was specied 58 in (1.47 m) at the end of the approach slab, and a doweled expansion joint (Typical) Figure 3: Boeing 747-400 gear conguration. was provided at the end of the anchor slab. required to meet FAA lighting requirements. Additional conduits were Several constructability issues were addressed during design. Heavy placed within the cross-section for under-deck lighting, future power reinforcing requirements at pier caps, column connections and abutment and communication utilities. anchorages required special detailing to avoid congestion and ensure The project design specications referenced the following documents: adequate concrete consolidation. Other construction considerations inFAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5320- cluded airside and landside staging/phasing. 6D, American Concrete Institute (ACI) 343R-95 and American Lessons Learned Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO) A one-step design-build delivery method provides a signicant tool to Standard Specications for Highway Bridges. The design criteria specied a design aircraft gross weight of 1.5 million pounds, based on a Boeing owners. This approach allows owners to ensure they are working with 747-400 conguration. A vertical force equal to 30 percent of the design a quality delivery team selected solely on the basis of qualication, and aircraft weight was added to the live load to account for impact, and a that they receive a fair price negotiated based upon an agreed-to scope longitudinal braking force equal to 75 percent of the design aircraft and schedule while administering only one contract. The needs and weight was also applied to the structure. Load factors from AASHTO desires of the owner and the design-builder (contractor and engineer) are best served when all parties are committed to the success of the were used to establish the factored design demands. ACI 343R-95 effective width provisions were used to distribute live project as a team from the outset, and hold themselves to task through loading to the bridge deck. The 15-inch deck slab was sized for punching completion despite issues that inevitably arise in any construction effort. Not all bridges are created equal. No project should be entered shear and exural requirements. Transverse exural reinforcement was determined using a wheel load conguration consistent with the gear into with preconceived solutions that are not based solely on what is congurations for the design aircraft shown in Figures 2 (page 23) and best for that project. And when a project presents somewhat unique 3. Drop beams were added at lighting locations to effectively transfer circumstances whether it be due to site constraints or technical requirements assuming that standard practice, congurations, wheel loads to the adjacent girders. The girders were designed using the distribution factor provisions of methods and solutions are appropriate is especially unwise. Clearly, ACI 343R-95. The distribution factor was based on the number of the nature of aircraft loading for the Taxiway Sierra Reconstruction girder webs that were located within the landing gear footprint. This effort required a project-specic look into the demands placed on the distribution factor was veried by using a three-dimensional nite structure in order to properly design a facility that will stand the test element model that satised the rened analysis requirements of the of time. An approach that would have implemented a design based on ACI code. The design aircraft was positioned transversely across the standard practice rather than seeking to apply the laws of nature would full bridge width to determine the live loading effects. Thirty-seven webs have resulted in a design that was inappropriate. But while you look for new solutions, do not ignore historical precedent. with a spacing of 5 feet, 11 inches and a total post-tensioning jacking The history of a solution, whether it be positive or otherwise, is part of force of 87,800 kips were used to support the design aircraft. The substructure consisted of four piers and two abutments supported the body of knowledge that we have to continually seek out and draw on drilled shafts. Figure 4 shows Piers 1 and 4 in elevation. Wide columns upon in order to ensure that engineers are advancing the profession and
C L Col. Conc. Curb C L Col. C L Col. Constr. C L & C L Col. C L Col. C L Col. C L Col.

78 ft 11.5 in (24.07 m)

10 ft 1 in (3.07 m)

Utility Openings in Pier Cap See Sheet S4.3

Utility Openings in Pier Cap See Sheet S4.3

Conc. Curb

Approx. Fin. Grade

Utility Openings in Pier Cap See Sheet S4.3

Pier Cap See Sheet S4.3

4 0 x 10 0 Conc. Column

Utility Openings in Pier Cap See Sheet S4.3

Utility Openings in Pier Cap. See Sheet S4.3

Utility Openings in Pier Cap. See Sheet S4.3

Elev. 1099.00. Typ. (Bott. of Ftg.) 6 0 diam. Drilled Shaft. Typ. 110 320 320 320 320 320 320 110 8 0 x 12 0 Pier Footing

Figure 4: Elevation for piers 1 and 4.

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

C L Brg. Abut.
1 /2 Bituminous Joint Filler with Sealant

1 3 9

19 20

Deck Joint Blockout Constr. Joint Expansion Restrainer

Approach Slab Backwall to be constructed after superstructure has been post-tensioned

2 0

providing the taxpayers the best possible return on their investment. In the case of this project, the performance of the adjacent Taxiway Tango, which preceded the Taxiway Sierra reconstruction by approximately 15 years, served as testimony to a solution and a basis from which to improve that solution.

Backwall Constr. Jt. Roughen to 1/4 amplitude

Designing bridges for aircraft requires several unique considerations when compared to their highway and railroad counterparts. The development of a project design specication, meeting airside and landside geometry requirements, and designing the structural components for the transfer of large aircraft loads are all factors that must be considered during design. Having early discussions with the owner and providing adequate consideration to the type, size and location of the bridge can save time and cost and will lead to the overall success of the project. Ted Bush, P.E., S.E., is a structural engineer in HDRs Boise ofce. He can be reached at


Geocomposite Drain
5 6 12 6 4 0

Rustication Conc. Barrier Weep Hole

Constr. Jt. Roughen to 1/4 amplitude

5 0

3 6 11 0 C L Drilled Shaft 22 0

4 0

3 6 C L Drilled Shaft

Abut. Footing 5 0 diam. Drilled Shaft. Typ.

Kent Bormann, P.E., S.E., is a senior bridge engineer in Phoenix. He can be reached at Rob Turton, P.E., S.E., is HDRs director of bridges and structures. He can be reached at

Figure 5: Abutment section.

The authors would like to thank the City of Phoenix Aviation Department, as well as the contractor, Kiewit Western, and civil engineer, Dibble & Associates.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

Work quickly. Work simply. Work accurately.

StructurePoints Productivity Suite of powerful software tools for reinforced concrete analysis & design

Finite element analysis & design 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

Analysis, design & investigation of reinforced concrete beams & slab systems

Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade

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 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

STR 6-09

award winners and outstanding projects

I-280 Veterans Glass City Skyway

A Proud Display of a Communitys Vision
By Daniel Meyer, P.E. and Denney Pate, P.E. Toledo, Ohios I-280 Veterans Glass City Skyway opened to trafc on June 24, 2007, realizing the communitys vision and hope for over 20 years. The Ohio Department of Transportations (ODOT) new high-level signature cable-stay bridge carries interstate trafc previously routed across the Craig Memorial Bridge, one of the last remaining movable bridges in the interstate system, to ease congestion through the city while maintaining the shipping corridor to the Port of Toledo. The entire $237 Million project encompasses 2.75 miles of ramps, roadway and cable-stayed bridge for a total of 1.2 million square feet of bridge deck. The 440-foot tall pylon is the focal point, with the top 196 feet featuring four sides of custom designed glass to honor the communitys historical glass industry.

384 LED xtures behind the glass. Light shows change with the seasons, holidays and special events to provide dynamic nightly displays and capture the communitys preference for distinctive feature lighting.

An Inventive Solution
To achieve the desired pylon shape and ODOTs desire for a sustainable, easy to maintain design, a revolutionary new cablestayed cradle system was developed that allows for complete replaceability of individual cable stays and a sleek, elegant pylon size. The cable stay strands are carried continuously from the bridge deck through the cradle in the pylon and back to the opposite side of the bridge deck. Each cable-stay strand is housed in its own pipe inside the curved cradle. The pipes are grouted into place, but the strands can be replaced individually and act independently. Extensive testing of the cradle system proved that interaction among the stays is eliminated in the curved portion and allowed for an increase in stay size of more than 70% to 156 strands, the largest in the world. In addition, removing the stay anchorages from the pylon allowed for a more slender pylon shape. The cradle system streamlined construction and simplied maintenance over the 100+ year service life of the structure. Individual strands of any of the 20 stays can be removed, inspected and replaced at any time while trafc remains in operation. The easily replaceable strands will also allow for the use of new strand materials in the future.

The Glass City

Collaboration between the Toledo Arts Council, the Maumee River Crossing Task Force, ODOT, the Design Consultant Team and the community developed into the bridge design based on a theme of Glass, paying homage to the citys heritage as a glassmanufacturing leader. Sculpted pier and pylon shapes, a fanned stay arrangement with stainless steel sheathing, and other stainless steel elements were chosen. Prismatic pier and pylon shapes and a consistent concrete color create harmony throughout the length of the project. The outcome of the public voting also resulted in the use of specialty glass on all four sides of the top 196 feet of the pylon. The glass reects the sky during the day, and transmits the specialty light designs at night created by

members resulted in streamlined shapes while achieving the best strength and durability. Approach spans carry three lanes of trafc in each direction, with safety shoulders. The 9foot deep segmental box girders were cast with 6,000 psi concrete and set into place using span-by-span construction. An integral wearing surface with bi-directional post-tensioning increases the durability of the riding surface. The main span features a single 440-foot tall pylon centered between 612-foot spans to provide 120-feet of vertical clearance over the Maumee River. The single plane of stays is accomplished through the use of precast delta frames, another FIGG innovation for cablestay bridges. High-performance, 10,000 psi concrete was used for the pylon. Temporary piers and span-by-span construction built spans up to the pylon, and cantilever construction completed the main span, extending out from the pylon.

A Vision Becomes Reality

Today, Toledos vision is an integral part of the skyline, carrying interstate trafc across the Maumee River into downtown. The stainless steel cable-stay sheathing shimmers in the sunlight, complementing the reections in the pylons custom glass. The Skyway proudly displays the communitys vision for honoring their glass heritage and shines brightly as a symbol for their future. Daniel Meyer, P.E. is an Area Engineer for the Ohio Department of Transportation, District 2 and was the Resident Engineer for the Veterans Glass City Skyway Project. Dan may be reached at W. Denney Pate, P.E. is a Senior Vice President and Principal Bridge Engineer with FIGG and is credited with the creation of the cradle system. He serves on the PTI Cable Stayed Bridge Committee, the FHWA Virtual Bridge Committee, is a professional engineer in 16 states and certied by NCEES. Denney may be reached at

Urban Aesthetics
Weaving through the heart of Toledo, this urban structure was established to be in context with the site and in harmony with the surrounding environment. Precast concrete segmental technology allowed casting of the bridge superstructure off-site, so that construction could be accomplished within the limited right-of-way. High-performance concrete for all structural

The Cradle System (Patent No. US 6,880,193) allows strands to act independently so they can be removed, inspected, and replaced at any time while trafc keeps moving.

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Seventeenth Annual Conference

Scottsdale, Arizona News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

October 15-17, 2009

This optional track is available at an additional cost of $150
7:00 7:45 a.m. 7:45 9:00 a.m. Breakfast BIM Pilot Project Revisited Chris Perry, CADsoft Consulting, Inc. 9:00 10:15 a.m. New Risks/New Rules Best Practices for New Project Delivery Methods, P. Douglas Folk, Attorney, Folk & Associates, P.C. 10:15 10:30 a.m. Break 10:30 11:30 a.m. Oh No Did We Check our Software Results? Brian Quinn & Lisa Willard, SE Solutions, LLC 11:30 12:45 p.m. Lunch and Hilti, Inc. Presentation: Modern Steel Deck Fastening, William Gould, P.E., SCI, CCA 12:45 2:00 p.m. Structural Modeling: An Essential Skill for Engineers, Amber Freund, RISA Technologies 2:00 3:15 p.m. Its Here: A New Era of Integrated Software, Jason Reichel, Bentley Systems RAM 3:15 4:00 p.m. Break Exhibit Hall Open 4:00 5:15 p.m. Evaluation and Modication of Existing Steel Joists and Joist Girders, Bruce Brothersen & Mark Perry, Steel Joist Institute

Wednesday, October 14, Meetings

9:00 5:00 p.m. 1:00 5:00 p.m. Board Meeting Basic Education Committee Meeting

Thursday, October 15, Lecture Program

Thursday, October 15, Committee Meetings and Forums*

8:30 10:30 a.m. 1:00 5:00 p.m. Basic Education Forum Advocacy Committee SEER Committee Seismic Subcommittee SI/QA Subcommittee NCSEA/SEI Licensing Committees Advocacy Media presentation** Licensing Forum

2:00 5:00 p.m. 4:00 5:00 p.m. 5:00 6:00 p.m.

*Attendees are encouraged to sit in on Committee meetings and presentations, as well as participate in Forums. **Presenter Alice Burgess helps individuals and organizations communicate effectively with the media and the public. A former reporter and a long-time public relations consultant and media coach, Alice will share insight and details about how members of the media operate, and how to work with them for maximum effectiveness and minimal stress.

Hotel Information

Radisson Fort McDowell Resort

10438 North Fort McDowell Road Scottsdale, AZ 85264 For reservations, call the hotel directly at 480-789-7046 or 800-395-7046, or visit

Thursday, October 15, Evening Event

5:00 6:00 p.m. 6:00 8:00 p.m. Registration Welcome Reception in the Exhibit Hall for Conference Attendees

Friday, October 16, Conference Program

7:00 7:30 a.m. 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast Exhibit Hall Open PLAN Presentation Breakfast Exhibit Hall Open PLAN Presentation

Track I
8:00 9:15 a.m. Philosophy and Structural Engineering Jon A. Schmidt, Burns & McDonnell Lessons Learned in Forensic And Rescue Engineering

Track II
Around the Bend: What You Need to Know About Steel Bending Monica Stockman, AISC Serviceability for Steel Floors Greg Schindler, KPFF Consulting Engineers Break Exhibit Hall Open Lunch and Presentation by SidePlate Systems, Inc. Structural Changes to the 2009 IBC Ed Huston, Smith & Huston, Inc. Consulting Engineers Break Exhibit Hall Open Lessons Learned in Post-Tensioning Jim Rogers, Evaluation and Certication Services, LLC Investigation of I-35W Bridge Collapse Mark Chauvin, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates


9:15 10:30 a.m.

Fred Nelson, Gervasio & Associates

Scott Nacheman, Thornton Tomasetti 10:30 11:45 a.m. 11:45 1:00 p.m. 1:00 2:15 p.m. 2:15 2:45 p.m. 2:45 4:00 p.m. 4:00 5:00 p.m. Break Exhibit Hall Open Lunch and Presentation by SidePlate Systems, Inc. 911 Responders and Structural Risk Joseph Tortorella, Robert Silman Associates Break Exhibit Hall Open Understanding Structural Engineering Materials Edward Swierz, Thornton Tomasetti ASCE Body of Knowledge Daniel Campbell, LV Engineering

Friday, October 16, Evening Event

6:00 10:00 p.m. Fort McDowell Adventures Dinner at Rosas Ranch

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009


Saturday Morning, October 17, Conference Program

7:00 7:30 a.m. 7:30 8:00 a.m. 8:00 9:00 a.m. 9:00 9:10 a.m. 9:10 9:30 a.m. 9:30 9:40 a.m. 9:40 10:00 a.m. 10:00 10:15 a.m. 10:15 10:30 a.m. 10:30 10:40 a.m. 10:40 10:50 a.m. 10:50 11:00 a.m. 11:00 11:15 a.m. 11:15 11:30 a.m. 11:30 11:40 a.m. 11:40 11:50 a.m. 11:50 12:00 p.m. 12:00 1:30 p.m. Breakfast Presentation by International Code Council Roll call and Member Organization remarks Awards Committee Report by Carrie Johnson SEER Committee Report by Scott Nacheman STRUCTURE Magazine Report by Jon Schmidt CAC Report by Ron Hamburger Advocacy Committee Report by Sarah McClendon Break New Member Organizations Report by Bill Bast Publications Committee Report by Tim Mays Continuing Education Committee Report by Mike Tylk Licensing Committee Report by Susan Jorgensen Basic Education Committee Report by Craig Barnes Treasurers Report by Jim Malley Certication Committee Report by Ron Hamburger Other Organization Reports Lunch and sponsored speaker

Saturday Afternoon, October 17, Conference Program

1:30 2:00 p.m. Helping Create the Next Generation of Leaders Group B How to choose and groom new leaders from the different generations. Group D Different models for participation What attracts participation from the different generations? First Breakout Session 2:00 2:40 p.m. Group A Leadership styles and traits Similarities and differences between the generations. Group C How to recruit new Directors and Ofcers Approaches that worked with each generation, and others that didnt work. 3:30 3:45 p.m. 3:45 4:30 p.m. 4:30 5:30 p.m.

Second Breakout Session 2:45 3:25 p.m.

Break Regroup and Report Back NCSEA Board Meeting

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Saturday Evening, October 17, Evening Event

6:00 7:00 p.m. Reception 7:00 10:00 p.m. Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards Banquet

Helping Create the Next Generation of Leaders Saturday, October 17

By Ed Huston, Chair, NCSEA 2009 Annual Conference As discussed in the June 2009 issue of NCSEA News, the Saturday forum at the Annual Conference promises to be our best yet!! NCSEA developed its forum session through a series of conference calls among a small group of current leaders, representing Boomers, Gen Xers and Gen Ys. In our conference calls, responses to the questions below were revealing: What caused you to accept a committee or board position? - Boomer I thought the goal was benecial to the organization. - Gen X I wanted to surround myself with high quality engineers to help me learn and grow. - Gen Y I was interested in networking through my SEA. What was it about the way you were approached that made you accept? - Boomer My boss asked me to, and he was on the board. - Gen X My views were aligned well with the incoming President. Why did you say no to an offer to get more involved: - Boomer Organization accomplishes very little. - Gen X Conicted with family time. - Gen Y The group required too much face-to-face time on issues that could be more easily addressed online. What was it about the way you were approached that made you decline? - Boomer The request was emailed. - Gen X The request wasnt emailed. - Gen Y The request wasnt online. As you can see from this brief cross section of responses, we expect the forum to be lively, informative and interesting. You will denitely be able to take away a host of new ideas that you can utilize back home, with your SEA and in the ofce! Many of our Member Organizations are already talking about sending additional members to the Conference, just to be able to come home with all of the ideas that will come out of this years forum. I hope to see you there.

NCSEA Seminars and Webinars Scheduled October December, 2009

October 29, Webinar: Better Base Plate Performance by Design, Barry Arnold, P.E., S.E., SECB November 5, Webinar: Vertical Bracing Connections for Seismic Design, William Thornton, Ph.D., P.E. November 7, Long Beach, California Seminar: Guide to the Design of Diaphragms, Chords and Collectors, Badri K. Prasad, S.E., Rafael Sabelli, S.E., Douglas S. Thompson, S.E. December 4, Chicago, IL Seminar: Performance Based Plastic Design of Earthquake Resistant Steel & Concrete, Subhash C. Goel, Ph.D., P.E.

NCSEA Winter Institute March 12-13, 2010 Coronado, California

Seismic Design: Explaining the Y Factor, from One Generation to the Next October 2009

STRUCTURE magazine


of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures

December 9 11, 2009 San Francisco, CA

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Registration Now Open!

This inaugural conference, organized by the Applied Technology Council and the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, is dedicated solely to improving the seismic performance of existing buildings and other structures and includes: Impressive Keynote Plenary Speakers and Luncheon Speakers 4 Concurrent Tracks of Technical Sessions including papers on: Case Studies in Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Buildings Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation and Cost Benet Studies Seismic Performance and Rehabilitation of Non-Building Structures Seismic Performance of Nonstructural Components Suggested Improvements to Guidelines, Standards and Analysis Procedures Probable Maximum Loss (PML) Studies and Issues New Materials and Innovative Approaches for Seismic Rehabilitation Improving Seismic Performance Using Seismic Isolation, Supplemental Damping, and Monitoring Mitigation Policy Issues, Strategies and Ongoing Programs Earthquake Surface Rupture Design Considerations

Special Thursday Night Black Tie Gala at The Historic San Francisco Ferry Building Celebrating New Innovations in Seismic Strengthening Over the Last Decade Earn PDHs for attending the technical sessions and the plenary presentations. Register today to Save! Advance Registration available until November 15. Visit the conference website for more details at: Hotel accommodations available at the: Hyatt Regency San Francisco 5 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA Hotel information on the SEI website:

SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our publications at 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


Structural Columns


of the American Society of Civil Engineers

November 8-12 Fort Worth, TX




Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures Conference

November 812, 2009 Fort Worth, TX
Technical Sessions Expand your educational horizons at sessions on Loading, Analysis and Design, Foundations, Case Studies Foundations, Case Studies-Construction Practices, and Applied Technologies. Tours: Take an Inside Look at State-of-the-Art Technology Visits to area pole fabricators and cable manufacturing facilities include: Falcon Steel Company FWT, Inc. General Cable-BICC Brand Utility Products Sabre Tubular Structures Valmont Industries, Inc.

Dont Miss the Opportunity to Attend

This conference will not be held again until 2012!

Advance Registration ends October 22, 2009 Pre Conference Workshop Design of Transmission Line Structure Foundations Arrive early and attend this workshop that will include topics ranging from the foundation design process to the calibration of several foundation load tests. For more information or to register see the SEI website at:

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

Structural Columns

Welcome Newly Elected Members to the SEI Board of Governors

Congratulations to Donald Dusenberry, P.E., F. ASCE and Takahiko Kimura, P.E., M. ASCE on their election to the SEI Board of Governors. Mr. Dusenberry will represent the Technical Activities Division and Mr. Kimura will represent the Local Activities Division of SEI. Each will serve a four year term beginning October 1, 2009.
Donald Dusenberry Takahiko Kimura

SEI Local Activities Division

Get Involved in Structural Engineering Institute Local Activities
Connect with the local SEI Chapter or Structural Technical Group (STG) in your area visit the website at for contact information and get involved in SEI local activities and events. Many groups offer dynamic programs and provide valuable opportunities for networking, continuing education and more. If there is not an SEI Chapter or STG in your location and you would like to consider starting one, contact Suzanne Fisher at Each Fall, the Chairs of SEI Chapters and STGs gather for an annual meeting to exchange ideas about local programming, learn about new initiatives, discuss issues that affect structural engineering, and provide input to SEI Local Activities Division (LAD) Executive Committee members for new activities. SEI sponsors one Chair or representative from each local group to attend the meeting. The 2009 LAD Annual Meeting is coming up November 6-7 in Berkeley, CA and will include a boat tour of the Bay Bridge construction and a special presentation on the Bay Bridge Self-anchored Suspension Span Design by Marwan Nader, P.E., M. ASCE of T.Y. Lin International. For more information visit or contact Suzanne Fisher at

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

New Application Deadline for O.H. Ammann Research Fellowship

The application deadline for the 2010 O. H. Ammann Research Fellowship Award has been moved to November 1, 2009. The SEI Technical Activities Division Executive Committee has made this change after considering where the deadline falls in the academic year. For more information and to download an application, see the SEI website at:

Nominations for the following 2010 SEI Awards are invited by November 1, 2009
Walter P Moore, Jr. Award
This award is made annually to a structural engineer who has demonstrated technical expertise in, and dedication to the development of structural codes and standards. The contribution may have been in the form of papers, presentations, extensive practical experience, research, committee participation or through other activities.

New Member of the SEI Technical Activities Division Executive Committee

Congratulations to Ahsan Kareem, Ph.D., M. ASCE, on his election to the Executive Committee of the SEI Technical Activities Division. Prof. Kareem will serve a ve-year term beginning October 1, 2009. SEI extends a most sincere thank you to Roberto Leon, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE, and Charles Roeder, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE, as their terms on the ExCom come to a close on September 30, 2009. Their contributions to the ExCom have greatly enhanced the committee and, fortunately, both will continue to take a leadership role in SEI.

Dennis L. Tewksbury Award for Outstanding Service to the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
This award recognizes an individual member of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers and of ASCE who has advanced the interests of SEI through innovative or visionary leadership; who has promoted the growth and visibility of SEI; who has established working relationships between SEI and other structural engineering organizations; or who has otherwise rendered valuable service to the structural engineering profession. To nominate a colleague(s) worthy of these or other ASCE Structural Awards honors, visit inside/honorawards.html for more information.

of the American Society of Civil Engineers

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

CASE Risk Management Convocation in Palm Springs This Month

The CASE Risk Management Convocation will take place during the ACEC Fall Conference, October 710, 2009, in Palm Springs, California. On the evening of October 7, the CASE Convocation Banquet will kick off the Convocation by featuring a presentation by Samuel J. Muir, Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart, LLP, on The Engineering Expert Witness When Things Arent Black and White. Sam will be discussing how engineers are hurting their own professions by taking on malpractice claims as experts where the facts are not always black and white. On October 8 the CASE Convocation will include the following sessions: Risks Associated with Design/Build Steven F. Andrews, Vandevender and Black & Edward W. Pence, Jr., Stroud, Pence and Associates, LTD. Did I Say That? Electronic Communication, Back-up and Retention in the Engineering Practice Eric L. Singer, Ice Miller, LLP; Karen Ergir, Holmes Murphy and Associates; Terence M. Lindsay, Lindsay & Associates, Inc. Getting Your Project Off on the Right Foot and Finishing it Right! Stacy Bartoletti, Degenkolb Engineers; Brent White, ARW Engineers; Corey Matsuoka, SSFW International, Inc. The Design Professionals Risk During Construction David Corkum, Donovan Hatem, LLP; Nils Ericson, The Di Salvo Ericson Group.

The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers

CH2M Hills Ralph Peterson to Receive ACEC Award of Merit, Posthumously

Ralph Peterson, who led CH2M Hill to prominence in the engineering world and was a tireless booster of ACEC, died last month in Denver after a long illness. Peterson, 64, will receive ACECs 2009 Distinguished Award of Merit posthumously at the Fall Conference this month. As the highest honor that the Council can give to an individual, Peterson receives this award for his lifetime of contributions to the industry and the nation. Under Petersons leadership, CH2M Hill grew from a $400-million rm into a global leader with more than 25,000 employees worldwide and over $6.4 billion in revenues. Peterson served on numerous national industry and government boards, was an early champion of sustainability, and contributed signicantly to ACECs advocacy and political programs.

Wisconsin, Texas First States to Require BIM on Public Projects

The September/October 2009 issue of ACECs Engineering Inc. reports that Wisconsin and Texas are the rst states to require the use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) on state-funded public projects. Wisconsin established its new procurement policy effective July 1, 2009. It requires BIM and 3D software to be used from initial planning concepts to bidding documents and project closeout for A/E services in a design-bid-build project delivery format. The mandate affects all projects with a total budget of at least $5 million, and all new construction with a minimum budget of $2.5 million. The Texas Facilities Commission announced in early August that it is also requiring a BIM model for all state design and construction projects. The agency oversees all real estate development for the state, including state buildings and all state university systems. The Texas Facilities Design and Construction Division has also developed a set of standards and guidelines that all private sector partners will have access to prior to any involvement in a state project. In Wisconsin, ve projects with budgets in excess of $5 million are up for A/E selection in the next several months, followed by another 18 expected between now and 2011.

CASE in Point

The initiatives include new and existing construction for 16 state agencies, including the Department of Military Affairs, Department of Administration, Department of Corrections and the University of Wisconsin system. From the standpoint of most engineering companies, BIM is still at the beginning of its development. Having the Wisconsin Division of State Facilities implement standards shows that the state recognizes the potential and wants to help move the A/E/C community in a direction it feels will be benecial to state building owners as well as the taxpayers of Wisconsin, said ACEC/Wisconsin President Stan Sugden of Ruekert/Mielke in Waukesha. Our Member Firms believe, by mandating this technology, there will be better coordination of contract documents to ultimately produce a better product for the state, and reduce the number of conicts and change orders.

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

CASE in Point

ACEC Business Courses Scheduled for Later This Month

The following courses are scheduled by ACECs Institute for Business Management. For details and to register at best advance price, please contact LaCreshea Makonnen at ACEC at or 202-347-7474. faculty will include industry innovators who are transforming the BIM multi-dimensional project planning concept into an A/E/C marketplace advantage. The 1 day agenda will be segmented into: reasons for change; exploring the technology and interoperability; implementation strategies and an IT case study; an updated look into risk management and insurance for BIM-ready rms; and, a new segment on BIM from the M/E/P perspective. This course will be ideal for rm principals planning, considering or beginning to implement BIM.

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

The Business of Design Consulting: Managing for Success in a Climate of Change

October 2124, St. Louis, MO Content covers the eight key areas of business management, nance, marketing, risk management, contracts, leadership, human resources, and information technology plus real-world technical examples presented by leading practitioners in the A/E workplace. Created for owners, principals, executives, and managers of A/E rms, this state-of-the-art look at the key components of your operation is a cost-effective investment for succeeding in a more competitive than ever environment.

Applying Expertise as an Engineering Expert Witness

October 2930, Dearborn, MI Adding new services such as expert witness capabilities to your rms portfolio is a shrewd business strategy, particularly as an extension of existing skills and expertise. However wellqualied your key staff may be, only the court-savvy engineer should take on potentially lucrative assignments as an expert witness in legal proceedings. Participants earn a certicate of course completion equipping them for legal service. In completing this course, attendees take an important rst step towards qualifying for the professional designation of Engineer Expert Witness (EXW). For information on the EXW designation program, email

CASE, SEI and AISC Come to Orlando Next Spring

Next spring, the CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in conjunction with the rst-ever combined Structures Congress/North American Steel Construction Conference at the Gaylord Palms Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, May 1215, 2010. The following sessions are being planned for the CASE Convocation which takes place on May 14: CASE Breakfast David B. Ratterman, AISC Secretary and General Counsel Steel Fabricator Perspective on Quality of Engineering Documents or Change Orders Collaboration Between Fabricator and SER Using BIM A Day in the Life of a Project Manager Managing Expectations and Risks During the Steel Detailing Process

Building Information Modeling (BIM): The Promise and The Reality for A/E/C Firms
October 2930, Seattle, WA This 2009 version of the course will be an informative and timely look into the many components of the increasingly popular BIM interdisciplinary project delivery system. Course

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

Advertiser Index
free information from advertisers
With the Advertiser Index, STRUCTURE provides a convenient listing of important advertiser contact information, all in one useful location. Please investigate these advertisers for free information on their products and services. Learn more about STRUCTURE advertisers; visit for up-to-date information on products and resources.

American Galvanizers Association Atlas Tube Bluebeam Software Commins Manufacturing, Inc. Computers & Structures, Inc. CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. KPFF Consulting Engineers MidaSoft National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) Powers Fasteners, Inc. QuakeWrap, Inc. RISA Technologies Structural Engineers Association of Illinois (SEA of IL) SidePlate Systems, Inc. Simpson Strong-Tie StructurePoint Taylor & Francis Group Taylor Devices Your Name Here

720-554-0900 800-733-5683 866-496-2140 360-378-9484 510-845-2177 800-929-3030 206-622-5822 800-584-5541 800-250-3196 312-649-4600 800-524-3244 866-Quak-Wrap 800-332-RISA 312-726-4165 800-475-2077 800-999-5099 847-966-4357 +44 (0) 20-7017-6000 716-694-0800 847-854-1666

WEBSITE (email)

Page 25 Page 15 Page 23 Page 20 Page 36 Page 12 Page 6 Page 13 Page 34 Page 9 Page 2 Page 6 Page 35 Page 16 Page 21 Pages 11 & 17 Page 26 Page 4 Page 19

ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit

STRUCTURE magazine


October 2009

Let RISA help you unlock the potential of BIM. Thats what engineers discovered when they set out to design and optimize a 52-story building at a recent BIM forum. The superior oor layout and optimization features of RISAFloor seamlessly integrate with the power and exibility of RISA-3D to provide an unparalleled building design environment. Add the bi-directional link between these leading engineering platforms and Revit Structure, and you have a recipe for success. The end result was a signicant savings of time and resources unattainable using a traditional linear method.

2009 RISA Technologies, LLC