Aug 10

STRUCTURE
August 2010
Light Frame Buildings
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
Special Section:
Engineering Software
Typical Applications that Require Code Compliant Anchors According to ICC:

Pipe Hanging (Water & Waste) Sprinkler Pipes Ceiling Grids with Lighting or Fans Air Handling Units HVAC Duct Work Electrical Wire Trays & Conduit Fire Alarms, Exit Signs Smoke Detection Devices Windows & Doors Glazing & Curtain Walls Beam Connections Shear & Stem Walls Sill Plate and Ledger Attachments Concrete Form Work Scaffolding, Cranes, Rails, Fall Protection
Powers Compliant Products Have You Covered:
2009 IBC 2006 IBC 2003 IBC
For further clarity on this important change, visit www.powers.com/icc.pdf in regards to this topic, they make it crystal clear.
Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com 2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300 Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
Metal Wood Framer for Revit
CONTENTS
Features
19 NCSEA Basic Education Survey Curriculum Results Part 2
The National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) Basic Education Committee has been working with practitioners and educators to improve the quality of education for structural engineering students. In this issue, the latest survey of educational institutions provides detailed information on how these institutions are meeting the Basic Education Curricula.
30 BIM Dimensional and Material Quantity Control of Wood-Framed Construction

By Matthew H. Johnson, P.E. and Ariane I. Fund
Most of the discussion on building information models (BIM) has focused on steel and concrete building typologies. Wood construction is not as often addressed in practice or in publication. Wood offers great opportunity, via building information models, to the owner and contractor if executed correctly.
32 The Expanding Use of Wood in School Construction

By Roxane Ward
Numerous state legislatures and public school governing bodies are rethinking policies that have prohibited wood in school construction. These changes are based on wood-frame schools already permitted in other jurisdictions around the country, as well as cost, speed of construction, and sustainability. But what do design professionals have to say and what are the unique elements that need to be considered? With an apparent optimism for improvements in the economic situation over the coming months, accompanied by increasing construction projects, structural engineers and others are once again looking at software as a way to increase their efficiency and grow their businesses.
Departments
52 Legal Perspectives
Whats a Structural Engineer to Do?
By David J. Hatem, PC and Sue Yoakum, Esq., AIA
54 Quality Assurance Corner
36 Special Section Engineering Software
Tips for Designing Constructible Steel-Framed Structures Part 1
By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Todd R. Campbell, P.E.
56 Great Achievements
Gustav Lindenthal
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., P.L.S.
Columns
7 Editorial
NCSEAs 2011-2015 Strategic Plan
By James Malley, S.E.
58 InSights
23 Guest Column
HSS Connections
Anchor Bolts in Light-Frame Construction at Small Edge Distances

Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California
By Leigh Arber and Erika Winters-Downey, S.E., LEED AP
8 Structural Design
59 Spotlight
Multiple-Bolt Wood Connection Design Topics
26 Codes & Standards
Project FROG Leaps Ahead in HighPerformance Learning Environments

By Alethea ODell
By Donald A. Bender, P.E., Ph.D. and Frank E. Woeste, P.E., Ph.D.
12 Building Blocks
Anchorage Design for PreFabricated Shear Panels in Light-Framed Structures

By Renee Strand, P.E.
The Truth about Corrosion in SelfDrilling/Self-Tapping Screws

By Dana Benton, P.E.
In every Issue
6 Advertiser Index 48 Resource Guide (Software) 60 NCSEA News 62 SEI Structural Columns 64 CASE in Point
66 Structural Forum
16 Structural Performance
By Felix Martin, S.E.
Project Specific Peer Review Guidelines
Is Roof Eave Blocking Required To Transmit Wind/Seismic Forces?
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE, SECB
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
August 2010
Eighteenth Annual Conference

NCSEA 2010 NEW YORK
September 30 October 2, 2010
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE Executive Director 312-649-4600 execdir@ncsea.com Heather Talbert Coalitions Director 202-682-4377 htalbert@acec.org
Council of American Structural Engineers
Courtesy of Sarah McGee Photography
Structural Engineering Institute

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING INSTITUTE
Visit us online at www.ncsea.com
Hyatt Regency on the Hudson Jersey City, New Jersey
John E. Durrant, P.E. Manager ASCE Engineering Programs 703-295-6360 sei@STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE
IRVINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

C.V. Chelapati, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE Est. 1973
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

Interactive Sales Associates Dick Railton
Western Sales 951-587-2982
SE License Seminars | Webcast | Nationwide-Worldwide Offers 4 Courses for SE License | Credit or CEUs 24 hours each | 8 Thursday evenings | Live offsite | Archived Other license programs PE (Civil), PEME, PEEE, SE I, Seismic and Surveying
Chuck Minor
Eastern Sales 847-854-1666
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
ON
THE
COVER
Ph: (949) 585-9137
www.irvine-institute.org
August 2010
Light Frame Construction
Aug10 cover saddle stitch.indd 1
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org Across the U.S., wood is being used as a structural and nish material in an increasing number of schools. For designers of the George K. Brushaber Commons building at Bethel University in Arden Hills, Minnesota (cover photo), creating a warm Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE IIT advertisement.indd 1 learning environment was also a priority. The building earned a6/4/2010 2:55:56 PM execdir@ncsea.com 2009 WoodWorks Wood Design Award for engineering (Project Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E. Architect: SKK Architects; Project Engineer: Meyer, Borgman and Johnson, publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org Inc.) Courtesy of Richard Mandelkorn Photography.
EDITORIAL STAFF
7/16/2010 11:34:22 AM
Associate Editor
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Nikki Alger
Erratum
The Editorial by Sam Rihani in the June 2010 issue of STRUCTURE magazine included Minnesota in a list of states that are actively pursuing an SE license act today. A more accurate statement is that structural engineers in Minnesota have shown some interest in pursuing SE licensure and are currently exploring this possibility.
Graphic Designer Web Developer
Rob Fullmer
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
William Radig
Advertiser Index
AceCad Software ..................................... 47 Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................... 39 Canadian Wood Council ......................... 41 Computers & Structures, Inc. ................. 68 CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.......... 25 Design Data ............................................ 45 Devco...................................................... 42 Dimensional Solutions, Inc. .................... 46 ESAB Welding and Cutting Products ...... 29 Fyfe Co. LLC .......................................... 24 GT STRUDL.......................................... 40 Hilti ........................................................ 49 Hoover Treated Wood Product, Inc. ........ 33 Integrated Engineering Software, Inc....... 38 Irvine Institute of Technology.................... 6 KPFF Consulting Engineers .................... 27
Please support these advertisers

National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) ...... 18 Nemetschek Scia ..................................... 35 New Millennium Building Systems ......... 43 Powers Fasteners, Inc. ................................ 2 QuakeWrap, Inc. ..................................... 53 Retain Pro Software ................................. 44 RISA Technologies .................................. 67 SidePlate Systems, Inc. .............................. 4 Simpson Strong-Tie........................ 11 & 15 StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. ........................... 3 StructurePoint ......................................... 51 Struware, Inc. .......................................... 55 Tekla ....................................................... 37 Valmont Tubing ...................................... 13 Wood Products Council .......................... 22
STRUCTURE (Volume 17, Number 8). ISSN 1536-4283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is $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). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher.
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 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at Visit Visit STRUCTURE STRUCTURE magazine magazine on-line online at at www.structuremag.org www.structuremag.org www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
August 2010
Editorial
NCSEAs 2011- 2015 Strategic Plan
By James Malley, S.E., Vice President, NCSEA On March 11th of this year, the NCSEA Board of Directors held an all-day Long Range Planning meeting, attended by a number of its committee chairs and past presidents, in addition to the current Board members. The meeting was called to update the NCSEA Strategic Plan, the first version of which served our organization for the last five years. Following a day of vigorous discussion, Board members and three Past Presidents created a new strategic plan out of many notes, shared ideas, and audio files. Board members critiqued and re-worked the plan, with the idea that it would be ready for unveiling at NCSEAs Annual Meeting in New York. This article briefly summarizes the Who, What, When, Where, Why, How (and How Much) of the 2011-2015 NCSEA Strategic Plan that resulted. NCSEAs articulated Vision and Mission statements serve, respectively, as the statements of the ideal of our organization in the future and the reason for our existence. The group that met in March agreed upon the following (the Whys): Vision: NCSEA and its Member Organizations constitute the premier professional society for practicing structural engineers in the United States of America. Response Programs, and Professional Licensing. This goal also addresses our Continuing Education and Membership Services Programs, as well as our interactions with related national organizations such as SEI, CASE and NCEES. External Goal #3, Improve the Profession, focuses on programs to encourage the separate licensure of structural engineers and structural engineering degree programs at specific universities. Other areas of focus under this goal are programs that will help ensure that quality-based selection processes are followed nationwide, and continued development of other programs that raise the bar, such as certification and quality continuing education. Internal Goal #1, Enhance Communication with the Member Organizations, seeks to better ensure that NCSEA and its Member Organizations are effectively sharing information and activities, and working together in a way that will benefit the local organizations and individual members to the greatest extent possible. Internal Goal #2, Energize Committee Activity, recognizes that committee structure and effectiveness are vital to NCSEAs health and success; therefore, this goal focuses on breathing new life into our present committees, to ensure continued and future success. The final major goal of the new plan is Ensure Financial Security. Multiple long-term revenue streams will be necessary, to secure the future of the organization. In order to address the How related to each of these major goals, the Strategic Plan identifies and prioritizes key long-term objectives for the next few years. Specific steps to be taken are detailed and include performance metrics by which progress can be measured. Finally, responsible parties and the resources required are identified, thereby addressing the Who, When, Where, and How Much portions of the plan. The above-described 2011-2015 NCSEA Strategic Plan sets out a path for what we believe NCSEA must do over the next five years, to achieve the organizations long term Vision. With the help of NCSEAs staff, committee chairs, committee members, past presidents, and other willing volunteers, the NCSEA Board of Directors will be working hard to achieve these major goals over the next few years. If you are interested and would like to hear more about the plan, join us at the Annual Meeting, September 30 October 2, at the Hyatt on the Hudson in Jersey City, New Jersey, or visit the NCSEA website (www.ncsea.com). As always, we would appreciate any feedback on the Plan, especially from our Member Organizations, Associate Members, Affiliate Members, Sustaining Members, and Partnering Organizations. Even better, if something Ive said peaks your interest and you feel the urge to contribute to the achievement of any of the above-listed goals, please contact us. We can always use the help!
Mission: NCSEA serves to advance the practice of structural engineering and, as the autonomous national voice for practicing structural engineers, protect the publics right to safe, sustainable and cost effective buildings, bridges and other structures. With these guideposts in place, the group set out to develop the What portion of the plan, that is, specific goals which speak to what is needed, to get from our present position to our Vision. A total of 6 goals were developed, three that are primarily externally focused and three that are internally focused: External Goals 1) Promote the Practice 2) Represent the Profession 3) Improve the Profession Internal Goals 1) Enhance Communication with the Member Organizations 2) Energize Committee Activity 3) Ensure Financial Security
External Goal #1, Promote the Practice, focuses on developing effective communication tools, to increase the awareness and appreciation of our profession by related stakeholder communities, including the Media, General Public, Students, Allied Professionals and Potential Clients, Regulators, Elected Officials, and even Structural Engineers. External Goal #2, Represent the Profession, addresses strengthening ongoing NCSEA activities to represent the practicing structural engineer on national issues, such as Building Codes and Standards, Emergency
Editorial Board
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB Burns & McDonnell Kansas City, MO chair@structuremag.org
Chair
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 Ridgefield, 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. BergerABAM Vancouver, WA John Buddy Showalter, P.E. AF & PA/American Wood Council Washington, DC
Executive Editor
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE NCSEA Chicago, IL execdir@ncsea.com
STRUCTURE magazine
August 2010
Multiple-Bolt Wood Connection Design Topics

By Donald A. Bender, P.E., Ph.D. and Frank E. Woeste, P.E., Ph.D. Design of single-bolt wood connections is relatively straight forward by using the provisions of Chapters 10 and 11 of the ANSI/AF&PA NDS-2005 National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS). Design of multiple-bolt wood connections is also covered by the NDS. It contains numerous design considerations specific to multiple bolt connections such as spacing in a row, spacing between rows, group action factor, localized stresses in members, and so on. Lateral design values for single bolts are tabulated for various species and connection configurations (NDS Tables 11A through 11I); however, tabulated lateral design values must be adjusted for a specific application based on provisions of the NDS. Before designing multiple-bolt wood connections, careful study of the latest NDS is recommended. The objective of this article is to alert design professionals to two multiple-bolt connection design issues that deserve special attention and explanation: local member stresses and structural glued-laminated timber horizontal shear values for connection design.
Local Stresses in Connections

The NDS requires that the design professional check for local stresses in connections with multiple fasteners using principles of engineering mechanics, but it does not stipulate the engineering method to be used. Referring to NDS on Multiple Fasteners, local stresses are addressed in Section 11.6.3: 11.6.3 Local Stresses in Connections Local stresses in connections using multiple fasteners shall be evaluated in accordance with principles of engineering mechanics (See 10.1.2). Referring to NDS Section 10.1.2: Local stresses in connections using multiple fasteners shall be checked in accordance with principles of engineering mechanics. One method for determining these stresses is provided in Appendix E. Appendix E of the NDS is labeled as follows: Appendix E (Non-mandatory) Local Stresses in Fastener Groups. Appendix E addresses three potential failure modes: net section tension capacity, row tear-out capacity, and group tear-out capacity. In summary, since NDS is the referenced design standard for wood construction, it is a model code requirement to check
local stresses in multiplebolt connections. The NDS does not limit the design professional on how the check is to be made; however, the NDS offers a Non-mandatory appendix as one option. Net Section Tension Capacity NDS Section E.2 gives an equation for checking net section capacity. An example of a net section failure is depicted in Figure 1. Row Tear-Out Capacity NDS Section E.3 gives equations for checking row tear-out capacity. An example of a row tear-out failure is depicted in Figure 2, showing two wood shear failure planes on each side of the bolt rows. Group Tear-Out Capacity NDS Section E.4 addresses group tearout capacity. Figure 3 demonstrates a group tear-out failure mode. Note how an entire plug of wood fiber is removed by shear failures on the left and right row of bolts, coupled with a net section tension failure (at any angle) between bolt row at the top of the specimen.
Structural DeSign
design issues for structural engineers
Figure 1: The single shear connection failed in net tension in tests at Virginia Tech University (Anderson, 2001).
Figure 2: Tests at Washington State University demonstrated the row tear-out failure mode (Dodson, 2003).
Figure 3: Group tear-out failure mode is demonstrated in laboratory tests at Washington State University (Dodson, 2003).
STRUCTURE magazine
August 2010
Figure 4: Double shear splice connection.
Allowable Capacity of a Multiple-Bolt Connection Assuming the design professional uses Appendix E for checking local stresses in connections using multiple fasteners, the allowable connection design value is the minimum value obtained by provisions of Chapters 10 and 11 including net section tension capacity, row tear-out capacity, and group tear-out capacity (for two or more rows of bolts).
Structural Glued-Laminated Timber Horizontal Shear Values

The allowable horizontal shear design value, with all appropriate adjustments, is used for row tear-out and group tear-out checks previously described. For dimension lumber and timbers, reference horizontal shear design values are tabulated in NDS Supplement Tables 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D; and adjustment factors are summarized in Table 4.3.1. Similarly, for structural glued-laminated timber (glulam), reference shear design values are contained in Tables 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D; and adjustment factors are summarized in Table 5.3.1. However, an important additional adjustment is required for the allowable horizontal shear value used in connection design for glulam made from softwood lumber. Horizontal shear design values for glulam made from softwood lumber have increased in recent years as a result of extensive beam tests. Horizontal shear reference design values are tabulated in NDS Supplement Tables 5A and 5B for the X-X and Y-Y axes. It is important to note that these values are for use in designing prismatic glulam beams. Footnote 4 of Table 5A and Footnote 3 of Tables 5A Expanded and 5B stipulate that the tabulated shear design reference value shall be decreased by multiplying by a factor of 0.72 for connection design (and for non-prismatic members, notched members and members subject to impact or cyclic loads). For example, the allowable shear design value for checking localized stresses in a multiple bolt connection in a glulam timber would be: Fv' = Fv * 0.72 * (other applicable factors from NDS Table 5.3.1) Assuming glulam Combination 3 Douglas fir and unity for Table 5.3.1 adjustment factors, Fv' = 265 psi * 0.72 = 191 psi [NDS Supplement Table 5B] In addition to using the correct glulam shear value for connection design, another important issue is proper connection detailing. For guidance, the reader should consult the APA Engineered Wood Association website (www.apawood.org) for the free download APA Technical Note T-300 Glulam Connection Details (revised Jan 2007).
E of the NDS. Assumptions and requirements for the connection design are: Double shear splice connection with -inch ASTM A36 steel side plates (8 inches wide) Main member is 2x10 1800f-1.8E Douglas Fir-Larch (DFL) Load combination is Dead + Snow Lumber is dry at installation and dry in-service Required connection capacity is 11,000 lbs tension. As a starting point, try three rows of 5/8-inch diameter bolts and four bolts per row. Edge spacing is 2.125 inches, end distance is 5 inches, row spacing is 2.5 inches, and fastener spacing is 3 inches as depicted in Figure 4. From NDS Supplement Table 4C, the referenced design values of 1800f-1.8E DFL member properties are: Ft = 1,200 psi; E = 1,800,000 psi [NDS Supplement, Table 4C] Fv = 180 psi [NDS Supplement, Table 4C, Footnote 2] Check Required Number of Bolts From NDS Table 11G, the single-bolt capacity when the member is loaded parallel to grain is: Z|| = 1,310 lb [NDS Table 11G] The referenced single-bolt design value is adjusted according to NDS Table 10.3.1: Z||' = Z|| * CD * Cg * C CD = load duration factor from NDS Appendix B = 1.15 (for Dead+Snow combination) C = geometry factor from NDS Section 11.5.1 = 1.0 since, bolt spacing, s = 3 inches, exceeds 4D minimum, per NDS Table 11.5.1C. end distance, s = 5 inches, exceeds 7D minimum, per NDS Table 11.5.1B. Cg = group action factor, calculated according to NDS 10.3.6 = 0.96 The adjusted allowable single-bolt value is: Z' = Z|| * CD * Cg * C = 1,310 lb * 1.15 * 0.956 * 1 = 1,440 lbs To determine the capacity of 12 bolts, simply multiply by 12 as specified in NDS 10.2.2: Total bolt capacity = 12 bolts * 1,440 lbs/bolt = 17,280 lbs Total bolt capacity > 11,000 lbs, thus with respect to bolt capacity alone, 12 bolts at 5/8-inch diameter are adequate. Check Net Section Tension Capacity per NDS App. E.2 Allowable tension stress, adjusted by applicable factors from NDS Table 4.3.1 is: Ft' = Ft (CD) = 1,200 * 1.15 = 1,380 psi continued on next page
Design Example for a Multiple-Bolt Connection

The purpose of the worked example is to demonstrate calculations for tension net section, row tear-out, and group tear-out using Appendix STRUCTURE magazine
August 2010
Net tension capacity, allowing for 1/16-inch oversized bolt holes (per NDS 11.1.2.2), is given by: Tnet = (1,380 psi) * [1.5 in. {9.25 in. 3(5/8 + 1/16 in.)}] = 14,878 lbs Tnet > 11,000 lbs, net section capacity is adequate. Check row tear-out capacity per NDS App. E.3 Allowable tear-out capacity of row of fasteners can be calculated as: ZRT' = ni Fv' A critical 2
If an allowable design capacity is less than the required load, the detail must be adjusted to increase the connection capacity. For example, if row tear-out limits a connection capacity, increased spacing between bolts in a row and end distance will increase row tear-out capacity. Of course, this will also affect the group action factor, Cg, from NDS Section 10.3.6, hence all affected calculations need to be repeated. Similarly, if group tear-out limits connection capacity, increased spacing between bolt rows (without violating edge distance requirements of NDS 11.5.1) will increase the net tension portion of group tear-out.
where: ZRTi' = allowable row tear-out capacity of row i, Fv' = allowable shear design value parallel-to-grain, Acritical = minimum shear area of any fastener in row i, and ni = number of fasteners in row i. Note: The above equation is divided by 2 to account for uneven shear distribution along the row of bolts. Assuming one shear line on each side of bolts in a row ZRT' = Fv't [niscritical ](2 shear lines) = niFv'tscritical 2 where: scritical = minimum fastener spacing in row i (or end distance if it is less than fastener spacing) t = thickness of member Allowable shear stress, adjusted by applicable factors from NDS Table 4.3.1 is: Fv' = Fv (CD) = 180 * 1.15 = 207 psi Z'RTi = ni F'v t scritical = (4 bolts) (207 psi) (1.5 in.) (3 in.) = 3,726 lbs Total row tear-out capacity of multiple rows of fasteners is: nrow Z'RT = Z'RTi = (3 rows) (3,726 lbs/row) = 11,178 lbs i=1 Total row tear-out capacity > 11,000 lbs, thus row tear-out capacity is adequate. Check group tear-out capacity per NDS Appendix E.4 ZGT' = Z'RT-1 + Z'RT-n + Ft'A group-net 2 2 ZGT' = (3,726 lbs / 2) + (3,726 lbs / 2) + [1,380 * 1.5 in. * {5.0 in. 2(5/8 in. + 1/16 in.)}] ZGT' = 3,726 + 7,504 = 11,230 lbs Group tear-out capacity > 11,000 lbs, thus group tear-out capacity is adequate. Discussion of Example Using NDS bolt tables alone with applicable adjustments produced an allowable connection capacity of 17,280 pounds. With additional required checks indicated in NDS 11.6.3 for local stresses in connections, capacity is limited to 11,178 pounds. For this example, using the capacity based on bolt tables alone for an actual design requiring 17,280 pounds capacity would produce a non-conservative error of 35%. Tension net section, row tear-out, and group tear-out capacities can be increased by changing placement of bolts in the connection. The example demonstrates the need for checking additional connection failure modes addressed by NDS Appendix E. STRUCTURE magazine
Summary and Conclusions

Design of single-bolt wood connections is relatively straightforward using provisions of NDS Chapters 10 and 11. Design of multiple-bolt wood connections is also covered by the NDS, but requires additional consideration to aspects such as bolt spacing in a row, spacing between bolt rows, group action factor, localized stresses in members, etc. This article is intended to alert design professionals to two multiple-bolt connection design issues that deserve special attention and explanation: local member stresses and structural glued-laminated timber horizontal shear values for connection design. The NDS requires that the design professional check for local stresses in connections with multiple fasteners using principles of engineering mechanics, but does not stipulate the engineering method to be used. Appendix E of the NDS is listed as one method for checking local stresses for three potential failure modes net section tension capacity, row tear-out capacity, and group tear-out capacity. Since the NDS is the referenced design standard for wood construction, it is a code requirement to check local stresses in multiple-bolt connections. When designing multiple-bolt connections, NDS (Section 11.5) end and edge distances and spacing requirements are prescriptive and provide a starting point for a bolt connection design. Analyses using NDS bolt tables (NDS Chapter 11) with applicable adjustments (NDS Chapter 10) and Appendix E checks for localized stresses enable a design professional to determine the allowable design load for a trial connection detail using the minimum load calculated. The splice joint connection example demonstrates how localized member stresses can control a multiple-bolt connection design. The allowable horizontal shear design value, with all appropriate adjustments, is used for row tear-out and group tear-out checks described in NDS Appendix E. However, for glulam, an important additional adjustment is required for the allowable shear value used in connection design for glulam made from softwood lumber. The design professional is alerted to Footnote 4 of Table 5A and Footnote 3 of Tables 5A Expanded and 5B that apply to glulam connection design. It stipulates that the reference shear design value shall be decreased by multiplying by a factor of 0.72 for connection design (and for designing non-prismatic members, notched members, and members subject to impact or cyclic loads). Donald A. Bender, P.E., Ph.D., is Director of the Composite Materials & Engineering Center at Washington State University and Weyerhaeuser Professor of Civil Engineering. He can be reached at bender@wsu.edu. Frank E. Woeste, P.E., Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus at Virginia Tech University and a wood engineering consultant. He can be reached at fwoeste@vt.edu. The online version of this article contains references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
10
August 2010
Cracked-Concrete Solutions
Cracked & Uncracked

CONCRETE Listed
IBC
2006
ICC-ES
Anchors that crack the code.
Since the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) has been adopted by the majority of the states, choosing concrete anchors has become more complicated. Some applications now require anchors to perform in cracked concrete, while others may not. Look to Simpson Strong-Tie for the products that meet both types of anchoring challenges. Our Titen HD screw anchor, Strong-Bolt wedge anchor and SET-XP anchoring adhesive are all ICC-ES code listed for use in cracked and uncracked-concrete applications. And we still offer a full line of traditional wedge, sleeve and drop-in anchors for almost any anchoring project. When you have questions, look to us for answers. For more information visit www.simpsonanchors.com/cc or call (800) 999-5099.
Titen HD Strong-Bolt SET-XP
ICC-ES ESR-2713
ICC-ES ESR-1771
ICC-ES ESR-2508
IN THE SPECS ON THE JOB AT YOUR SERVICE
2010 Simpson
Strong-Tie Company Inc. THDSBSETXP10-S
The Truth about Corrosion in Self-Drilling/Self-Tapping Screws

By Dana Benton, P.E. Insidious corrosion that affects self-drilling screws for exterior cladding support has become a major source of confusion in the building profession. Most contractors and architects are surprisingly unaware of this issue, even though corrosion has resulted in many fastener failures and, in some cases, litigation. This lack of understanding has been very apparent on recent projects where contractors mix and match various screw types with little or no corrosion protection. Even when specific corrosion resistant screws are specified, inferior screws are found on job sites. Despite the fact that the engineer of record specifically identifies the proper screws, corners are often cut and inferior screws show up on jobs. In some cases, the engineer is forced to tell the contractor to remove and replace a large percentage of critical screws to safeguard the integrity of faade element connections. This is not always done in blatant disregard for the contract documents, but rather due to a misunderstanding of how corrosion protection works and how the mechanical properties of screws are affected by moisture. The two types of corrosion that affect hardened steel screws are hydrogen embrittlement (HE) and hydrogen assisted stress corrosion cracking (HASCC). Although HE and HASCC are little known and even less understood, they can lead to catastrophic failure and millions of dollars in repair costs. These types of corrosion are undetectable until after the failure occurs. Failure can happen at any time during the life of a building. Currently, only one manufacturer provides a screw specially designed to prevent both HE and HASCC. However, this particular screw costs about seven times more than comparable screws. In an effort to save costs, contractors will often use other screws without prior approval from the engineer.
Building Blocks
Hydrogen embrittlement in self-drilling self-tapping screws.
The Pitfalls of Electroplating

HE is caused by the zinc electroplating process that nearly all screw manufacturers use in order to prevent general corrosion. Typically, the first step in zinc electroplating is an acid bath and an alkaline bath to ensure that the zinc adheres uniformly and well. Next, the screws are electroplated.
For HE to occur, the steel screws must come into contact with hydrogen ions. As the smallest atom, hydrogen is capable of diffusing through hardened steel. The hydrogen atoms may lodge in the intergranular boundaries of the steel if the screws remain in the acid or alkaline bath for too long, or if the acid concentration is too high. The screws come into contact with hydrogen again when they are plated. During the plating, the screws are subjected to an electrical current while being submerged in an aqueous solution of zinc salts. Positively charged zinc and hydrogen ions in the solution are attracted to the negatively charged screw. The hydrogen ions then migrate into the gaps between the grains of the metal. After electroplating, the hydrogen is sealed inside the screws. The highest accumulation of hydrogen in the inter-granular boundaries occurs at the
areas of highest stress, because these areas have the most prominent voids. In order to become more stable, the hydrogen ions bond together to form H2. The H2 molecules are greater in size than the individual hydrogen ions and act as a prying force against the grains of the steel, making the voids larger. This causes the steel to lose ductility and become more brittle, with much less tensile capacity. One way to prevent HE in zinc electroplated screws is by baking off the hydrogen after the electroplating process. Studies have shown that the screws must be baked for a minimum of four hours at 400oF within one hour of electroplating. These stringent requirements are likely to drive off most, if not all, of the hydrogen. Still, it is imperative that screws are tested for HE after baking to guarantee that all of the hydrogen is expelled. Joe Greenslade, a private consultant in the field of fasteners
updates and information on structural materials
STRUCTURE magazine
12
August 2010
who has written several articles on hydrogen embattlement, maintains that the General Motors test is the most rigorous and most similar to real world conditions. Some screw manufacturers claim to bake their screws and test for HE, but most either have no set criteria for baking and testing or else their criteria is less stringent than the recommendations above.
Mechanical Zinc Plating

HE can be avoided altogether if screws are mechanically zinc plated rather than electroplated. With mechanical plating, screws are not washed in acid and alkaline baths and are not positively charged to attract zinc. Instead, the screws are tumbled in a lined barrel with a mixture of glass impact beads, water, chemicals and zinc powder. Through the kinetic energy of the tumbling, the glass beads cold weld the zinc powder to the surface of the screw. Water polishing brightens and consolidates the coating. Although not as common as zinc-electroplating, mechanical zinc plating is a far safer choice for prevention of HE.
metal studs and steel clip plates. As the screw is driven through the metal stud or the clip plate, it can come into contact with the nongalvanized steel of the metal stud or clip plate, and a galvanic reaction may occur. Additionally, if the clip plates are not galvanized then a galvanic reaction can occur. The zinc plating on the screw is sacrificed to the steel of the metal stud or the clip plate. Hydrogen is a by-product of the galvanic reaction because as electrons from
the zinc pass to the steel, positive zinc ions are released into the water and effectively separate the water molecules into hydrogen and hydroxide by bonding with the hydroxide. Similar to HE corrosion due to manufacturing processes, the hydrogen produced by the galvanic reaction can migrate into the intergranular cracks in the steel screw through any scratches in the zinc plating and cause brittleness and cracking. With HASCC, the crack is most
Reactions in the Field

The primary difference between HE and HASCC is that HE happens during the manufacturing process and HASCC occurs after installation. HASCC can result from hydrogen generated after installation by a galvanic reaction between dissimilar metals. Galvanic reaction occurs when two different metals come into contact with each other in the presence of an electrolyte. Electrolytes are any substances that contain free ions (charged particles) and conduct electricity (e.g. water). All metals have different levels of electronegativity, which is a measure of the ability of molecules to attract and form bonds with outside electrons. The greater the difference in electronegativity between two metals, the greater is the potential for electrons to flow from one metal to the other. The metal with less electronegativity will corrode, because its electrons will flow into the other metal via the electrolyte. The purpose of zinc-electroplating and likewise galvanizing is to place a sacrificial metal (i.e. zinc) between the two metals that need to remain intact. In the case of cladding support framing, a galvanic reaction can occur when hardened steel screws come into contact with dissimilar metals in the presence of an electrolyte. The electrolyte is usually rain during construction, water that leaks into the structure, or even moisture due to condensation. The screws are zinc-electroplated attached to galvanized
custom built to the highest standards.

Yours.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Tubular sections
SuperStruct tubular sections hold up to the strictest design standards without holding them back.
Manufactured in a variety of shapes and sizes to your specifications Large sizes from 12 up to 48 squares and rectangles Lengths up to 55 Wall thickness 5/16 to 1 Excellent column strength and torsional properties Aesthetically appealing
800-825-6668 www.valmont.com Valley, Nebraska
Contact Kyle DeBuse at Valmont Tubing toll-free at 1-800-825-6668 ext. 3558 or kld2@valmont.com to learn more on the design possibilities of HSS SuperStruct.
STRUCTURE magazine
Client/Job#: 8911_ChangesToAd
13
August 2010
Color(s): Black
likely to occur at the interface between the shaft and the head of the screw, because this is the location of the highest stress and therefore the location with the highest concentration of hydrogen. If screws have been corroded by HE or HASCC, their tension capacity is greatly reduced and their heads may pop off when placed in direct tension.
the screw also has a proprietary coating that provides substantial resistance to other types of corrosion. Unfortunately the higher price tag is inevitably a bone of contention between engineers and contractors.
Organic Offerings
Many of the available self-drilling/self-tapping screw manufacturers claim that their proprietary organic coatings provide superior corrosion resistance. Climaseal, Grabbergard, KwikCote, and Quik Guard are examples of such proprietary coatings. Relative to other comparable high-carbon screws, this may be true. These coatings insulate the screw from the base metal that they are screwed into, and in the absence of metal to metal contact, there is no galvanic reaction and therefore no HASCC. Typically, screws that are mechanically zinc plated and treated with an organic proprietary coating are substantially less expensive than the screw with dual-hardness. However, it is highly unlikely that screw manufacturers will guarantee that their organic coating will not wear off when the screw is driven into the base material. Unfortunately, there is currently no ASTM corrosion resistance test for organic coatings that mimics the wear and tear on screw coatings during construction. Salt spray testing is the ASTM approved method for testing general corrosion resistance in fasteners. ICC reports give information on salt spray testing for various fasteners with proprietary coatings, but salt spray testing does not relate directly to HE or HASCC.
Damaging Effects
Brittle cracking is a structural engineers worst nightmare because it happens suddenly and without warning. For example, imagine a cladding support connection that requires 3.2 screws, and 4 are used; if one screw suddenly gives way (due to HASCC), the load to that connection may be redistributed to nearby stud connections, which are then overloaded, and progressive failure, also known as a zipper effect, could be initiated. Corrosion of this type is not visible and impossible to detect until after the damage has occurred and the screw fracture can be observed. Even more alarming is the fact that this failure can occur at anytime during the life of the building, because there is no guarantee that water wont come into contact with the screws due to storm damage or even condensation. The only recourse is to make sure that the screws used during construction are invulnerable to HE and HASCC.
Soft Solution
High carbon (hard) steel is more susceptible to HE or HASCC than low carbon (soft) steel, because carbon atoms provide traps for hydrogen to accumulate and propagate cracks. The hydrogen interacts with, and is retained by, the carbon atoms. According to Greenslade, HE and HASCC are avoided in screws with core hardness of Rockwell C 36 or less, i.e. when carbon content (hardness) is kept below a certain limit (RC 36), hydrogen trapping is diminished and crack initiation will not occur. Additionally, hardened steel is inherently more brittle than low carbon steel because the carbon impurities and hydrogen impurities decrease ductility even further. One manufacturer has taken advantage of the HE/ HASCC invulnerability of low-carbon steel by making a screw with a dual-hardness. The screw tip is hard enough to penetrate and cut threads in the base metal, yet the shaft (the load bearing portion with the highest stress concentrations) is soft enough to provide ductility and strength without brittleness. The shaft hardness is RC 28-34. This technique is fairly new. The manufacturer asserts that
Code Confusion
Current code requirements for self-drilling/ self-tapping fasteners are very vague about corrosion treatment and make no mention whatsoever about HASCC. Self-drilling/ self-tapping screws can easily meet all code requirements and still be at risk for both HE and HASCC. There is some discrepancy in code requirements, e.g. SAE J933 recommends that the core hardness of tapping screws be kept below RC 36 to avoid brittle failure; while SAE J78 specifies a core hardness upper limit of RC 40. Even if hardened screws meet the recommendations mentioned above for baking and HE testing, they are still susceptible to HASCC in the field.
Screws should either have dual hardness with a screw shaft hardness of less than RC 36, or they should either be mechanically plated or electroplated and baked at 400oF for four hours and then tested for HE per GM testing requirements. ASTM standards need to be set for post-plating baking of screws and testing for HE. ASTM 1940 provides guidance for HE monitoring during the plating process and should be adopted by all screw manufacturers that make self-drilling/ self-tapping screws. If screws do not have dual hardness, they should be coated with an organic coating that is proven to withstand typical construction wear and tear. ASTM standards need to be set and adopted by screw manufacturers for organic coating application methods and testing. ICC reports for self-drilling/selftapping screws should be thoroughly reviewed for resistance to HE/HASCC before approval. Self-drilling/self-tapping screws must be clearly specified by the engineer by brand, plating type, size, and organic coating (where applicable). This information should be very clear in both the structural drawings and specifications, and should be verified during the submittal process. Given the lack of HE/HASCC awareness amongst contractors and their eagerness to save money on this seemingly insignificant part, it is smart to double check the screws at the jobsite even requesting to see the boxes that the screws came in. HE and HASCC are issues that must be addressed by structural engineers, contractors, and testing institutions. The recommendations above can help to greatly reduce the likelihood of HE/HASCC occurrence. A relatively small amount of up-front expense can prevent a significant damage and expense later on. Dana Benton, P.E. is on sabbatical from KPFF Consulting Engineers in Portland, OR. She is currently studying corrosion failure in New Zealand. She may be reached at dana.benton@kpff.com. The online version of this article contains references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Rules of Thumb
The following are recommendations for engineers, screw manufacturers, and changes to code requirements:
STRUCTURE magazine
14
August 2010
E X P A N D your frame
of reference.
Simpson Strong-Tie has nearly doubled its offering of Strong Frame ordinary moment frames. By adding a new 16' tall column and 14', 18' and 20' wide beams, you not only have 368 frame congurations to choose from, but more design exibility for larger openings and wider interior clear spans. And because our frames are pre-engineered, you spend minutes choosing the right frame rather than hours designing one. Contractors also appreciate our weld-free, 100% bolted installation. Expand your options even further with a Custom Strong Frame made to order. And download our new Strong Frame Selector software and catalog. For more information visit www.strongtie.com/strongframe or call (800) 999-5099.
2010 Simpson
Strong-Tie Company Inc. SF10-E
Is Roof Eave Blocking Required To Transmit Wind/Seismic Forces?

By Felix Martin, S.E. Blocking between wood rafters or trusses at roof eaves (commonly known as eave blocking) has been standard framing practice in residential construction, particularly at open eaves. Blocking typically consists of nominal 2-inch wide material, normally of a depth matching the height from the bottom of the roof sheathing to the top plate of the wall. The installation of edge blocking serves several purposes. The blocking enclosed the attic space, preventing birds and vermin from entering, and it was a means to assure accurate dimensional spacing between the rafters or roof trusses. It also provided a load path from the roof diaphragm to the exterior walls to transfer wind or seismic forces. However, as fire requirements and aesthetic considerations have resulted in the increased use of enclosed eaves, the installation of eave blocking has been abandoned in many places. Whether or not the installation of eave blocking is required depends on a number of factors. These may be prescriptive, required by building code statute; or, as an integral part of the lateral load-resisting system, a means to maintain a complete load path from the roof diaphragm to the shear walls. A need exists to clarify all requirements and establish a reasonable basis for determining when eave blocking is required and when it may not be. R602.10.6.2(3) do not provide a load path, and serve solely to prevent rotation of the rafter/truss. The IRC therefore does not require the use of eave blocking for the transfer of wind or seismic forces. Similarly, the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) under Conventional LightFrame Construction Section 2308.10.6 requires the use of blocking per Section 2308.8.5, which uses heel height limits to require lateral support against rotation of the roof framing. The heel depth-tothickness ratio for roof framing is held to a maximum unblocked ratio of 5:1. This requirement again exists only to resist rotation of the roof framing and does not address the transfer of wind or seismic forces. The 2006 IBCs General Design Requirements for Lateral Force Resisting Systems section prescribed the use of boundary members to transmit tension and compression forces (Section 2305.1.2). This was generally taken by engineers to indicate a requirement for eave blocking. Since wind/seismic chord forces are typically resisted by the wall top plates, an obvious load path would be from the roof diaphragm to the top plates through the eave blocking. Under that configuration, eave blocking meets the IBC requirement for boundary members to transmit tension and compression forces. However, the 2009 IBC deleted Section 2305.1.2 and under newly revised Section 2306.2.1 ( Wood Structural Panel diaphragms) defaults the design and construction of horizontal wood diaphragms to as in accordance with the American Forest & Paper Associations Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic. AF&PAs 2005 Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic Section 4.2.6 (Construction Requirements) requires diaphragm boundary elements to transmit tension, compression and shear forces, but does not specifically require those to be eave blocking. In the design to resist chord tension and compression forces, the boundary members are normally assumed to be the wall double top plates. Eave blocking can transfer forces to the top plates, but that transfer may instead be arguably accomplished without it, using metal connectors attaching the rafter/truss to the top plate. The load path would then be from the wood diaphragm to the connector through the roof rafter/truss,
Figure 1a: Wood Framed Eave with Eave Blocking.
and from the connector to the wall top plates. This load path will be further discussed in the following sections.
Analysis Requirements
Diaphragm Figure 1a shows a standard roof framing detail for a wood framed eave, with eave blocking. Figure 1b shows the same detail, without the eave blocking but substituting standard connection hardware. Figure 1c shows again the same detail, without the eave blocking, at a masonry wall condition with standard connection hardware. In considering the need to transfer wind/ seismic forces at roof eaves, two issues need to be addressed. First would be the resolution of resistant forces parallel to the direction of applied wind/seismic forces (the reaction shear forces). Second would be the resolution of resistant forces perpendicular to the direction of applied wind/ seismic forces (the chord forces). The reactive shear forces resisting wind/ seismic forces for a flexible, unblocked diaphragm are typically determined from a tributary span length and a tributary wind/ seismic load. Table 1 tabulates reactive shear values for different combinations of wind/seismic loadings (w) and different diaphragm length-to-depth ratios (L/d). Because we are only considering the analysis of eaves perpendicular to the roof framing and the roof trusses are assumed to span across the shorter dimension, the wind/seismic forces would act across the short direction of the diaphragm and we would only investigate the reactive shear forces from wind/seismic forces perpendicular to the roof framing (IBC Table 2306.3.1, Case 3 unblocked diaphragm). The results show the reactive shear forces fall within most popular sheathing
Structural Performance
Building Code Requirements

The International Residential Code (IRC) did not specifically require eave blocking under the 2006 edition. Some conditions are provided in the 2009 IRC under which eave Section R602.10.6.2 requires blocking for lateral support against rotation, but only at top plate sections above braced wall panels. Low wind/ seismic regions require partial height (to allow attic venting per R806) eave blocking, but only at rafter/truss heel heights above 9.25 inches. High wind/seismic regions require eave blocking per Figures R602.10.6.2(1), R602.10.6.2(2) or R602.10.6.2(3) for all heel heights. That the required blocking is only partial height for attic ventilation seems unnecessary in that the blocking is only required over braced wall panels and not elsewhere along the wall line. IRC Figures R602.10.6.2(1), R602.10.6.2(2) and
performance issues relative to extreme events
STRUCTURE magazine
16
August 2010
Figure 1b: Wood Framed Eave, No Eave Blocking.
Figure 1c: Masonry Wall Wood Framed Eave, No Eave Blocking.
thickness/nail size combinations for unblocked diaphragms. Diaphragm shear capacity would thus not seem to be a concern in eliminating eave blocking when considering reactive shear forces. Chord forces for flexible, unblocked diaphragms are typically calculated as simple span moments between diaphragm supports, divided by the depth of the diaphragm. Table 2 tabulates chord forces for different combinations of wind/seismic loadings (w) and different diaphragm length-to-depth ratios (L/d), divided by the length of the diaphragm. Again considering chord forces perpendicular to framing but due this time to wind/seismic forces parallel to framing, we look at chord flow forces along the diaphragm edge corresponding to an IBC Table 2306.3.1, Case 3 loading. The tabulated results show that the chord flow shear forces fall within most popular sheathing thickness/nailing combinations for unblocked diaphragms. In considering chord forces at diaphragms without eave blocking, diaphragm shear capacity does not appear to be a concern. Mechanical Connectors Typical roof wood rafter/truss to wood wall construction uses metal connectors such as those shown in Figure 1b, while typical roof wood rafter/truss to masonry wall construction uses connectors such as the one shown in Figure 1c. Available from a number of manufacturers, these connectors have load capacities (depending on the model used) of up to several hundred pounds per connector. The values tabulated in either Table 1 or Table 2 compare well with the allowable loads for these metal connectors. Provided the proper connector is selected and standard spacings used, shear force demands from the diaphragm to the exterior walls can be met. These connectors would thus meet the IBC Section 2305.1.2 requirement for the use of
boundary members to transmit tension and compression forces. However, where eave blocking is not used, the rafter/truss would receive the wind/seismic load from the diaphragm at the top of the rafter/ truss and transfer it to the wall top plates at the base of the rafter/truss. This creates a rotational moment across the rafter/truss. Disregarding that this rotational moment induces cross-grain bending on the rafter/truss, in order for the wind/seismic load to successfully transfer into the top plates there needs to be a free-body resolution of the rotational moment. The moment may be resisted by the metal connectors tying the rafter/truss to the top plates. In the case of connector A shown in Figure 1b, nailed flanges on either side of the rafter/truss may develop a resistive couple.
Table 1: Reactive Shear Forces.
Similarly, a connector B could be installed each side of the rafter/truss to resist the rotational couple. However, the rated load values for these connectors were developed through testing that restrained the wood members from rotation. The rated load values represent capacities for straight shear transfer, and do not assume a combination of shear and rotational loads. Manufacturers typically include catalogue warnings that the connectors are not intended to prevent cross grain bending. Engineers could bypass the manufacturers warnings and apply engineering design concepts to analyze the connector. Such a study should include a complete free-body analysis and a unity equation check. Those intending to install B connectors should also consider manufacturers recommendation to use a minimum 2-inch thick rafter/truss when installing B connectors opposite each other. In order to use mechanical connectors to replace edge blocking as the load path transfer elements, a disregard of cross-grain bending across the rafter/truss is necessary. In addition, an engineering analysis of the connector, including a free-body analysis and a unity equation check, would be required before determining the adequacy of the connection.
Empirical Test Data

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sponsored tests on roof truss to wall connections and reported the results in 2004. The tests involved four different attachment configurations, none using eave blocking. Two of the configurations used toe nails as the sole means of attachment.
continued on next page
Shear Flow (plf ) L/d w (plf ) 100 150 200 250 300
Table 2: Chord Forces.
0.25 13 19 25 31 38
0.33 17 3 33 41 50
0.50 25 38 50 63 75
0.67 34 50 67 84 101
1.00 50 75 100 125 150
Chord Flow (plf ) L/d w (plf ) 100 150 200 250 300 350 50 75 100 125 150 175 38 56 75 94 113 131 August 2010 25 38 50 63 75 88 19 28 38 47 56 66 13 19 25 31 38 44 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.50 1.00
STRUCTURE magazine
17
The third configuration used a combination of twenty-two toe nails and nine metal connectors. The fourth configuration used only four toe nails and nine metal connectors. The metal connectors were installed on only one side of the truss. Test results showed a noticeable difference between toe-nail failure and metal connector failure modes. Toe-nail failure was defined by lower load capacities, splitting of the wood and lateral sliding of the truss along the top plate, with little out-of-plane truss rotation. Metal connector failures occurred at higher load capacities. In some cases the truss rotated outof-plane, resulting in truss plate separations. In others, the connectors failed, either by failing in tension or by excessive deformation due to localized buckling of the connector. Metal connectors are typically load-rated based on joint slip limits, rather than on failure load capacity. The HUD tests were based on failure load capacity and as such reports excessively high failure-load-to-rated-load safety factors. One of recommendations in the report is the abandonment of metal connectors allowable loads based on joint slip limits because of the higher loads made possible by failure load analysis. However, in the configurations tested, load failure occurred at deformations of over an inch, excessive by any measure and surely a condition that would benefit from the installation of eave blocking.
Conclusions
Roof eave blocking is not prescriptively required by either the IRC or the IBC to transfer wind/seismic forces. Eave blocking is only code-required to resist lateral rotation of the rafter/truss assemblies when prescribed heightto-width heel ratios are exceeded. Wood roof diaphragms do not appear able to develop large enough shear or chord forces in standard configurations to require the installation of eave blocking. Similarly, metal truss connector load capacities appear sufficient to not require the additional installation of eave blocking to resist standard configuration shear or chord forces. However, the use of only truss connectors in lieu of eave blocking requires a disregard of cross-grain bending across the rafter/ truss assembly, and should include a complete free-body analysis and a unity equation check. Although the splitting failure of toe-nailed connections indicated safety factors for toe nails may not be low enough to use without eave blocking, test data seems to indicate that the omission of eave blocking is possible in some low-load, low heel-height conditions. Toe nail shear capacities are so low, cross-grain bending in low-heel conditions does not appear to have an opportunity to develop as a concern. In other words, for low heel-height load cases requiring only toe-nailing, cross-bending concerns could be disregarded. With some limits,
low-load conditions might be possible without eave blocking. However, at higher loads and particularly as the heel height increases, cross-grain bending should not be ignored. Test results indicate the use of connector hardware greatly increases the load capacity over that of just toe-nailed assemblies. This increased load capacity, however, also brings about a rise in the incidence of cross-grain rotational failure. For gang-nailed roof trusses, that rotational failure may take place through truss plate separation. Where demand loads are sufficiently large to require the installation of metal connector hardware, in assemblies without eave blocking cross-grain bending becomes the primary failure mechanism. Higher loads and higher heel heights may also result in assembly deformations too excessive to be acceptable, and well beyond the joint slip limits of the metal hardware. In designing higher-load assemblies (such as those in high wind and earthquake zones), the decision to omit eave blocking should be considered thoroughly and carefully. Felix Martin, Principal Engineer for Marcon Forensics, LLC (offices in California and Florida), is a Structural Engineer registered in several states. He can be reached at felix@marconforensics.com. The online version of this article contains references. Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
STRUCTURE magazine
18
August 2010
e
School
Cornell
NCSEA Basic Education Survey Curriculum Results Part 2

In our last issue (May 2010), we presented the results of NCSEAs latest survey of educational institutions on which schools offer courses in the proposed educational program, The Basic Structural Education. In this issue, we provide a detailed listing of courses offered by each institution responding to the survey. To review The Basic Structural Education outline, please visit the STRUCTURE magazine website (www.STRUCTUREmag.org). The following is the list of schools which responded to the latest survey. This table denotes how many classes each school offers for each subject of the recommended curriculum. A + # would signify that the school requires that number of additional class(es) at the Masters level, or offers that number of additional class(es) as an elective. Schools which are in bold type have the complete recommended curriculum. * responses indicate an unchanged program from the 2004/05 survey.
Recommended Curriculum
Analysis Matrix Methods Steel Design 2 Courses Recommended Required for a Bachelors Degree Required for a Masters Degree Concrete Design 2 Courses Recommended Required for a Bachelors Degree Required for a Masters Degree Timber Design 1 Course Recommended Required for a Bachelors Degree Required for a Masters Degree Masonry Design 1 Course Recommended Required for a Bachelors Degree Required for a Masters Degree Dynamic 1 Course Recommended Required for a Bachelors Degree Required for a Masters Degree Foundation Soils 1 Course Recommended Required for a Bachelors Degree Required for a Masters Degree Technical Writing 1 Course Recommended Required for a Bachelors Degree
1
2 Courses 1 Course Recommended Recommended Required for a Bachelors Degree Required for a Bachelors Degree Required for a Masters Degree Required for a Masters Degree
Required for a Masters Degree
Offered as an Elective
Auburn University
+1
+2
+1
+3
Blue Mountain Community College* Brown University Bucknell University California Polytechnic University S.L.O.* California State University Fresno California State University Sacramento Clemson University Florida Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology George Washington University Gonzaga University Hofstra University Howard University Illinois Institute of Technology Lawrence Technological University* Miami University Michigan State University Michigan Technological University Milwaukee School of Engineering* Missouri Western State University Montana State University 1 2 None offered 1 1 1 +2 1 1 1 +1 +1 2 None offered 2 1 .5 .5 1 2 +2 1 2 +1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 +1 1 +1 +2 2 +1 1 1 +2 +2 +1 1 1 1 1 1 +1 1 +1 1 None offered 1 1 1 2 +1 1 1 1 +1 +2 1 1 1 2 1 1 +1 1 1 2 3 .5 2 .5 1 .5 1
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey .5 2

None offered None offered
.25
.75 1
1 1
None offered 1
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 None offered 1 2 1 2 .5 2 +2 +1 +1 1

None offered
1 1 1 3 1 +3 +2 1
None offered
1 1 1
+1 1
1 1
+1
+1 +3 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 2 1 1 +2 +1 3 2 2 1 +1 +1 1 1 1
None offered None offered 1 None offered 1 1 None offered 1 None offered None offered .5 1
4 +3 +1 1 1 2 1 1
1
None offered None offered 2 None offered 1 1 1
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey None offered 1 +2 None offered 1 1
.5
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey 1 2 +1 .5 1 .5 1 None offered 1 1 2 +1 1 1
continued on next page STRUCTURE magazine
19
August 2010
+1 1 1
e
School
Ohio University Rensselaer Texas Tech The Citadel* Tufts University
1 +3 9 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 +1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +1 +1 2 +2 3 +2 +3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 +7 +2 +4 +2 +2 +1 +8 +2 1 1 2 2 2 +2 +1 +3 +1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 +1 1 1 1 1 1 1
New Mexico State University Northeastern University North Carolina State University Northern Arizona University Ohio Northern University* Ohio State University Oklahoma State University Architectural Engineering
3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 1 +1 2
+1 +1 +3 +1 1 1 +6
1 1 1 2 +2 1
+1 2 1 3 3
1 1 1
+1 +2 4
1
None offered
1 None offered 1 1 None offered 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 +1 +2 1
1 1 2
1 1
None offered
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey 1 1 +1 +1 +1 +2 1 +1 2 1.5 1 1 1 1 .5 +1 1 +2 1 1 +1 +1 2 1 1 1 +1 +2 2 1 1 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 1 1 +1 1.5 1 1 1 1 .5 1 1 1 1 2 +2 2 1 +2 +2 +1 +2 +2 1 1 +3 1 1

+3 +1 +2 +1 +3 1 +2 2
1 +1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 1 .5
None offered
2 1 1 1 1
Oklahoma State University Civil Engineering Oregon State University Portland State University Purdue University
1 1 1 .5 None offered None offered 1 1 None offered 1 None offered None offered 1 None offered 1 1
+2 1
Rochester Institute of Technology Rose Hulman Institute of Technology Saint Martins University San Francisco State University Santa Clara University* South Dakota State University Southern Methodist University Stevens Institute of Technology Syracuse University Texas A&M University College Station Texas A&M University Kingsville
None offered +2 1 2 1 None offered +4 +1 +3 +2 1 1 1
1 2 1
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey
1
None offered
1 1
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey 1 2 1 1 2 +1 +1 +1 +1 1 2 1 None offered 1 1 1 1 1 1 +1 1 +1 +1 1 1 1 1 1 +4 1 +1 +1
None offered
Tri-State University* University at Buffalo (SUNY) University of Alabama Birmingham University of Alaska Anchorage University of Arkansas
None offered 1 1 None offered 1
1 2 +2 1 1 1
1 1
1 +1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
2 2
STRUCTURE magazine
20
August 2010
1
1 None offered +5 +2 +2 +2 +1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 None offered 1 1 1

+2
School
University of California San Diego University of Cincinnati University of Dayton* University of Evansville University of Florida University of Hawaii Manoa University of Houston University of Illinois Urbana* University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Memphis* University of Michigan University of Missouri Kansas City University of Missouri Rolla University of New Hampshire University of New Mexico University of New Orleans University of North Carolina Charlotte* University of Tennessee Knoxville University of Tennessee Martin University of Utah University of Washington* University of Wisconsin Madison University of Wisconsin Plateville University of Wyoming Utah State University Virginia Military Institute Virginia Tech Washington University in St. Louis Western Kentucky University Worcester Polytechnic Institute
2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 +1 +1 1 +1 +1 +3 +1 1 1 +2 1 +1 1 1 +1
1 1.5
+1 +2 +1
2 1.5 1
+1 +2 +1
1 1 1
1 1 None offered 1 None offered 1 1 .5 1 1 1 1 None offered .5 1 1 1 +1
2 +1 1 2 +2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
2 +2
None offered
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey 1 +1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 None offered 1 1 1 1 1 +1 +3 2 2 +2 +1 +1 +1 3 1 1 +1 1 1 1 +1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +1 +3 2 +3 +3 +2 +2 +1 3 1

Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey 1 .5

None offered
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey 1 1 1

None offered
.5
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 +1 +1 1 1 +1 1 2 1 None offered +1 +1 1 +1 +1 1 1 1 +1 1 +2 1 +2 +1 None offered 1 1 +1 1 +2 1 1 +1 1 +4 +2 1 1 1 +1 2 2 1 +2 1 1 1 1 +2 +1 +4 +2 .5 .5 +2 1 +1 .5 1 1 2 1 +1 +1 1

None offered
.5
+3
1 1 1
1 None offered 1 None offered None offered 1 1 None offered 1 1 None offered None offered 1 1 1
1 1 +3 +1
1 1 1 1
+1
+3
+5 +1 1
1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Unchanged program from 2004-2005 survey
None offered 2 None offered 2 2 None offered 1 +4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 +1
1 1 .5 1 1
None offered
+2 +2 +1 +3 +1
None offered 2 3
STRUCTURE magazine
21
August 2010
1 1
woodworks.org
Design and building support for the non-residential marketplace
Visit WoodWorks online for resources that can help you design and build non-residential structures more easily and at less cost. Professional development Stream webinars for free or pay a nominal fee and earn AIA/CEU or PDH credits at your desk, any time
WALL WHER RE OCCUR RS Web-based tools CAD/REVIT details, calculators, tables, and design guides I-J JOI IST span WEB B FILLE Eproduct R AS S REQUIRE ED support Access Technical to WoodWorks experts and 3-1 16d NAIL LS information from wood associations nationwide
Event calendar Wood Solutions Fairs, workshops, in-house presentations
Join the conversation on the WoodWorks blog.

woodworks.org
C ALIFORNIA GEORGIA ILLINOIS MINNESOTA NORTH C AROLINA SOUTH C AROLINA WISCONSIN
WoodWorks is an initiative of the Wood Products Council, which includes all of the major North American wood associations.
WoodWorks is an approved AIA provider.
Photo credit: APA The Engineered Wood Association (left and center), Tom Weir, Brandow and Johnston, Inc. (right).
Anchor Bolts in Light-Frame Construction at Small Edge Distances

Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California To have a realistic understanding of anchor bolt behavior on exterior woodframed walls, the engineer needs to know the behavior of the L-bolt that is commonly specified and constructed. In this connection, in-plane shear from woodframed walls are typically transferred from wood sill plates through steel anchor bolts to a concrete foundation or deck. The testing reported here provides valuable insight for the behavior of this connection, and clarifies the assumptions required to provide an economical design using the most recent codes and standards. The testing indicates that the yield strength of the wood sill plate and steel anchor bolt subassembly of the connection, rather than the bolt-to-concrete portion of it, governs the connection strength, and that the connection performs in a ductile manner. SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California) Seismology Committee also provides design recommendations based on the testing.
Guest Column
dedicated to the dissemination of information from other organizations
Figure 1: Test set-up. Direction of loading is parallel to the concrete foundation. A bolt deformed in a previous test is shown in the foreground. The arrow points to a single anchor bolt with square washer in a 7-foot-long sill plate ready for testing.
Recent Changes in Codes and Standards

The change of model codes in California in January 2007 from the 1997 Unified Building Code (UBC) to the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) required a number of fundamental changes to accepted design practices of sill plate anchorage in light-frame structures. A significant change to design practice was required to apply the IBC provisions for the seismic design of anchor bolt connections occurring near a concrete edge. These changes have been a source of much discussion and frustration for code users in high seismic areas subject to the IBC and American Concrete Institute (ACI) codes. In California, the design procedure and code-prescribed capacity of these anchor bolts in concrete had not changed since the values were first tabulated and introduced in the 1979 UBC. In the IBC jurisdictions outside California, new ACI strength-based provisions for the design of seismically loaded cast-in anchors have been a part of the IBC since the 2000 edition. Regarding the provisions of the 2006 IBC, which are currently applicable in many states, anchor bolt design is covered in IBC sections 1911 (Allowable Stress Design) and 1912 (Strength Design).
IBC 1911 requires that, with any seismic loading, anchor bolt capacities must use a strength-based design procedure. Thus, per IBC 1912, the L-bolt is specifically required to be designed to the requirements of ACI 318 Appendix D, provided its application is within the scope of the appendix. For the strength design of anchors that are not within the scope of Appendix D, the anchors shall be designed by an approved procedure. Therefore the subject sill plate anchorage is required to use the strength-based Appendix D design for seismic loads, but for wind loads the anchor bolt capacities may be taken from IBC Table 1911.2, which still contain the historical values used prior to the IBC. The scope and provisions of ACI 318 Appendix D resulted from many years of testing, and substantial effort directed at providing designers more transparency into the limit states associated with various classes of concrete anchorage. Wood sill plate anchorage forms a small subset of possible anchorage conditions covered by Appendix D. This connection is of greater regional importance than international importance, and there was a gap in the literature addressing this condition prior to the SEAOC testing. As a result, the present code provisions did not fully anticipate application to this narrow but important condition falling within the category of concrete anchorage, and the STRUCTURE magazine
general provisions produced design results inconsistent with the needs of lightframe design. Using Appendix D, light-frame designers have derived bolt values on the order of one-quarter to as little as one-fifth of the traditional value when assuming a nonductile connection and cracked concrete. Such a result is very low and leads to a design solution that would be physically impossible for the wood sill attachment of many code-listed shear wall systems. For example, some designers have derived a capacity of approximately 300 pounds (ASD) for an anchor that traditionally carried approximately 1200 pounds (ASD). Accordingly, a fairly heavily loaded shear wall that would have traditionally required two anchors per stud bay would now require eight anchors per stud bay, which do not physically fit. Since issues with the old values were not apparent, the need for substantial change was puzzling, both with respect to significantly lower connection values and also the complexity of the required analysis, which utilizes over a dozen variables.
Code Issues Targeted by the Testing Project

Two assumptions that affect the ACI Appendix D calculation are the ductility parameter and the cracked concrete parameter. The ductility parameter of
23
August 2010
IBC 1908.1.16 [D3.3.5] can be considered extremely sensitive, as it requires a 60 percent reduction to the connection capacity in concrete if the attachment to concrete is deemed to be not ductile at the concrete design strength. (ACI 318-08 has reduced the reduction to 50 percent in light-frame construction.) The resultant low concrete capacity values suggest that a failure of the connection is expected to occur in the concrete long before it occurs in the anchor bolt or the wood sill plate. However, the SEAOC Seismology Committee performed a literature search of anchor bolt testing for wood sill plates with small concrete edge distances and discovered very limited research was available. The SEAOC Seismology Committee then decided to embark on an anchor bolt testing program. Using the Tyrell Gilb facility of Simpson Strong-Tie Company in Stockton, California, a facility accredited to comply with ANSI/ISO/IEC Standard 17025:2005, members of the SEAOC Seismology Light-frame Subcommittee conducted the first test program of its kind, where the behavior of light-frame wood sill plate anchorage at small edge distances was targeted. The results of this testing program are published in the document Report on Laboratory Testing of Anchor Bolts Connecting Wood Sill Plates to Concrete with Minimum Edge Distances, dated March 29, 2009, available from the SEAONC (Structural Engineers Association of Northern California) website: www.seaonc.org.
This allowed the contribution of friction to be better understood in analyzing the test data. Second, the impact-echo method was used to continuously monitor the status of any delamination that developed in the concrete during the testing that may not have been visible. For the test setup, (Figure 1) every effort was made to test materials representative of the most common shear wall connections. Anchor bolts were 5/8-inch nominal diameter A36 L-bolts with 7 inches embedment into approximately 2500 psi concrete. Sill plates of 2x4, 2x6, and 3x6 dimensions were tested, with anchor bolt edge distances of 1.75 or 2.75 inches depending upon the sill plate size. A new displacement-based loading protocol was developed. Using data from an initial set of monotonic pull tests, cyclic tests were calibrated so that damage produced by the test would best represent and measure actual inservice failure modes. For the new protocol, the SEAOC Seismology Committee used a hybrid approach, essentially taking the CUREE Woodframe Project protocol with additional cycles added at low load levels. Independently, the SEAOSC (Structural Engineers Association of Southern California) sequential phased displacement (SPD) loading was used on several tests and results compared favorably.
Findings from the Testing

Based upon the test report, the L-bolts may be conservatively designed assuming a wood yield mode as predicted by the yield limit equations associated with Mode IIIs and Mode IV behavior in the ANSI/AF&PA NDS-2005 National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction. These values are subject to the same limitations as NDS Table 11E and do
Testing Procedures
The SEAOC tests included two unique features. First, the effect of friction was isolated on half of the tests by providing a lubricated polyethylene membrane at the wood-concrete interface.
FYFE
Co. LLC Ty fo Fibr wrap Systems
Over 20 years ago we created the industry... today we set the standard
Structural Strengthening FRP Installation Seismic Upgrade Blast Mitigation Concrete Retrot Specialty Gunite Underwater & Coastal Repairs Expansion & Seismic Joints Pipe Repair and Renewal Large and Small Diameter PCCP, RCP, Steel Structural Repairs Carbon Fiber Structural Liners Concrete Restoration Epoxy Crack Injection Spall Repair Corrosion Protection Advanced Fire Protection
not apply to anchorage in light-weight concrete, post-installed anchors, or anchorage of coldformed steel track. For loads in the range of design values, which were well within the elastic range, there was little difference between the pseudo-cyclic, monotonic, and sequential phased displacement test results. Once the anchors were loaded to approximately 5000 pounds, the anchors slowly started to exhibit some plastic behavior as further displacement occurred. The frictionless membrane applied under the length of the sill plate had a minor effect at small displacements within the elastic range. Fastener fatigue was not a limit state influenced by any of the various loading protocols. This is an important observation, since it limits the area of concern to the strength of wood and concrete elements tested. The class of anchorage connections tested was ductile, and concrete side-breakout was not detected until the resistance force was significantly beyond the elastic range, specifically not until the peak value was achieved. The predicted ACI Appendix D concrete break-out strength (taken from the estimated mean) appears overly conservative for the 2x4 and 3x4 wood sill plates. In the test, considering the case either with or without the friction-reducing membrane, the 2x4 and 3x4 cyclic tests averaged 1.9 times the predictive value associated with the ACI provisions. Similarly, the 2x6 and 3x6 cyclic tests achieved 1.4 times the ACI assumptions. If the ACI Appendix D mean values were to accurately reflect the test results, the comparison would be expected to be on the order of 1:1. (These ratios are not applicable to design loads.) Finally, since the ultimate values corresponded to large displacements, it should be noted the data reduction used in the test report was conservatively modified from the ASTM E2126 standard. In particular, the first peak was used rather than the ultimate load specified by the standard. This peak value was defined by the SEAOC Seismology Committee as the highest load prior to any drop of 5 percent in capacity.
Assumptions Applicable to Anchor Bolt Design

Scope of ACI Appendix D Generally speaking, sill plate anchorage is not a low redundancy application, and thus designers may be tempted to conclude that the typical cast-in L anchor bolt is not within the scope of ACI appendix D, because ACI-05 commentary indicates those provisions apply to non-redundant conditions. There are typically at least four connections present in the sill plate, even with a narrow shear wall application (two hold downs and two anchor bolts). Also, there
8380 Miralani Drive, San Diego, CA 92126
NSF
R
Tel: 858.642.0694
Fax: 858.444.2982 www.fyfeco.com
Certied to NSF/ANSI 61
STRUCTURE magazine
24
August 2010
Table 1: Anchor Bolt Shear Values Based on the NDS 05 (CD=1.6)
Bolt Diameter1,2 Sill Plate 2x 3x

1 2
-inch 1040 1232
5/8-inch 1488 1888
-inch 2032 2426
-inch anchor bolt limited to 6-inch nominal width sill plates Values are shown in lbs. (ASD basis) It bears repeating that the code requires the determination of cracked versus uncracked to be made at service level loads, and that the crack reduction applies to a full-depth crack along the axis of the anchor. Given the inherent redundancy of anchors in light-frame construction, coupled with the low probability of coincidence between qualifying cracks and typical anchor placement, it is not reasonable to assume a cracked substrate unless specific conditions clearly indicate otherwise. Based upon the test report, it is rational to use either the values obtained from ACI Appendix D assuming uncracked concrete and a ductile attachment, or the NDS-05 design values for this common light-frame connection, as is detailed in the SEAOC bluebook article. (Table 1) Finally, the reader is cautioned that any damage occurring to this connection may not be readily apparent, because it may be obscured by the sill plate. The photos in the testing report provide some inspection guidance for those involved in post-event observations. Questions concerning this article may be directed to the Chair of the SEAOC Seismology Committee, Mehran Pourzanjani (mehran@sbise.com). The complete Blue Book article on this subject may be accessed at www.seaoc.org/bluebook.
are often other interior walls present and there is a likelihood of substantial friction at the sill plate connections. While a redundancy-based argument may have certain merits, the IBC states that if anchors are not to be regulated by Appendix D, another approved method is necessary. Such an approved method should incorporate a similar level of sophistication as Appendix D. However, IBC Table 1911.2 does not incorporate the various failure mechanisms that are addressed by Appendix D. Supplementary Reinforcement Supplementary reinforcement qualifies for a higher strength design factor as per ACI 318-05 section D4.4. However, on this point the SEAOC Seismology Committee cautions designers who may be tempted to categorize the typical continuous #4 or #5 reinforcement bar or post-tension tendon near the top and along the edge of the slab or curb as supplementary reinforcement. In the test, we found that the #4 bar placed near the top of the footing did not appear to directly influence concrete sidebreak-out. In practice, the bar location in the field is not sufficiently accurate to benefit the relatively shallow subject anchor bolt. Cracked Concrete Assumption The first UBC code reference regarding cracked concrete appeared in 1997 UBC section 1923.2, which referred to anchorage embedment in tension zones. At the time, overhead anchorage of structural members and equipment were a primary concern, and these regulations applied to anchorage occurring below the neutral axis on bending members such as beams or elevated concrete decks. However, the uncracked assumption is generally justified in light-frame construction. This view is supported by the review of available test information recently published by Eligehausen, Malle, and Silva in the publication Anchorage in Concrete Construction (2006), where it is concluded that no reduction was discovered when anchors were loaded perpendicular to the cracks. In light-frame construction, any cracks occurring in the concrete substrate would be expected to be more or less perpendicular to the concrete edge, and thus perpendicular to the applied load and not affecting the subject anchors.
Acknowledgements
In addition to the efforts of the 20082009 SEAOC Seismology Committee, a number of firms donated time, materials and/or effort, including Scientific Construction Laboratories, Inc., Structural Solutions, Inc., Certus Consulting, Inc., VanDorpe Chou Associates, Inc., and Phil Line of the American Forest & Paper Association. The Committee was also very fortunate to conduct the tests at the Tyrell Gilb Research Laboratory of Simpson Strong-Tie Company in Stockton, California. Further information is available in the testing report referred to in this article and in the SEAOC Blue Book article, Anchor Bolts in Light-Frame Construction at Small Edge Distances (www.seaoc.org/bluebook/index.html).
STRUCTURE magazine
25
August 2010
Anchorage Design for Pre-Fabricated Shear Panels in Light-Framed Structures

By Renee Strand, P.E.
Design Issues
Most designers are aware that they must maintain a proper load path to transfer structural loads into the foundation in order for their structure to remain standing. While tracing the load path of vertical loads is well understood by many, establishing a load path for loads applied horizontally can be challenging. Horizontal loads, or lateral loads, are most frequently generated by a wind or seismic event. In light-framed structures, lateral loads are commonly resisted by prescriptive wall bracing or engineered shear walls. The lateral load generated at the top of a shear panel, or braced wall panel, results in vertical compression and tension forces at the bottom of the panel that must be resisted. As the length of the panel decreases, the horizontal moment arm decreases, and the tension and compression forces increase (Figure 1). When the architecture of a building does not allow for sufcient wall length to eld construct wall bracing or site-built shear walls that meet code-specied aspect ratios, narrow prefabricated shear panels are solutions that provide lateral resistance to the structure. With narrow prefabricated shear panels, high tension and compression forces can be generated and proper anchorage design to the concrete foundation becomes critical. The tension, or uplift, force is usually resisted with an embedded anchor bolt
T MA
T C
Ph T=C= MA
MA
Figure 1: Free-body diagram of a shear wall.
CODES AND STANDARDS
or threaded rod into the concrete foundation. For prescriptive designs, lateral loads per shear panel are relatively small. Most manufacturers of prefabricated shear panels have prescriptive anchorage charts showing the required footing size and embedment depth for the anchor bolt to resist the uplift force. For engineered designs, the lateral design loads to the panel can become very high resulting in tension and compression forces in the 20 kip range or higher. Uplift forces associated with allowable in-plane shear loads are often published by each manufacturer and are dependent on the panel geometry and the moment arm at the base of the panel. Although manufacturers publish embedment and footing width charts for these higher loads, it is the responsibility
of the engineer-of-record to ensure the footing sizes, embedment depths, and concrete strength are correct for their specic application.
Code Requirements
Section 1912 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), Anchorage to Concrete Strength Design, references ACI 318 Appendix D for designing anchorage. For anchorage design in moderate to high seismic risk regions, dened as seismic design category C, D, E or F in ACI 31808 Section D.3.3, the nominal concrete strength in tension must be reduced using a factor of 0.75. In addition, the anchorage design shall be controlled by the steel strength of the anchor bolt (ACI 318,
updates and discussions related to codes and standards
Prefabricated Shear Panels Wide face to wide face
Bolt spacing
Concrete wall height per code or plan (not part of e)
Concrete wall height per code or plan (not part of e)
e, top of footing
to top of washer #4 rebar per code or plan 3" min. coverage B
e, top of footing
to top of washer
Overlapping area of breakout failure area Failure surface
Figure 2: Overlapping concrete break-out failure areas.
Section B-B
STRUCTURE magazine
26
August 2010
D.3.3.4) or the hold-down attachment must undergo ductile yielding at a force level less than the nominal strength of the anchorage associated with concrete failure modes (ACI 318, D3.3.5). As an alternative, the 2008 ACI 318 allows the design strength of the anchors to be taken as 0.40 times the calculated nominal concrete design strength (ACI 318-08, D.3.3.6). This alternate provision is also part of the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) (1908.1.16) which states, .the minimum design strength of the anchors shall be at least 2.5 times the factored forces transmitted by the attachment. In other words, a ductile steel anchor bolt or hold-down attachment must govern the design to avoid brittle failures. If this cannot be accomplished, the concrete design strength should be reduced by 60% or the concrete should be designed for a higher load 2.5 times the factored design load to allow the steel anchor or the holddown attachment to yield. In some instances the engineer-of-record will place prefabricated shear panels wideface-to-wide-face due to large, local, lateral loads that the wall line needs to resist. Due to overlapping concrete breakout failure areas, as shown in Figure 2 , the manufacturers details that are developed for a single panel will not achieve double the panels published allowable loads. In fact, depending upon the bolt embedment depth, end and edge distances, and the bolt spacing usually equal to the thickness of the prefabricated shear panel, the concrete capacity may increase only 25% although the demand on the concrete may have doubled. The engineer-of-record must reduce the demand on the panels or modify the anchorage to accommodate the design loads. In addition to designing anchorage for the tension force, the designer must also consider the compression force on the concrete. As stated previously, the lateral load at the top of the panel will induce compression on the concrete below. If the panel is supporting a vertical load from above, the vertical load must be added to the compression developed from the lateral load. The bearing strength of the concrete assembly must be greater than the cumulative compression force. This is especially critical when bearing near the edge of the concrete or in a corner, which is often the case with prefabricated shear panels. Section 10.14 of ACI 318-08 provides a procedure for calculating bearing strength. If there is sufcient bearing surface around all sides of the loaded area, A1, the loaded area can be increased by multiplying the bearing strength by the square root of (A2/A1), in which the square root of (A 2/A1) shall not exceed 2.
A2 can be determined as shown in Figure 3. However, many prefabricated shear panels are installed in applications with one face ush with the edge of concrete. Thus, this increase is not applicable and the bearing strength is calculated as (0.85f 'c A1), where A1 is the load area in compression below the footprint of the prefabricated shear panel. When designing stacked prefabricated shear panels, the anchorage must consider the cumulative overturning forces. OMbase = (V1H1 + V2H2)/MA The overturning moment at the base of the lower shear panel (OMbase) is equal to the sum of the shear at the rst story (V1) times the height of the rst story (H1) plus the shear at the second story (V2) times the height from the base to the top of the second story (H2). This value is then divided by the moment arm (MA) at the base of the prefabricated shear panel to calculate the tension and compression forces that the anchorage must resist. In addition to designing the anchorage to resist compression and tension forces, the anchorage must be designed to resist horizontal shear forces. As with tension, the shear design strength associated with concrete failure modes must be taken as 0.75 times the nominal
45
A1
A2
Plan View
Figure 3: Diagram illustrating frustum to nd A2.
factored shear stress in areas of moderate or high seismic risk. The connection must be controlled by the strength of the steel bolt or a ductile attachment when calculating the design shear strength as well. Often the concrete break-out strength of the anchor in shear governs the design strength, due to close end and edge distances of the anchor bolt to the
Ballard Landmark, Seattle WA
STRUCTURE magazine
27
August 2010
surfaces of the concrete. For conditions with the prefabricated shear panel located in a corner, the concrete breakout strength shall be taken as the minimum of the value calculated based on the concrete breakout failure area using the bolt end distance, or twice the value calculated based on the concrete failure area using the bolt distance perpendicular to the edge. See section D.6.2.1 of ACI 318 for more information. For prefabricated shear panels located with minimal edge and end distances, concrete shear reinforcement is usually required in the form of hairpin or stirrup reinforcement or other proprietary reinforcement to enhance the concrete breakout strength. Placement of hairpin or stirrup reinforcement should be such that it is in contact with the anchor bolt and is as close to the top surface of the concrete, as allowed per the concrete coverage provisions of ACI 318. For some prefabricated shear panels, the allowable in-plane shear load varies based on the grade of bolt. The engineer-of-record must indicate the grade of bolt required for the anchorage. For prescriptive loading, an ASTM A307 grade threaded rod or bolt is usually sufcient for single-story applications. For engineered projects, projects located in moderate to high seismic risk areas, and stacked applications, a high strength threaded rod or bolt, such as an ASTM A449 or equivalent grade, is required. Keep in mind that for anchorage in regions of moderate to high seismic risk, anchor design shall be controlled by a ductile steel element, the hold-down attachment shall be designed to undergo ductile yielding, or the concrete design strength must be reduced. Many prefabricated shear panels now use only two bolts to anchor their panels to the concrete. The engineer-of-record needs to understand how the manufacturer has analyzed their anchor bolts for the combination of shear and tension. Section D.7 of the ACI 318-08 provides an equation for analyzing anchors subject to both shear and tension loads simultaneously.
AC308 is reduced from previously published values. Adhesive solutions are possible for most prefabricated shear panel applications installed per prescriptive wall bracing rules in low seismic areas, but are often inadequate for increased seismic risk areas and engineered applications where the design loads are higher. Cast-in-place anchors are the preferred anchorage and care should be taken to ensure proper eld placement to avoid costly repairs for misplaced bolts.
then refer the contractor to charts for specic embedment and footing dimensions depending upon the panel or bolt size. It is recommended that the design professional modify the manufacturers details for the specic project, showing specic dimensions and embedments rather than relying on the contractor to interpret charts.
Conclusion
Prefabricated shear panels provide solutions to resist lateral loads where site-built shear walls or code prescribed bracing cannot. Their high height-to-width ratios result in signicant forces on the concrete that must be properly anchored. Anchorage can be designed using resources such as ACI-318 and current ICC-ES code evaluation reports. Contact the specic prefabricated shear panel manufacturer to gain understanding of their embedment and footing width recommendations so job specic requirements are communicated on drawings. Renee Strand, P.E. is a senior engineer with iLevel by Weyerhaeuser. Renee can be reached at renee.strand@weyerhaeuser.com.
Non-concrete Foundations
Installing prefabricated shear panels on concrete masonry units present some design challenges. Compression strength of the grout lled concrete masonry unit (CMU) usually will govern the design. High strength grout is required to develop capacities needed for prescriptive wall bracing in the lower seismic design categories A and B. For other applications Prefabricated shear panels provide solutions to resist lateral loads where site-built shear walls or code prescribed bracing cannot. with higher loads, prefabricated shear panels should bear directly on concrete. If the prefabricated shear panel is located in a corner, near the end of the CMU wall, calculated allowable shear strength will be small. A bond beam may be required to facilitate installing needed horizontal reinforcement. Anchorage will need to extend to a concrete footing to resist tension forces and likely requires an engineer-ofrecord to design. For applications in which the prefabricated shear panel will bear on a exible member such as a wood or steel beam, design of the anchorage connection is left to the engineerof-record. In addition, the drift at the top of the prefabricated shear panel must be calculated to include the effects of the beam deection, compression perpendicular to grain of a wood beam or wood plate on a steel beam, and wood shrinkage.
Trade Show
2010
Anchors Bridge Resources Concrete Foundations Masonry Retaining Walls Steel Cold-Formed Steel Software Wood Products Engineering/Design Firms Construction
in Print
Adhesive Anchors
When considering post-installed, adhesive anchors for prefabricated shear panels, designers need to make sure they are using current information. Adhesive anchors in concrete now fall under International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) acceptance criteria, AC308, Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors in Concrete Elements. AC308 was developed for use in combination with ACI 318 Appendix D and strength design. For minimum edge distances, typical for prefabricated shear panel installation, tension strength based on
Detailing
Although manufacturers of prefabricated shear panels provide anchorage information to assist the design professional with detailing, the design professional is still responsible to ensure the information and details are in conformance with current codes and meet the project needs. Detail sheets offered by the prefabricated shear panel manufacturers usually show general footing requirements, and
Sub mit listi your n Aug g by ust 20 th
www.STRUCTUREmag.org/guides.aspx
STRUCTURE magazine
28
August 2010
For demand critical welds, the right product is crucial.
ESAB Seismic Certified filler metals deliver the strength you need for structural fabrication. With products such as Atom Arc, Dual Shield, Coreshield, and Spoolarc, ESAB Seismic Certified filler

metals meet AWS D designator requirements, and are excellent options for when FEMA 353, D1.1, or D1.8 is utilized. Plus, our experts will help you determine the best solution for your application. Get started today. Visit esabna.com/seismic for a brochure, and well even send you a free do-rag.
ESAB Welding & Cutting Products / esabna.com / 1.800.ESAB. 123
Dimensional and Material Quantity Control of Wood-Framed Construction

By Matthew H. Johnson, P.E. and Ariane I. Fund The industry is saturated with articles and news stories touting the value of building information models (BIM) 3D parametric models that contain all building information. Most articles discuss improved coordination, construction time and cost savings, and the operational benefits of a parametric model. However, some articles are starting to emerge that address several myths of BIM, such as a seamless model transition from design to construction team, and the misuse of models in developing traditional two-dimensional documents from 3D models. There will be much growth and evolution in BIM as fair critiques become more prevalent. Invariably, and regardless of the article tone, most of the discussion is focused on steel and concrete building typologies. Wood construction is not as often addressed in practice or in publication. In fact, most BIM products, until recently, have focused only on steel and concrete. Wood-framed construction represents a significant portion of the low-rise construction market and the overall construction market in general. Wood offers great opportunity, via building information models, to the owner and contractor if executed correctly. Use of BIM in wood construction can reduce the required material on-site and assist the engineer in providing additional and clearer details for typical and atypical wood-framed construction. using BIM, each and every floor joist and wall stud can be modeled, in its intended location, with a higher level of dimensional control. In this way, the engineer can specifically design for each unique framing case that arises, leading to potential material savings. BIM offers an additional advantage for wood-framed buildings since, generally, they do not undergo the traditional shop drawing process of most steel or concrete buildings. BIM thus allows engineers and contractors one of the few opportunities to visualize how each member will fit together before they are on-site being constructed. This will allow for any atypical framing conditions, which can result in requests for information (RFI) during construction, to be worked out in advance of actual construction. Even a typical detail, such as a header, can be designed more efficiently since the exact number and location of floor joists the header is required to carry will be set. Furthermore, exact material takeoffs can be made directly from the model. As an example, instead of an engineer simply indicating stud wall blocking at 4 feet on center, he/she can detail in elevation the exact quantity and length required, including precise spacing within the height of the wall. The ability of the engineer to detail nearly exact material quantities will limit any excess or incorrect materials on site, potentially saving the owner money. The other big advantage is in the coordination between disciplines, particularly between mechanical, electrical, and structural. As any structural engineer of a wood building is aware, the nature of the material allows it to be cut and penetrated on-site for the passage of pipes, ducts, conduit, and equipment placement. In a traditional building schedule, when this occurs, the structural engineers work is generally complete, and they are often not consulted or even aware of the implications this may have. By specifying exact locations for studs and joists in a parametric BIM model, the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineers are better able to coordinate and reduce the locations where their equipment will impact structural integrity. The locations where interference is unavoidable and a structural member must be cut can be determined ahead of actual construction, allowing the structural engineer time to thoroughly review the impact and to make necessary accommodations. However, as with all BIM projects, this advantage can only be realized if all disciplines are on-board from the beginning and working in coordinated models. To achieve potential savings in material and reduction in on-site conflict, this style of more detailed modeling and documentation requires
BIM
BIM and Wood Design

Traditionally, the structural engineer has developed representative wood-framing plans for the contractor. Where structural steel-framed drawings often exhibit nearly exacting dimensional control for each piece and every connection, wood-framed construction documents provide floor and wall types with plan location only. In most cases, final detailing and dimensional control of most individual pieces is left to the contractor on-site. The contractor refers to notes, details, or elevations provided by the engineer for material specifications and typical stud spacing, blocking, nailing, etc., to piece together (literally and figuratively) the final construction. Via use of 3D parametric models and a change in the production of traditional 2D construction documents, the engineer can provide significantly greater drawing details, potentially reduce material required for construction, and minimize conflicts between disciplines. Use of BIM allows the engineer to take more control of building details. By STRUCTURE magazine
30
August 2010
Comparison of BIM structural model to actual construction. BIM was used to illustrate the specific layout for the wall studs, important to ensure that each attic member would frame directly on top of a stud below.
a shift in construction practice for wood-framed buildings that will not be without hurdles. Most significant is the reliance on contractors and builders to adopt new methods during construction, a challenge in a field that is based on years of tradition and fine-tuned building methods. Contractors will have to consider wood-framed buildings in a similar manner to steel buildings, with members having specific locations. As opposed to a few typical details that apply everywhere, they will face more details, ideally optimized for each unique condition throughout the building. This also places additional burden on the engineer to both develop these details and observe that they are being constructed as indicated. Until recently, modeling every member of a building could be a tedious task, especially if the parametric capabilities for wood stud walls and floors are not built into the software. BIM software developers are now beginning to realize the importance of having this ability, and many improvements have been made to aid in modeling.
Case Study
BIM was utilized in a recent wood-framed reconstruction project. An existing 1955 timber and masonry building was destroyed by fire. The historic, exterior masonry walls remained, and the decision was made to construct a nearly new wood-framed building within the existing enclosure. Updating to modern HVAC resulted in heavy roof loads due to attic-level HVAC equipment. To ensure that loads were carried in a direct path down to the foundations, each stud was modeled at the first and second floor directly on top of each other, and aligned directly below each attic and roof member, reducing the need for headers at the roof and second floor. Positioning each wall stud had the additional advantage of allowing efficient frame-out of window and door openings. In certain cases where wall studs would be close to windows following the typical spacing, headers were extended to be longer than the window width to sit on these studs, as opposed to adding additional studs close to windows. It was also useful to model the exact extents of the plywood decking and wall sheathing. In addition, many atypical conditions were more easily discovered using BIM. One such instance was the eave condition. Through 3D modeling, it was determined that in some locations the attic floor framing was at an elevation that interfered with the roof rafters, potentially requiring significant notches to be cut. Use of the model to visualize their exact location clearly demonstrated the conflict to the architect, and an appropriate detail was developed to accommodate a new attic floor STRUCTURE magazine
while maintaining the historic, existing eave height and soffit detailing. While the BIM model did lay out every framing member, some of the challenges mentioned still surfaced. The contractors did not consult the drawings for exact dimensioning of studs. They instead relied on traditional methods by arbitrarily choosing a starting point for the framing and proceeding along-wall with the typical stud spacing. This resulted in studs that were not aligned vertically between the first and second floors, and ultimately required them to move stud framing or add additional studs to provide a direct load path. Another disadvantage is that many detailing components, such as hangers and bolts, are not yet efficient to model as 3D objects in most commercially available BIM software or third-party products. Modeling objects in 2D eliminates the parametric capabilities of a BIM model, and is an area where the software needs improvement to be employed in the most efficient manner. Using lessons learned on this project will help in developing an efficient BIM model for subsequent wood-framed projects. Additionally, details and notes will more clearly indicate that there is a specific dimensional control employed in the drawings. A pre-bid or preconstruction meeting will also be utilized to review the drawing details and dimensional framing concepts.
Conclusion
Wood-framed buildings are another opportunity for engineers to use BIM to improve upon both design documentation and coordination between the design and construction teams. In wood-framed construction, BIM offers the additional opportunity to aid in achieving material efficiency. While the dimensional control for wood-framed buildings provided by BIM can help realize these goals, it will require clear notation from the designer to the contractor until dimensional control of wood-framed buildings becomes standard practice. Additionally, the developers of BIM software, third-party software providers, and wood-product manufactures will need to speed up the development of wood-based modeling tools before the full potential offered by BIM can be attained. Matthew Johnson, P.E. is an Associate Principal with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. in Waltham, MA. He can be reached at MHJohnson@sgh.com. Ariane Fund is Staff II Structures with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. in Waltham, MA. She can be reached at AIFund@sgh.com.
31
August 2010
The Expanding Use of Wood in School Construction

By Roxane Ward ast November, the South Carolina Public School Facilities Committee overturned a long-standing policy when it voted to allow the use of wood in school construction. The year before, the state of Arkansas did the same, going so far as to change legislation that for many years had prohibited wood schools. These changes were logically based on the prevalence of wood-frame schools elsewhere in the country, as well as benefits such as cost, speed of construction, and sustainability. But what do design professionals have to say and what are the unique elements that need to be considered?
Wood Schools 101

With certain caveats, the International Building Code (IBC) allows the use of wood in building Types I through V. Types I and II, for example, are permitted to include heavy timber in their roof construction and for secondary members and wood is often used in these buildings to add aesthetic appeal in libraries, gyms, and other common spaces. In Type III construction, wood is allowed in roof and oor systems, and to frame interior walls. Type IV buildings are permitted to include solid or laminated wood members, such as glued laminated timber (glulam), wood decking and structural sheathing where there are no concealed spaces. Fire-retardant-treated (FRT) wood may be used in Types I through IV in certain applications. And wood is permitted anywhere in a Type V building, the most common type of wood construction. According to School Planning and Managements School Construction Report, the average size of a new school in 2009 ranged from 80,500 square feet for an elementary school to 225,000 square feet for a high school. However, there is also a clear push toward smaller schools, which are widely believed to be better for learning. Type V construction is an especially cost-effective option for one-story structures less than 87,875 square feet (which is the limit for a single story). In California, about 60 percent of all schools are wood construction. In this market, schools tend to be on the smaller scale, says Ken ODell, S.E., a partner at MHP Structural Engineers, who has worked on more than 10 wood schools in the last five years, mostly in and around Los Angeles. Theyre often relatively simple structurally, one or two stories with square footage up to about 25,000 square feet for classroom buildings, which makes wood an obvious choice both architecturally and economically. Michelle Kam-Biron, S.E., is a technical director with the WoodWorks initiative, which provides free support to architects and engineers who design wood schools and other non-residential wood buildings. In addition to solid sawn lumber, I-joists, wood structural panels, and other STRUCTURE magazine
products typically associated with a wood building, exposed glulam beams are a popular choice for schools that want to bring the warmth of wood into the interior. Wood also offers an effective engineering solution for large rooms with tall walls and long clear-spanning roofs, such as gyms and cafeterias. To meet the requirements for longer spans and increased loads, designers use wood framing members such as glulam or structural composite lumber studs, to frame the walls and deep-depth joists and heavy timber trusses to frame the roofs. As an example, Kam-Biron points to the Cayucos Elementary School in Cayucos, California. The structure is almost entirely framed in wood, including the gym, cafeteria, auditorium, and multi-purpose room each of which have walls between 20 and 30 feet high. The roof has custom glulam trusses that span 66 feet and I-joists that make up the intermediate framing, and the walls are made of 1-inch x 10inch glulam studs at 16 inches o.c. and 24 inches o.c. Likewise, the 59,700-square-foot Gunter Primary School in Gunter, Texas is framed in wood, but also features glulam beams both for visual appeal and structural support (including one that spans 82 feet), laminated wood decking for support over the gym and cafeteria, and sheathing over the decking for added shear resistance.
Why Wood?
Its common for designers to have the challenge of creating an enriching environment with limited budgets. However, given that most educators agree that a schools design affects how well students learn coupled with the strict budget constraints faced by many school boards the duelling objectives of form and function vs. cost are especially pronounced for schools. In Japan, a three-year study of 700 schools examined the impact of building materials on the educational environment. While those surveyed generally expressed positive impressions of wood schools over other materials, results also indicated that teachers and students in wood buildings felt less fatigue, and that students perceived schools with wood interiors to be brighter than other structures. In terms of cost, a 2005 study comparing wood-frame and steelframe designs for a one-story, 73,557-square-foot elementary school concluded that construction costs could be reduced by nearly $450,000 with the wood design (which, based on the Consumer Materials Price Index, would have translated into $1.5 million in 2008). Operational savings resulting from the roof systems additional thermal resistance were projected at $15,000 a year.
32
August 2010
In Arkansas, where several wood schools have been constructed since the change in legislation, the savings go beyond theoretical. Bruce Westerman, an engineer with Mid-South Engineering Company who sits on the board of the Fountain Lake School District, was involved in a project to build a new middle school and renovate an existing high school, which had a combined total of 63,362 square feet. We considered masonry and steel first, only turning to wood when the initial estimate came in well over budget at $150 a square foot. The wood-frame option came in at $107 a square foot, saving the district $2.7 million.
Safety First Lateral Loads and Fire

Dwindling budgets or not, schools are required to meet a higher level of safety performance than other building types both in the IBC and more stringent California Building Code (CBC) for the protection of students and teachers, and because theyre often used as shelters during times of crisis. The ability of wood buildings to perform well in seismic events is one of the reasons wood is used for so many California schools, says Kam-Biron. Forces in an earthquake are proportional to the structures weight, and wood is substantially lighter than other materials. Some engineers think they need masonry or concrete for the tall walls, but this actually adds a lot of load to the structural system from a gravity and seismic standpoint. The fact that wood buildings tend to have a lot of redundancy built into their framing systems and numerous nail connections means they have more load paths, resulting in less chance that the structure will collapse should some connections fail. This is also why wood buildings have inherent ductility, which allows them to dissipate energy when subjected to the sudden loads of an earthquake. An assessment of damage to schools caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake in southern California concluded that school structures performed well on the whole, adding that This type of good performance
At Cayucos Elementary School, the roof is made from custom glulam trusses. Courtesy of RRM Design Group, Taylor & Syfan Consulting Engineers.
is generally expected because much of the school construction is lowrise, wood-frame design, which is very resistant to damage regardless of the date of construction. When properly attached to wood framing, diaphragms and shear walls made from wood structural panels, structural fiberboard, and board sheathing form stable roof, oor, and wall systems that enable the building to effectively resist lateral loads caused by earthquakes and high winds. However, the effectiveness of the system is only as good as the number and quality of connections, says Kam-Biron, who stresses the importance of proper specifying of fasteners and detailing. Criteria for designing and detailing of wood structural systems, members and connections in lateral force resisting systems is covered in the American Wood Council (AWC) publication, ANSI/AF&PA Special Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic Standard with Commentary (Wind and Seismic). continued on next page
STRUCTURE magazine
33
August 2010
Fountain Lake Middle School was the first wood-frame school constructed in Arkansas following the legislative change that allowed more wood in school construction. Courtesy of Bruce Westerman.
At MHP, we work with the architect to strategically take advantage of the walls available, and provide an engineering solution that allows the best distribution of loads throughout the building, says ODell. If we make the decision to use a masonry shear wall or a steel brace frame, we tend to design it to take a major portion of the load to make up for the extra cost and time involved, which often results in building out some of the redundancy. With wood, my diaphragms are going to be divided much more evenly by the demising walls between classrooms. In my mind, it gives you a system thats better distributed. In terms of fire protection, heavy timbers perform particularly well because they char on the outside while retaining strength, slowing combustion and allowing time to evacuate the building, says Scott Lockyear, P.E., a technical director with WoodWorks in Georgia and a specialist in fire issues. In a controlled fire test sponsored by the National Forest Products Association (now AWC), researchers exposed comparable steel and glulam beams to the same fire conditions for the same length of time. After 30 minutes, the steel beam lost 90 percent of its strength and collapsed while the glulam beam remained straight and true, having lost just 25 percent. For Occupancy Group E buildings, which include most schools, IBC 903.2.2 stipulates that sprinklers are required in areas larger than 20,000 square feet. However, the CBC and other local codes go further, often requiring sprinkler systems and other fire protection measures in new schools of any size. Round-the-clock fire protection is especially important, given that 32 percent of school fires start under suspicious circumstances and most occur in July when school is out of session. Protected construction improves overall life safety, but it can also be utilized to increase allowable areas, says Lockyear. Under the IBC, the addition of sprinklers gives the designer an additional 200-300 percent in allowable area (though, under the CBC, increased area cannot be combined with increased height or number of stories). Wood framing also utilizes assemblies with rated gypsum wall board, which improve the safety of the building by protecting structural elements. The AWC publication, Design for Code Acceptance 3 Fire-Rated Wood-Frame Wall and Floor/Ceiling Assemblies, includes a list of examples. Fire-rated details are also incorporated in the AutoCad/Revit library available on the WoodWorks website (www.woodworks.org).
Even though many schools use wood products that you arent going to buy at the local lumber yard, they still take considerably less time to manufacture according to spec and deliver than steel. Most communities also have a large and readily available labor pool thats familiar with wood-frame construction. With the exception of major members that are made to spec off-site, wood can be easily adapted in the field, providing a quick work around if mistakes are made or drawings are revised. That same adaptability can also save schools money in the long run. A survey of buildings demolished between 2000 and 2003 in Minneapolis/St. Paul found that North American buildings often have a service life of 50 years or less, regardless of material, not because theyve fallen into disrepair, but for reasons such as changing needs and land values. Woods workability and light weight make it well suited to additions and retrofits if schools need to expand; however, wood systems are also dismantled with relative ease and the materials used elsewhere. Regarding durability, which is a priority for schools, Westerman said the only hurdle his team ran into when reviewing the design for Fountain Lake Middle School was what material to use for the interior corridors. We were concerned that students might knock holes in the gypsum wallboard, he said, so we installed OSB (oriented strand board) over the wood studs and covered it with impact-resistant gypsum. Wood also offers good sound absorption, which is important in schools, says Lockyear. Because wood has more sound damping capacity than other materials, its relatively easy to achieve the required noise control especially where wood framing is surfaced with wood structural panels.
The Greening of Americas Schools

With an increase in government policies that require public buildings to meet environment-related criteria, it isnt surprising that the education sector is one of the fastest growing markets for green building or that wood is playing an increasing role in school construction. Wood is the only major building material thats renewable and sustainable, and the only one with third-party certification programs to verify that products being sold originated from a sustainably managed resource. Wood buildings are energy efficient, and life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have consistently shown that wood performs better than other materials in terms of embodied energy, air and water pollution, and global warming potential. Between the greenhouse gas emissions avoided by not using steel or concrete and the fact that wood buildings continue to store the carbon absorbed by trees during their growing cycle (wood is 50 percent carbon by mass), using wood helps to significantly reduce atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). According to Gilbert Baez of HMC Architects, the design team chose to frame Harada Elementary School in wood because of its low cost compared to masonry and steel. However, it also had environmental benefits. At 69,853 square feet, the school stores approximately 490 metric tons of carbon in its wood-frame construction and is estimated to have saved twice that amount in avoided greenhouse gas emissions.
A+ for Wood Schools

With the benefits of wood becoming more widely recognized, an increasing number of designers are exploring its use as a structural and finish material in school construction. Engineers who have questions, or would like assistance solving a technical issue, are invited to visit www.woodworks.org and contact a technical director in their region. Roxane Ward is a Vancouver, Canada-based writer who has written extensively on sustainability, forest and wood-related issues for more than 15 years. The online version of this article contains references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Speed, Flexibility and Adaptability

Although many buildings have tight construction schedules, completion deadlines are especially important for school boards that need everything in place when students show up on the first day of classes. School construction schedules tend to be fast track, said Lockyear. With wood, the timeline for delivery is short and assembly is fast. STRUCTURE magazine
34
August 2010
ADVERTISEMENT
Scia Engineer makes it easy to maximize the performance of all types of structures. And, by linking structural modeling, analysis modeling, design, drawings and reports in one program it will increase the performance of your engineering department, too. Plus, support for open standards and direct links make it easy for your firm to plug-into todays BIM process. Find out how much Scia Engineer can save your firm. 877-808-Scia (7242), www.SciaAmerica.com
ADVERTISEMENT
How Much Steel Could Eiffel Have
Structural Modeling & Design in One Program

www.SciaAmerica.com
Right Software?
Saved with the
By Daniel Monaghan
Structural Modeling & Design in One Program
Innovative structural software goes beyond analysis and lets firms easily plug-into todays BIM process.
BIM and IPD
During the current economic downturn, engineering firms are doing more with less, looking for services to attract new clients, and seeking an edge over their competitors. Investing in new technology is one way engineering firms are doing all of these things. With the right technology, firms can increase productivity, take on new project types, offer new services and stand out from the competition. One of the big trends were seeing is firms reevaluating their operations to make them more efficient, says Sean Flaherty, CEO, Nemetschek North America. Were seeing firms migrate from traditional engineering workflows, which are often inefficient and disconnected, to ones that are more integrated and economical.
New processes like BIM (Building Information Modeling) and new project delivery methods like IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) allow firms to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout design, analysis, fabrication and construction. Migrating to these processes can be made easier with new software designed to support them software like Scia Engineer from Nemetschek Scia. Scia Engineer is part of a new breed of integrated 3D structural design software that goes beyond analysis and allows engineers to plug into todays more efficient processes. These structural design software programs: Help to connect todays disjointed engineering workflows. Make it easier for engineers to work iteratively with others on the design team Reduce costs and calculation errors by integrating modeling and analysis. Reduce RFIs, allowing designers to work out constructability issues before they reach the job site. A unique feature of Scia Engineer is that modeling, analysis, design, and documentation are all linked together, so a change anywhere is reflected everywhere. This saves time and eliminates coordination errors, says Mark Flamer, Project Manager, Butler Engineering. If you change the size of a column in the analysis model (bars and nodes), the software automatically updates the structural model. Another advantage of these new structural
By Daniel Monaghan
Growing With Technology
In addition, the right software makes a firm more flexible, allowing them to go beyond their usual projects, and take on work where ever they find it. Scia Engineer allows our firm to confidently compete for bigger building projects as well as go beyond buildings, says Flamer. While our expertise is in light commercial, we just completed a bridge project and are ready to take on larger, complex structures. A flexible tool like Scia Engineer makes all the difference. He added: I evaluated the usual list of structural BIM and 3D analysis programs, but theres really no other program on the market like it. Scia Engineer is the only program I found that integrates 3D structural modeling, analysis, design and documentation in one program and allows us to easily plug-into other BIM software. For us, Scia Engineer was a logical choice. For more information, visit www.SciaOnline.com or call 1.877.808.Scia (7242). Daniel Monaghan is the Managing Director of Nemetschek Scia, developers of leading software products for structural engineering in the construction industry. He can be reached at dmonaghan@scia-online.com
New processes like BIM (Building Information Modeling) and new project delivery methods like IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) allow firms to reduce waste and improve efficiencies throughout design, analysis, fabrication and construction. Migrating to these processes can be made easier with new software designed to support them software like Scia Engineer from Nemetschek Scia. Scia Engineer is part of a new breed of integrated 3D structural design software that goes beyond analysis and allows engineers to plug into todays more efficient processes. These structural design software programs: Help to connect todays disjointed engineering workflows. Make it easier for engineers to work iteratively with others on the design team Reduce costs and calculation errors by integrating modeling and analysis. Reduce RFIs, allowing designers to work out constructability issues before they reach the job site. A unique feature of Scia Engineer is that modeling, analysis, design, and documentation are all linked together, so a change anywhere is reflected everywhere. This saves time and eliminates coordination errors, says Mark Flamer, Project Manager, Butler Engineering. If you change the size of a column in the analysis model (bars and nodes), the software automatically updates the structural model. Another advantage of these new structural
During the current economic downturn, engineering firms are doing more with less, looking for services to attract new clients, and seeking an edge over their competitors. Investing in new technology is one way engineering firms are doing all of these things. With the right technology, firms can increase productivity, take on new project types, offer new services and stand out from the competition. One of the big trends were seeing is firms reevaluating their operations to make them more efficient, says Sean Flaherty, CEO, Nemetschek North America. Were seeing firms migrate from traditional engineering workflows, which are often inefficient and disconnected, to ones that are more integrated and economical.
BIM and IPD
design programs, like Scia Engineer, is their extensive functionality. With support for non-linear multimaterial design and multiple codes, Ive avoided having to invest in disparate analysis programs, says Flamer. Reducing the number of analysis programs we manage saves on maintenance costs, and makes it less expensive to train new employees. Most importantly, it reduces the risks that come with manually coordinating multiple analysis models. For those occasions I need to go outside Scia Engineer, I appreciate how easily it links to Excel and other specialty software, Flamer added. These new structural design programs allow firms to differentiate themselves. For example, with support for open standards like IFC 2x3 and direct links to other BIM and CAD software, Scia Engineer makes it easier for engineers to share information with others. This is a huge advantage when working in a collaborative workflow.
Growing With Technology
design programs, like Scia Engineer, is their extensive functionality. With support for non-linear multimaterial design and multiple codes, Ive avoided having to invest in disparate analysis programs, says Flamer. Reducing the number of analysis programs we manage saves on maintenance costs, and makes it less expensive to train new employees. Most importantly, it reduces the risks that come with manually coordinating multiple analysis models. For those occasions I need to go outside Scia Engineer, I appreciate how easily it links to Excel and other specialty software, Flamer added. These new structural design programs allow firms to differentiate themselves. For example, with support for open standards like IFC 2x3 and direct links to other BIM and CAD software, Scia Engineer makes it easier for engineers to share information with others. This is a huge advantage when working in a collaborative workflow.
In addition, the right software makes a firm more flexible, allowing them to go beyond their usual projects, and take on work where ever they find it. Scia Engineer allows our firm to confidently compete for bigger building projects as well as go beyond buildings, says Flamer. While our expertise is in light commercial, we just completed a bridge project and are ready to take on larger, complex structures. A flexible tool like Scia Engineer makes all the difference. He added: I evaluated the usual list of structural BIM and 3D analysis programs, but theres really no other program on the market like it. Scia Engineer is the only program I found that integrates 3D structural modeling, analysis, design and documentation in one program and allows us to easily plug-into other BIM software. For us, Scia Engineer was a logical choice. For more information, visit www.SciaOnline.com or call 1.877.808.Scia (7242).
How Much Steel Could Eiffel Have
Saved with the
Right Software?
Find Out...
www.SciaAmerica.com
Scia Engineer makes it easy to maximize the performance of all types of structures. And, by linking structural modeling, analysis modeling, design, drawings and reports in one program it will increase the performance of your engineering department, too. Plus, support for open standards and direct links make it easy for your firm to plug-into todays BIM process. Find out how much Scia Engineer can save your firm. 877-808-Scia (7242), www.SciaAmerica.com
Scia Engineer
Go Beyond Analysis. Explore. Optimize. Collaborate.
Daniel Monaghan is the Managing Director of Nemetschek Scia, developers of leading software products for structural engineering in the construction industry. He can be reached at dmonaghan@scia-online.com
Go Beyond Analysis. Explore. Optimize. Collaborate.
Innovative structural software goes beyond analysis and lets firms easily plug-into todays BIM process.
Find Out...
Scia Engineer
RETAIN RET RE TAIN P RETAIN RET RE TAIN PRO PRO 9
Special Section RETAIN RET RE TAIN PRO PRO 9 Engineering Software

Software Becomes Easier to Use, More Transparent with Greater Interoperability
By Larry Kahanar
Interoperability is a big issue with respect to software development. In the BIM world, you cant afford time to re-enter data. The question is always how do we get data between products and how to give control to the end user? More and more collaboration is not just linear among architects and construction people but, potentially, among owners, or for archiving or facilities management. This data must be accessible to all users.
ith worldwide economies pulling out of the recession, accompanied by increasing construction projects, structural engineers and others are once again looking at software as a way to increase their efciency and grow their businesses along with the global comeback. We are seeing things getting better this year, says Bruce Bates, President and Founder of RISA Technologies, LLC (www.risatech.com) of Foothill Ranch, California. Last year people were very conscious about their spending. Software is one of those area that you can cut corners, but were seeing people loosening up a bit more. RISA, which has been in business for almost 25 years, offers several software packages with RISA 3-D as its agship product, according to Bates. The company will soon release a connection design program for sheer and moment connections for steel structures. Beam-tobeam, beam-to-column, column-to-column, those type of connections, Bates says. It will integrate with RISA-Floor and RISA-3D, or it can be independent. Like others, Bates sees continued movement toward implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM). We are on the lower end STRUCTURE magazine
of BIM adaptation. Its too good a technology not to be adopted. Its expensive and difcult to learn, but its also too good to be ignored. Its just a matter of the time frame. (See ad on page 67.) Dan Monaghan, North American Managing Director for Nemetschek Scia (www.scia-online.com), concurs. Were seeing rms migrate from traditional engineering workows, which are often inefcient and disconnected, to ones that are more integrated and economical. New processes like BIM and new project delivery methods like IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) allow rms to reduce waste and improve efciencies throughout all phases of design, analysis, fabrication and construction. Monaghan suggests that migrating to these processes can be made easier with software such as his companys Scia Engineer 2010. One way we help engineers is by linking modeling, analysis, design, and documentation in one program, so a change anywhere is reected everywhere. (See ad on page 35.) Another benet of software is that it allows engineers to expand their businesses into new areas. Engineers are looking for opportunities to work in non-traditional ways, new relationships to win projects, says Carl Taylor, Tekla, Inc.s (www.tekla.com) Business Manager for the continued on page 38
36
August 2010
Solaris Tekla Structures Model
To learn more about the Solaris project, read the Two Birds, One Stone case study at: www.tekla.us/solaris-architect
COLLABORATE TO REDUCE RISK

*All images courtesy of Structural Consultants, Inc.
Wayne Muir, P.E., Managing Principal & President, Structural Consultants, Inc. Denver, CO
Wayne Muir and his team have done it again! Using the Tekla Structures BIM Model, Structural Consultants, Inc. (SCI) delivered more information to the estimators earlier in the project, lowering the financial risk to the owner and his contractors. The steel package gave the fabricator, detailer and erector a better understanding of the engineers design intent and put greater certainty into the cost model for a major subcontract early in the project. At the same time, the architect and SCI successfully exchanged BIM models to collaborate their designs. Being able to collaborate and coordinate our design efforts in the Tekla Structural environment was a tremendous asset to this project, that really paid off during the construction phase, says Wayne Muir.
Tekla Structures BIM (Building Information Modeling) software provides a data-rich 3D environment that can be shared by contractors, structural engineers, steel detailers and fabricators, and concrete detailers and manufacturers. Choose Tekla for the highest level of constructability and integration in project management and delivery.
Special Section
Engineering Segment. For example, structural engineers are teaming up with steel detailing companies to offer packaged services. This can bring in steel deliverables in a shorter time frame with reduced risk to the owner. Released several months ago, Tekla Structures version 16 has a greater emphasis on usability and is more intuitive to use with a shortened learning curve, says Taylor. Were very conscious that users dont just want powerful software, but they want to bring it into production in a shorter time. One of the ongoing goals of software makers is interoperability. Interoperability is a big issue with respect to software development, notes Raoul Karp, Director, Product Management in the Structure Group of Bentley Systems, Incorporated (www.bentley.com), in Exton, Pennsylvania. In the BIM world, you cant afford time to re-enter data. The question is always how do we get data between products and how to give control to the end user? More and more collaboration is not just linear among architects and construction people but, potentially, among owners, or for archiving or facilities management. This data must be accessible to all users. Bentleys Integrated Structural Modeling (ISM) is a platform for interoperability, says Karp, and it offers a new and improved way to manage multiple software applications that are required for structural projects. He notes that the companys website offers free webinars about ISM. Software developer AceCad Software Ltd. (www.acecadsoftware.com), also based in Exton, Pennsylvania,1 touts its1:06:45 interop FIXED-IES-August-Half-Pg-4C.pdf 6/30/2010 PM entry Fabrication
RETAIN RET RE TAIN P
Structural engineering is a safety-critical profession. The safety of the public relies on the computational aspects of the software, and the quality and experience of the engineers that use the software.
Information Modeling, or FIM, which it describes as a business strategy methodology that harnesses the structural supply chain and workows between engineering, fabricators and construction companies through open, best practice solutions and standards based integration, including CIS-2 and IFCs. BIM covers everything, but we cover it for the structural fabrication side, says Munny Panesar, Regional Manager. The company is offering its product suite, called Evolution, using the BIM/FIM interop theory. We decided to just develop products under one umbrella. Its a huge project, but weve accomplished it for the detailing and fabrication side; now we are working on the engineering side, he says. (See ad on page 47.) Another goal of structural engineering software is its ease of use. We try to make our software speak the language of structural engineers, says Terry Kubat, Engineer and Developer, IES, Inc. (www.iesweb.com) in Bozeman, Montana. You used to have to speak the language of computers. Our philosophy is that software is invisible. Its a tool to solve your problems. You can tell just by looking at the main menu of VisualAnalysis thats its for structural engineers: You design, model, load, analyze and document. We focus on the engineers job. The continued on page 40
CM
MY
CY
CMY
STRUCTURE magazine
38
August 2010
Intelligent Structural Design
Model, Analyze, Design, Document and Deliver in an Integrated Workflow

Having all the applications you need for the tasks at hand, along with the ability to easily synchronize your work with the rest of the project information, helps you get your job done right, fast and profitably. And when the structural project workflow can be integrated, the whole team benefits. Bentleys new Passport Subscriptions for structural engineers provide access to the full range of structural software (including upgrades) and training documents and information that most projects require. These options are available as an affordable alternative to traditional licensing. Contact us to learn more.
With RAM, STAAD and Documentation Center, Bentley offers proven applications for:
l Steel/Steel Composite l Reinforced Concrete l Wood and Wood Products l Foundation Design l Post-Tensioned Design l Steel Connections l Structural Drawings and Details all easily coordinated with the Architect and other team members and their design applications such as AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation and more.
www.Bentley.com/Structural
2010 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley, the B Bentley logo, MicroStation, RAM, and STAAD are either registered or unregistered trademarks or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated or one of its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries. Other brands and product names are trademarks of their respective owners.
Special Section
company, which has been around for about 17 years, introduced its newest product, VisualFoundation, about a year ago and has just released version 2. VisualFoundation does mat footing analysis with basic design checks and information. It handles complex footing geometry, with multiple columns, walls, grade beams and pile supports. For Leroy Emkin, Founder and Co-Director of the CASE Center in Atlanta (www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu), the strength of GT STRUDL its Structural Design & Analysis software programs for Architectural,
GT STRUDL
Structural Analysis & Design Software
The Best Choice for Infrastructure & Nuclear

NEW Base Plate Module
Georgia Tech - CASE Center Phone: 404-894-2260 Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu
Engineering/Construction (AEC), CAE/CAD, utilities, offshore, industrial, nuclear and civil works has always been the power and high quality of its computations. Structural engineering is a safety-critical profession. The safety of the public relies on the computational aspects of the software, and the quality and experience of the engineers that use the software. GT STRUDL is focused on the high quality of its computations. Emkin notes that GT STRUDL customers are looking for even more computational power, some of which is being driven by new codes. The one giving the most problems, he says, is the 13th edition/AISC. One chapter is the 2005 specication which is now moving into the requirement for non-linear static analysis of steel structures Our customers want computational power for non-linear static, as well as dynamic, analysis. Demands for non-linear are growing, and weve been focusing on rigorous non-linear computational power. Emkin says that his group is looking at improving graphical modeling facilities that provide front end to GT STRUDL. Were hoping to have a product by the end of the year. Many organizations and companies give their software away for free, or at low cost, to complement their structural products or to promote use of a building product such as wood or cement. These programs generally are available for download from the rms website. One such group is the Canadian Wood Council (www.cwc.ca), a national, non-prot association representing manufacturers of Canadian wood products used in construction. The group offers their MWF Design package that provides designers using Revit Structure with seamless, bi-directional integration with WoodWorks Sizer, a design software. Were sticking to a premise of low-cost software thats easy to use, says Robert Jonkman, Manager, Structural Engineering and Sustainable Design. People designing with wood generally dont need to model the entire building. Usually, there are only a few types of members to check with for wood construction. Typically, steel is more complexIf you model with Revit, you can use our software to check your wood members. StructurePoint, LLC (www.structurepoint.org) in Chicago, Illinois was formerly the Engineering Software Group of the Portland Cement Association and, as a spinoff from the Association, one of its goals is to promote the use of cement. We provide civil and structural engineers with the software and it B technical resources they need for designing concrete 4 6 r NEW l Solve le buildings and structures, says Marketing Director, l a r Pa Heather Johnson. For engineers, StructurePoint offers a single point of access for educational tools, R&D reports, library services and technical information. Our motto is work simply, quickly and accurately. She adds: We think of ourselves as a gateway to resources for the cement and concrete industry, even continued on page 42 August 2010
STRUCTURE magazine
40
Coming this Fall! New Design Office 9

Now IBC 2009 and SDPWS 2008 compliant
Shearwalls: Shear wall deflection and story drift Deflection derived stiffness for force distribution Hold-down design using editable database Sizer: Full control over bearing and span lengths Supporting member bearing design Full, clear or design spans Multiple beams and columns in one workspace Integration with Autodesk Revit (optional)
Complete list of features and Demo at woodworks-software.com/structure

You can buy more sophisticated wood engineering software, but ... its expensive, takes considerable time to model your structure, and is usually overkill for what engineers need for the design of most wood structure projects. WoodWorks Design Office doesnt have the most advanced graphics or the latest interface style, but its component-based operation is intuitive, quick and easy to use, inexpensive, and is produced by the same wood experts that contribute to the development of Canadian and American wood design standards. While our non-profit organizations budget means we need to continue to focus on only our niche of wood design, we are capitalizing on the stengths of other software packages like Autodesks Revit Structure to help give you the level of sophistication of fully modelled structures by creating a bi-directional integration with this leading BIM software. A Revit/Sizer link is now available as a separate purchase. Robert Jonkman, P.Eng, Manager, Structural Engineering and WoodWorks Software, Canadian Wood Council
www.woodworks-software.com/structure
800-844-1275
Special Section
from someone who is not a user of our software What do people want? Theyre asking for more training tools, more simplicity. Engineers have less time, less training time and less schedule and budget. They want something that gets them from A to Z very fast. They must be able to trust the software; they must be condent in it. (See ad on page 51.) For Richard Morgan, Technical Services Engineer at Hilti Corporation in Tulsa, Oklahoma (www.us.hilti.com), the companys free software, PROFIS Anchor, not only keeps engineers in sync with the latest building codes but it acts as a design aid. Users benet from Hiltis technical experience in the eld of anchor fastening, as PROFIS Anchor provides access to the complete range of Hilti products and solutions. This makes selection of the appropriate anchor not only extremely quick and easy, it also ensures greater reliability of the nal result, says Morgan. Version 2.1 is set to launch in October, 2010, and will have AC 318.08 [seismic], IBC 2009 and Canadian code CSA A23.3-04, Morgan says. The design report will show all equations and calculations. We did it to take away the black box for the plan checkers Were also developing a users manual to explain the design assumptions. Sometimes design assumptions in software are transparent, but sometimes its not so apparent. It will explain what the program is doing with the variables. (See ad on page 49.) Another free software offering comes from Powers Fasteners, Inc., based in Brewster, New York (www.powers.com). We co-market the software with our products, says Mark Ziegler, Director of Engineering. Like other software, Powers Design Assistant or PDA will be current with
recent code changes, as well as help engineers design, select and spec concrete anchors in accordance with the code. We will continue to add products into the software, Ziegler adds. Next will be adhesive anchors into Version 2. It will also be compliant with Windows 7, the latest code and provisions for adhesive anchors. The software is free because its a product complement. He notes that the new software will help design cast-in-place anchors, even though the company does not sell these products. (See ad on page 2.) Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems, in Pleasanton, California (www.simpsonanchors.com) offers Anchor Designer Software which analyzes and suggests anchor solutions using the ACI 318, Appendix D strength design methodology (or CAN/CSA A23.3 Annex D). It provides cracked and uncracked-concrete anchor solutions for numerous Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems mechanical and adhesive anchors. Free for download, an update will come out shortly and will include new anchors for which the company has obtained code approval, says Engineer Ken Cho. Were intending to take it global by adding ETAG (European Technical Approval Guideline) for Europe and Asia The software provides detailed calculations which tend to make the output pages lengthy, but we wanted to make it so its not like a black box and allows engineers to perform the review of the output calculation. (See ads on pages 11 and 15.) At New Millennium Building Systems, LLC in Salem, Virginia (www.newmill.com), which is a steel joist and deck manufacturer, offering their Dynamic Joist component software is a way to help customers reduce their risk, as well as that of the company, by mitigating or eliminating errors. Its a plug-in for Tekla Structures, and its our introduction to BIM, says Information Technology Director Ricky Gillenwater. The component is free and downloadable. He adds: When we decided that we needed to participate in BIM, we went with a Tekla plug-in because thats what the majority of our customers use Were also developing a deck component. Nisha Mehta, Director of Engineering at Dimensional Solutions, Inc. (www.dimsoln.com) in Houston, Texas says that her company decided to focus on concrete design because there was a lack of automation in that area. We serve the petrochemical, communications, mining and other industries, she says. Customers are looking for easy-to-learn software. Civil engineers often are the last ones to receive information and the rst to generate output for foundations, so their work schedule is very compressed and they need to automate as much as possible and they dont want to use multiple software products. The company offers ve foundation products: FoundationD, Mat3D, DSAnchor, Shaft3D and Combined3D. We are constantly incorporating international codes as requested by our customers. Our customers also want more types of software for foundations, for equipment such as vibrating machines, pumps and tank products, so they can do dynamic analysis on their foundations. (See ad on page 46.) continued on page 44
STRUCTURE magazine
42
August 2010
A to BIM
The shortest distance from
FREE 3-D steel joist design component

Now you can develop and exchange digital, three-dimensional steel joist plans using our new building information modeling (BIM) steel joist design component. The free component contains joist congurations, specications, material components, and design requirements that can be used from the planning room to the jobsite. Our current component is a Tekla design suite add-on. Component add-ons for additional 3-D design suites are coming soon.
Download yours today!

www.newmill.com/freebim
MIDWEST (260) 868-6000 EASTERN (540) 389-0211 SOUTHERN (386) 466-1300
Special Section
Design Data (www.sds2.com) develops 3D modeling software for the structural steel industry. Their agship product, SDS/2, started as a steel detailing program, but has grown beyond detailing, allowing fabricators, engineers and erectors to take advantage of it, according to Michelle McCarthy, Sales Representative. For example, engineers can use the connection design capability of SDS/2, while fabricators are using the CNC information SDS/2 generates to drive their shops. Design Data has also provided solutions for project partners who only
need to view the models and drawings via the Global Review Station. Erectors have used these stations to facilitate layouts and scheduling, while engineers use it to speed up approvals, she says. The company is releasing a new engineering product, called Engineering Analysis and Design (EAD/2). EAD/2 is an analysis product that also provides the engineer with the same connection design found in SDS/2. With the AISC code written into the software, engineers can analyze, develop connections in the structure, and pass that model to the detailer. Because EAD/2 is directly linked to the SDS/2 detailing model, there is no loss of information and the model maintains its integrity throughout the construction process, McCarthy says. Software writers at Devco Software, Inc. (www.devcosoftware.com), based in Corvalis, Oregon, pride themselves on being software engineers STRUCTURE magazine is planning several and not computer engineers, says Rob Madsen, President. We write additional SPECIAL ADVERTORIALS software for the steel framing industry. The main thing about our in 2010. software is that were design engineers, so we design it from an engineers point of view. The software works how we want it to work. Its easy to To discuss advertising opportunities, please contact use with a short learning curve. our ad sales representatives: They are currently working on an update to their LGBEAMER program, which will include 2007 NASPEC adopted in the 2009 IBC. Theres lots CHUCK MINOR DICK RAILTON of complexity in the new code, Madsen says. (See ad on page 42.) Phone: 847-854-1666 Phone: 951-587-2982 Software from Retain Pro Software of Newport Beach, California, Sales@STRUCTUREmag.org (www.retainpro.com) designs and analyzes nearly any cantilevered or restrained retaining wall, concrete or masonry, with just about any conguration and loading condition. This includes segmental retaining walls, says President Hugh Brooks. We have just announced the release of Retain Pro 9, an upgrade that has over 20 new features and enhancements including code updates, soldier pile design, added seismic design options, pier foundations, expanded segmental retaining wall selections, and a new 210-page users manual with 14 design examples, Brooks says. He is also the author of the new 8th edition of Basics of Retaining Wall Design, available YES, In minutes you can from their website. design or analyze nearly any Working niche markets is the bailiwick of Montrealconfiguration material or based StrucSoft Solutions (www.strucsoftsolutions. loading condition for cantilevered, com). Currently, the rm has two product lines restrained, gravity, gabion, soldier MWF, a light gauge steel and wood framing solution pile, or segmental retaining walls. for Autodesks Revit, and CMS, a CAD/CAM ap Soldier Pile Design plication dedicated to creating, editing and managing Retain Pro 9 has even more features to More Segmental Wall Design Options DSTV-NC les. Our [MWF] product detects all expand your capabilities and enhance Enhanced Reports and Graphics clashes and does something about them with a rule your productivity. And with over 150 city, set for changes. Thats a huge step, because were F-1 Total Help Explains All Entries county, and federal plan review agencies talking about thousands of openings. Even if there New User's Manual, 14 Design Examples using Retain Pro, its acceptance is is not a rule to x it, it gets agged, says Spencer Added Seismic Design Options established. To learn more, visit Murray, Vice President of Operations. www.retainpro.com. New Design Status Control Theres a greater acceptance of BIM principles, and Revit in particular, as a platform, Murray says. You'll like what you see! And much, much more... Revit is moving from the architect into engineering and further down into trades like contractors. This $495 Small Office License Install on up to four computers is a great opportunity for companies like ours to Upgrade discounts available for prior versions Download and start using immediately after ordering! ll niche markets. He adds: When the housing market picks up in the US, that will be our next Retain Pro Software Corona del Mar, CA 1-800-422-2251 boom business. (See ad on page 3.)
ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES
RETAIN PRO 9
Design Retaining Walls in minutes... not hours!
New in Version 9.0
STRUCTURE magazine
44
August 2010
BUILDING INTELLIGENT CONNECTIONS.
Why settle for this?
When your software can do this?
SDS/2 is the only BIM software that designs connections intelligently. This means it recognizes and resolves erectability issues and framing conditions while automatically designing connections. SDS/2 takes the work out of completing your BIM model. With SDS/2s power to engineer joints and superior connections to project partners, viewing the as-built model enables you to get the job done better, faster and smarter. Visit sds2.com or call 800.443.0782 to learn how you can start building intelligent connections in your projects today.
www.sds2.com
Copyright 2009 Design Data, Inc. All rights reserved.
800.443.0782
402.441.4000
e-mail: info@sds2.com
Next Generation Interoperability

Experience the future of steelwork construction with the new AceCad Software evolution suite.
www.acecadsoftware.com
T. +1 (610) 280 9840
2010 SOFTWARE GUIDE

A software guide for Structural Engineers
f oun dati on s / r etai n i n g wal l s b us i n es s / prod uc ti v i t y b ui l d i n g com p on en ts l i g ht g aug e s teel con c r ete
s pec i alt y
m as on ry
B r i d g es
co m pa n y
na me
Soft ware
AceCad Software Inc.

Phone: 610-280-9840 Email: c.obrien@strucad.com Web: www.acecadsoftware.com AceCad Software
X X
X X
ADAPT Corporation
Phone: 650-306-2400 Email: info@adaptsoft.com Web: www.adaptsoft.com
ADAPT-ABI 2009 ADAPT-Builder Floor Pro/MAT/SOG 2010
X X X X
X X
X X X X X X X X
Applied Science International, LLC

Phone: 919-645-4090 Email: chamm@appliedscienceint.com Web: www.extremeloading.com Extreme Loading for Structures 3.0
BimSoft Inc.
Phone: 514-731-0008 Email: info@bimsoftinc.com Web: www.bimsoftinc.com Limcon
Computers & Structures, Inc.

Phone: 510-649-2248 Email: info@csiberkeley.com Web: www.csiberkeley.com SAP2000
Decon USA, Inc.

Phone: 800-975-6990 Email: neil@decon.ca Web: www.deconusa.com Studrail STDESIGN V3.1
Design Data
Phone: 800-443-0782 Email: info@sds2.com Web: www.sds2.com SDS/2 Steel Detailing Software
Devco Software, Inc.

Phone: 541-426-5713 Email: rob@devcosoftware.com Web: www.devcosoftware.com LGBEAMER
Digital Canal
Phone: 800-449-5033 Email: clint@digitalcanal.com Web: www.digitalcanal.com Structural Expert Series
Dimensional Solutions, Inc.

Phone: 281-497-5991 Email: Info@DimSoln.com Web: www.dimsoln.com DSAnchor, Foundation3D and Mat3D
Georgia Tech CASE Center

Phone: 404-894-2260 Email: joan.incrocci@ce.gatech.edu Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu GT STRUDL
Hilti, Inc.
Phone: 800-879-8000 Email: custserv@us.hilti.com Web: www.us.hilti.com PROFIS Anchor v2.0
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816 Email: sales@iesweb.com Web: www.iesweb.com
VisualAnalysis and ShapeBuilder and VisualAnalysis and Visual Foundation
iLevel by Weyerhaeuser
Phone: 888-453-8358 Email: ilevel@weyerhaeuser.com Web: www.iLevel.com iLevel Forte Software
King & Associates LLC

Phone: 866-739-5464 Email: usa@spacegass.com Web: www.spacegass.com SPACE GASS
continued on page 50 STRUCTURE magazine
48
August 2010
w o od
Not listed? Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org/guides.aspx and submit your information for upcoming guides! Listings are provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE magazine is not responsible for errors.
g en er al / pac k ag es /s ui tes
s teel
C AD
Hilti HIT
Adhesive Anchor Systems
Every project is unique.

We get it. That is why Hilti now offers you the exibility to meet the unique needs of your contractors with two premium adhesive anchors. The new HIT-HY 150 MAX-SD is the only adhesive anchor available in the market with ICC approval for all seismic design categories and cracked concrete that achieves a full-cure in just 30 minutes. RE 500-SD is our slow-cure solution for jobs that require a longer working time to achieve maximum precision. Your designs are unique, and our anchors are uniquely Hilti.
Hilti. Outperform. Outlast.
Hilti, Inc. (U.S.) 1-800-879-8000 www.us.hilti.com en espaol 1-800-879-5000 Hilti (Canada) Corp. 1-800-363-4458 www.hilti.ca
f oun dati on s / r etai n i n g wal l s
g en er al / pac k ag es /s ui tes
b us i n es s / prod uc ti v i t y
b ui l d i n g com p on en ts
con c r ete
s pec i alt y
m as on ry
B r i d g es
A software guide for Structural Engineers

co m pa n y na me Soft ware
l i g ht g aug e s teel
2010 SOFTWARE GUIDE

LARSA, Inc.
Phone: 800-LARSA-01 Email: info@Larsa4D.com Web: www.larsa4D.com LARSA 4D
LionStar Engineering, LLC

Phone: 714-263-6603 Email: info@LionStarEng.com Web: www.LionStarEng.com EarthSuite I
MIDASoft Inc.
Phone: 800-584-5541 Email: midasoft@MidasUser.com Web: www.MidasUser.com midas Civil 2010
Nemetschek Scia
Phone: 877-808-7242 Email: usa@scia-online.com Web: www.scia-online.com Scia Engineer
POSTEN Engineering Systems

Phone: 510-275-4750 Email: sales@postensoft.com Web: www.postensoft.com POSTEN Multistory
Powers Fasteners
Phone: 985-807-6666 Email: jzenor@powers.com Web: www.powers.com Concrete Anchors
Retain Pro Software

Phone: 800-422-2251 Email: hbrooks@retainpro.com Web: www.retainpro.com
RETAIN PRO 9
Retain Pro 9
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815 Email: info@risatech.com Web: www.risa.com RISA-3D
Standards Design Group, Inc.

Phone: 806-792-5086 Email: info@standardsdesign.com Web: www.standardsdesign.com Wind Loads on Structures 2005
Strand7 pty ltd

Phone: 252-504-2282 Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com Web: www.strand7.com Strand7
StrucSoft Solutions
Phone: 514-731-0008 Email: info@strucsoftsolutions.com Web: www.strucsoftsolutions.com MWF
STRUCTUREPOINT
Phone: 847-966-4357 Email: info@structurepoint.org Web: www.StructurePoint.org
spSlab, spColumn, spMats, spWall, spBeam and spFrame
x x
x x
Struware, Inc.
Phone: 904-302-6724 Email: email@struware.com Web: www.struware.com
Struware Code Search Structural Engineering Software
x x x x x x x
x x x x
x x
x x
Tekla, Inc.
Phone: 877-835-5265 Email: info.us@tekla.com Web: www.tekla.com Tekla Structures
WoodWorks Software
Phone: 800-844-1275 Email: sales@woodworks-software.com Web: www.woodworks-software.com WoodWorks Software
STRUCTURE magazine
50
August 2010
w o od
s teel
C AD
x x
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 StructurePoint.org to download your trial copy of our software products. For more information on licensing and pricing options please call 847.966.4357 or e-mail info@StructurePoint.org.
STR 6-09
LEGAL PERSPECTIVES
discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers
Whats a Structural Engineer to Do?

The Collaborative World of Building Information Modeling and Integrated Project Delivery
By David J. Hatem, PC and Sue Yoakum, Esq., AIA Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) are relatively new concepts that are generating a signicant amount of interest with owners, designers, engineers and contractors. The implementation of these new concepts requires the members of the design and construction industry, including owners, to work together more than ever and establish common goals, risk allocation and insurance options. At this time, almost everyone in the design and construction industry understands BIM is a drawing tool used by design professionals with structural engineers at the forefront, and contractors to draw/model the project prior to construction. BIM has been dened as a digital representation of physical and functional characteristics of a facility, by the National Institute of Building Sciences Model Standard 22 (2007). BIM may be used in a variety of applications, including: 1) design visualization and comprehension, 2) structural analysis, 3) energy analysis, 4) preparation of design drawings, 5) systems coordination, 6) constructability reviews, 7) 4D scheduling and sequencing, and 8) layout and eld coordination. IPD is an approach to project delivery in which major project participants (minimally, the owner, design professional and constructor, and potentially, lower-tier design and construction participants) execute a single contract under which they agree to collaborate in the design development process and, to a degree, share economic risk associated with design and construction. For projects where the structural design is complicated and the structure is a substantial portion of construction costs, the structural engineer should have a seat at the table to assist in the critical decisions. and maintenance processes. Among other things, the use of BIM allows the contractors and subcontractors to understand and make early decisions relating to means and methods, and accurately report to the owner and designers ease of construction and construction costs. Certain designs are more expansive and complicated than others and an early understanding of this during design will assist in making informative design decisions. Potential advantages associated with the use of BIM include: Improved spatial program validation Enhanced ability to visualize and comprehend designs, complicated details and sequences Better coordination and timely detection of conicts and clashes Improved design details Compression of the design period Real-time identication and resolution of potential fabrication and constructability issues prior to start of construction Identication and resolution of design questions prior to start of construction Greater communication and collaboration among owners, designers, constructors, suppliers and other lowertier project participants Potential advantages associated with the use of IPD include many of the BIM advantages listed above, plus potential alignment of project interests and sharing of prots and risks.
E202, 2008, Building Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit E201, 2007, Digital Data Protocol Exhibit ConsensusDOCS Below is the list of model ConsensusDOCS agreements available for use on IPD and BIM projects. ConsensusDOCS 300, Standard Form of Tri-Party Agreement for Collaborative Project Delivery ConsensusDOCS 301, Building Information Modeling (BIM) Addendum For IPD projects, AIA has two forms of Agreements. In 2008, AIA released the C1952008 and subsequent agreement for use in forming a single purpose entity to deliver an IPD project. In November 2009, AIA took another approach to IPD projects and released the C191-2009 Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery. This multi-party approach is the more common approach for IPD projects. The C191-2009 agreement envisions the Owner, Design Professional(s) and Contractor(s) executing this agreement, a minimum, but additional parties can be added depending on project needs. For projects with a unique structural design, the structural engineer may prefer to be a party to the agreement. C191-2009 is unique from other IPD agreements in that it allows the parties to enter into an agreement prior to dening all the project parameters. This is a good approach because in order to understand the project and risk allocations, the project parameters, design, schedule and costs needs to be understood at the basic level. There are four exhibits to this Agreement: Exhibit A, General Conditions; Exhibit B, Legal Description of the Project; Exhibit C, Owner Criteria; and Exhibit D, Target Criteria Amendment, the most important and
Standard Form of Agreements for Use on BIM and IPD Projects

Today, there are standard forms of agreements available from the American Institute of Archetects (AIA) and ConsensusDOCS for use on IPD and BIM projects. AIA Documents Below is the list of AIA agreements available for use on IPD and BIM projects. C191-2009, Standard Form Multi-Party Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery C195-2008, Standard Form Single Purpose Entity Agreement for Integrated Project Delivery and companion agreements
Advantages Associated With the Use of BIM and IPD

The use of BIM on a project allows for simultaneous collaboration, interaction and integration among project participants in the planning, design, fabrication, construction, operations
STRUCTURE magazine
52
August 2010
probably the Exhibit that will take the longest to complete is with an additional seven exhibits to complete. Exhibit D is anticipated to be completed over time and added to the Agreement by amendment. In order to dene the Target Criteria, seven exhibits need to be completed: Exhibit AA, Target Cost Breakdown; Exhibit BB, Project Denition; Exhibit CC, Project Goals; Exhibit DD, Integrated Scope of Services; Exhibit EE, Project Schedule; Exhibit FF, Digital Data Protocol Exhibit based on the E201 2007 agreement; and Exhibit GG, AIA E202 BIM Protocol Exhibit. The intent of both AIA IPD Agreements is to create a collaborative environment in which to deliver the project. These agreements include provisions that address, among other things; risk sharing, waivers of claims, waiver of consequential damages and subrogation claims, indemnications shared project incentives and goals, and identifying a project neutral to assist with dispute. AIA Document E202 2008 Building Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit is the AIAs standard form of agreement for use on BIM projects. This document is an exhibit and is intended to be attached to any AIA agreement. E202 could be used as an exhibit with other agreements, after careful review and modication. This BIM exhibit primarily focuses on specic responsibility for the development of each BIM element; it assumes traditional project roles and responsibilities, and risk allocation. ConsensusDOCS takes a different approach to their IPD agreement and does not require or promote the establishment of a Single Purpose Entity Agreement (SPE). ConsensusDOCS 300; Standard Form of Tri-Party Agreement for Collaborative Project Delivery is a tri-party approach which embraces the idea that, in order for all the parties to be on the same page, all parties sign one agreement. This agreement establishes a Collaborative Project Delivery Team. Members include the owner, designer, and constructor collaboratively making decisions relating to design, costs and schedule. Other articles include: Article 3 allows the Parties to release each other from any liability at law or in equity for any non-negligent act, omission, mistake or error in judgment, whether negligent or not, acting in good faith, in performing its obligations under this Agreement except to the extent such act or omission amounts to a willful default of an obligation under this Agreement. Article 3 Traditional Risk Allocation states each Party shall be fully liable for
its own negligence. Article 11 Incentives and Risk Sharing establishes both a nancial incentive program for the sharing of project cost below the Project Target Cost Estimate (PTCE), as well as sharing of losses. Article 11.5 provides that, in the event that the actual cost of the Project exceeds the PTCE, excess will be borne by the Owner. Article 21 Indemnity, Insurance, Waivers and Bonds, under Article 21.1, owner, contractor and designer each agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless to the extent caused by the respective negligent acts. Article 21.3 requires the design professional maintain professional liability insurance for negligence. The ConsensusDOCS 301 Building Information Modeling (BIM) Addendum denes roles and responsibilities, and risk allocation, in a fairly traditional manner. This BIM addendum addresses and focuses on the management of electronic information.
responsibility is distributed do not maintain adequate, or any, insurance coverage for defective design. If design responsibility for permanent project work will be delegated to contractors and trade subcontractors, they should have adequate professional liability insurance. In instances in which insurance coverage for defective delegated design is not maintained by the constructor, trade subcontractor, or specialty designer, the design professionals professional liability insurance is often called upon to defend and indemnify.
Conclusion
Integrated Project Delivery may not be the right project delivery approach for every project. At a minimum, design professionals need to know associated risks, professional liability and insurability issues related to IPD projects. BIM continues as the appropriate drawing tool for every project, no matter how big or small. David J. Hatem, PC, is a Founding Partner of the multi-practice law rm, Donovan Hatem LLP. He leads the rms Professional Practices Group. Mr. Hatem can be reached via email at dhatem@donovanhatem.com. Sue Yoakum, Esq., AIA, is an attorney and a licensed architect. At Donovan Hatem LLP, Ms. Yoakum focuses her practice assisting design professionals. She can be reached via email at syoakum@donovanhatem.com.
Insurance Coverage for IPD and BIM Projects

As a general matter, insurers underwrite the risk of insuring only legal conduct. Insurance concerns that should be discussed and addressed prior to entering into an IPD contract, including: A design professionals liability exposure may be increased if other project participants to whom design
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
SuperLaminate - Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System
Introducing the Next Generation of FRP

Blast retrofit of structures
Advantages of SuperLaminate
One size fits all Stronger than fiber wrap ISO-9000 certified plant Up to 80% faster construction time Material properties known before installation You can learn more about these products by visiting www.SuperLaminate.com www.QuakeWrap.com www.PipeMedic.com www.PileMedic.com PLEASE CALL US FOR AN EVALUATION BY ONE OF OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (520) 791-7000 OR (866) QuakeWrap [782-5397]
Strengthening of concrete & masonry walls Retrofit of beams, slabs & columns Field-manufactured cylindrical shell around square columns Repair of underwater piles without the need for costly divers (PileMedic.com)
Repair of columns below grade without the need for costly excavation (PileMedic.com)
Trenchless repair of pipes and culverts, including spot repair (PipeMedic.com)
STRUCTURE magazine
53
August 2010
Quality assurance corner

meeting and exceeding requirements and expectations
Tips for Designing Constructible Steel-Framed Structures

Part 1
By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Todd R. Campbell, P.E. The term constructability defines the ease with which structures can be built. Why should designers care about constructability? They should care because a constructible design is an economical design. Thirty years ago there was little discussion about constructability. That was because most structural engineers were aware of the need to design buildings which could be easily built. Consideration of constructability was standard procedure. Attention to constructability diminished with the increased use of computers. Computer programs unfortunately do not print error messages warning of constructability flaws. Recently there has been renewed focus on constructability what it is, how to achieve it and how to educate practicing engineers on this lost art. This article focuses on constructability of steel-framed structures. There are four basic tenets to the practice of designing constructible steel structures. They are: 1) Simplicity = economy 2) Least weight does not always equate to least cost 3) The fewer the pieces, the more economical the design 4) Efficient connection design = economical design Note that the terms economy and constructible are often used interchangeably in discussions of constructability. This is because the most economical design is usually one that is also highly constructible. Constructability problems fall into two general categories constructability flaws due to framing configurations that are difficult to assemble (most often relating to connection issues) and constructability flaws due to framing configurations that are inefficient (such as a floor faming layout with beams spaced at 6 feet o.c. versus a layout with beams spaced at 12 feet o.c.) Below is a list of suggestions which, if followed, will usually facilitate the fabrication and erection of steel structures. Some of these rules-of-thumb will vary depending on project location, labor cost and specific fabricator preferences based on available fabrication equipment. Designers should be familiar with
Figure 1: Simplify base plate geometry where possible.
preferred fabrication and construction practices common within the areas where their projects are located. 1) Show all actual reactions, moments and axial loads for which connections must be designed, and permit fabricators to design and detail the connections to suit their preferences. If readers follow only this rule, they will significantly enhance constructability of the buildings that they design. Showing reactions, moments and member forces, and allowing fabricators to design and detail their preferred connections, will result in the most competitive bids. 2) Use square baseplates with symmetrical anchor rod patterns. Square plates, and symmetrical and repetitive anchor rod patterns, are easy to detail, fabricate and erect. This is a classic example of simplicity = economy. (Figure 1) 3) Frame girders to column flanges. Its easier to maneuver beams (which are usually smaller than girders) into position between column flanges than it is to frame girders to column webs. Likewise, beams usually have smaller reactions than girders. Economical August 2010
connections, such as single angle connections, can usually be used for light beam reactions. Single angle connections to column webs offer an additional benefit of eliminating shared bolts with the beam connections on the opposing side of the web. 4) Do not prohibit one-sided shear connections, such as single angle connections, unless there are valid reasons for doing so. Some designers arbitrarily prohibit the use of one-sided connections. Properly designed singlesided connections are cost effective, strong and safe to erect. 5) Avoid complete joint penetration (CJP) welds when possible. Some designers arbitrarily require welds to be complete joint penetration welds when alternative welds will work. When designers opt not to design and detail welded connections on the contract documents, the best alternative is to provide steel fabricators with the design forces at welded connections and permit the fabricators connection engineer to design the most cost-efficient weld to resist the applied forces.
STRUCTURE magazine
54
Figure 2: Head off steeply skewed beams to facilitate design and detailing of connections.
Figure 4: Orient columns in braced frames to enable square bracing connections.
6) Avoid specifying that connections be designed for full strength of member. Requiring that connections be able to support the full strength of the member is both vague and usually unnecessary. A better solution is to show the member reactions on the framing plans. 7) Avoid using generic tables requiring beams of certain depths to be designed for conservative reactions. The use of a table listing beam depths, minimum rows of bolts and minimum required connection shear capacities is widespread. A better solution is to show all beam reactions on the framing plans. Connection cost is a significant percentage of the total inplace cost of structural steel. Requiring connections to be designed to have capacities far greater than the actual reactions is wasteful of the owners budget and resources. 8) Size columns to avoid stiffener plates and web doubler plates. Stiffener plates and web doubler plates are costly to install. A better alternative is usually to upsize columns so that these plates are not required. 9) Favor bolted connections over welded connections. Most large fabricators use computer controlled beam and angle drill line machinery.
The only labor required is that of bolting connection angles to beams and columns. Welded connections introduce another level of complexity and increased chances for human error. While welded connections are fine where required, most fabricators with drill line machinery prefer bolted connections. Welded connections also require a greater level of inspection versus bolted connections. 10) Favor connections that do not require field welding. Field welding is generally more expensive than field bolting. 11) Check that connections are constructible and that bolts or welds can be physically installed. Engineers who delegate connection design to the steel fabricator are still obligated to make sure that their framing is configured in a manner that will permit the steel fabricators to efficiently detail and fabricate the connections. 12) Minimize or avoid skewed connections where possible. While skewed connections can be fabricated, they are generally more expensive than square connections. 13) Avoid skewed connections with large reactions. Beams with large end reactions are often most efficiently framed with double-sided connections specifically double angle connections where the bolts are in double shear. Double sided skewed connections are more expensive than doublesided square connections, and bolt installation can be difficult depending on the angle of the skew. 14) Avoid steeply skewed beam-to-girder connections with skew angles less than 30 degrees. Steep skew angles often require very large beam copes, which can reduce the strength of the
member at the connection. Welds on the acute angle side of steeply skewed single plate connections can be difficult to install. Bolts can likewise be difficult to install. When steeply skewed beams cannot be avoided, heading them off will usually solve the connection problems that would otherwise occur. (Figure 2) 15) Orient columns to minimize skewed connections to columns. (Figure 3) 16) Orient columns in braced frames square with braced frame members. (Figure 4) The next QA Corner article will continue the discussion of constructability of steel-framed structures, with 25 additional tips and suggestions. If you have any comments about this article, please email the authors. Clifford Schwinger, P.E., SECB is a Vice President and Quality Assurance Manager at The Harman Group. He may be reached at cschwinger@harmangroup.com. Todd R. Campbell, P.E. is an Associate and Project Manager at The Harman Group. He may be reached at tcampbell@harmangroup.com.
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org
The easiest to use software for calculating wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on these codes ($195.00). Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00). Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists ($100.00). Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00). Demos at: www.struware.com
Figure 3: Orient columns to minimize the number of skewed connections.
STRUCTURE magazine
55
August 2010
Great achievements
notable structural engineers
Gustav Lindenthal
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., P.L.S. Gustav Lindenthal was one of the premier bridge builders in the United States between 1877 and 1935. He was born in Bruun, Austria May 24, 1850 and attended classes at the Provincial College of Brunn and the polytechnical schools of Brunn and Vienna before beginning his engineering career on the Austrian Empress Elizabeth Railroad in 1870. He moved to Vienna in 1872 as an Assistant Engineer for the Union-Baugesellschaft. He immigrated to the United States in 1874, where he anticipated greater opportunities. Finding no work in New York, he went to Philadelphia looking for a job in the construction of buildings for the Centennial Exposition. After working as a mason, he was moved up to draftsman and later engineer on design and construction of several of the main buildings. He then went to Pittsburgh where he worked for three years with the Keystone Bridge Company. In 1879, he started a two-year employment with the Atlantic and Great Western Railroad. One of his biographies indicates that he reconstructed or strengthened some hundred old bridges and built at least a half a hundred new iron bridges throughout the Middle West. In 1881, Lindenthal went into business on his own as a consulting engineer in the Pittsburgh area. He built four major bridges in the area over the next several years. The Herrs Island, 30th Street, Bridge was his first chance to apply the continuous bridge principle. He next replaced John A. Roeblings Smithfield Street Suspension Bridge over the Monongahela River. For his channel spans, Gustav chose Pauli (lenticular) Trusses. This was the first long span bridge of this type built in the United States. His bridge opened in 1883 and still spans the Monongahela River. A parallel span was added, with a new portal, in 1891. He next showed his versatility in building a suspension bridge over the Youghiogheny River at McKeesport (1883). The Seventh Avenue Bridge that opened in 1884 over the Allegheny River was an eye bar braced chain bridge over three river piers, with the two central spans being 330 feet. In 1885, he was asked to prepare a plan to carry Pennsylvania Railroad tracks across the Hudson River from New Jersey into lower Manhattan. Lindenthal surveyed the river and later wrote, The great railroad bridge over the Firth of Forth in Scotland was then under construction. The question was, could a similar bridge be built over the Hudson River? In 1886, he presented a proposal for a four-track suspension bridge with a 3,000-foot central span. He estimated his bridge and Manhattan Terminal would cost approximately $22,000,000. The cost of his project was more than the Pennsylvania Railroad could support. The Engineering News noted, there is probably no one on either side of the ocean who could be counted on more confidently to deal successfully with the intricate engineering problems involved than Mr. Lindenthal. Certainly, no one of the eminent engineers who have already constructed great long span bridges could have been justly regarded as better equipped for his work at its inception. Lack of funding delayed the start of construction for another several years. Then the financial panic of 1893 to about 1900 and the bankruptcy of several railroads that signed onto the bridge, caused further delay. In 1890, Gustav moved his office to New York City. In 1894-95, when the New York and New Jersey Bridge Company was proposing a competing 2,000-foot span cantilever bridge, and later a 3,000-foot span suspension bridge by T. C. Clarke and Charles Macdonald across the Hudson River, he revived interest in his bridge. Neither bridge company was able to raise funds to build their bridges during the economic downturn that took place between 1893 and 1900. In 1898, he was asked by the Phoenix Bridge Company to prepare an estimate and design for a wire link, braced chain suspension bridge for the proposed Quebec Bridge across the
Gustav Lindenthal.
St. Lawrence River. Theodore Cooper was selected to review the plans. Cooper met with Lindenthal and John Sterling Deans, Chief Engineer of the Phoenix Bridge Company, to discuss Lindenthals/Phoenix Bridges suspension bridge design. Cooper indicated, he would not give Mr. Lindenthals plan careful and detailed consideration due his estimated cost. Cooper recommended the cantilever proposal of the Phoenix Bridge Company as the best and cheapest plan and proposal of those submitted to me... Construction started in July 1905. The bridge collapsed during construction on August 28, 1907, killing 75 men. In 1902, Lindenthal was appointed New York City Bridge Commissioner. At that time the Williamsburg Bridge was under construction, the foundations were under contract on the Blackwells Island Bridge and the design of the Manhattan Bridge was well along. The next two years were tumultuous ones for Lindenthal, as he was at odds with Leffert L. Buck, Richard S. Buck, O. F. Nichols, Wilhelm Hildenbrand, Washington and Charles Roebling, etc. He greatly modified the design of the Blackwells Island Bridge, changing it from a conventional cantilever with suspended spans to one with no suspended spans making it fully continuous under live loads. The Mayor called in a special panel of engineers to report on his proposed changes. The panel compared the earlier design of R. S. Buck and Lindenthals, and came up with a design of its own which was accepted. The bridge opened in 1909 after many delays.
Lindenthals Manhattan Bridge Design.
STRUCTURE magazine
56
August 2010
When Lindenthal came into office, the Manhattan Bridge had been designed and was under construction. However, he determined the original design made by the department engineers was unattractive in appearance, and devoid of a definite outline and expression of purpose. Lindenthal changed the towers from three-dimensional to ones pinned at the base, changed the anchorages and substituted a chain of nickel steel eye bars for the wire cables of Buck. Mayor Seth Low called in a panel of prominent engineers to report on the changes. The panel made its final report on June 29, 1903. It determined that the design contains three features which, though not properly novel, are departures from the common practices with suspension bridges; they are the cables, the stiffening trusses and the metal towers, each of which may be considered by itself and approved all three. Despite support of Mayor Low the necessary funds were not approved by the Board of Aldermen. He also attempted to modify the design of L. L. Bucks Williamsburg Bridge, but was not successful. In January 1904, Gustav returned as Consulting Engineer and Architect to the Pennsylvania Railroad and a plan for the New York Connecting Railroad to link New York City and the Pennsylvania Railroads with New England via the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad. While working on this project, he also designed the replacement bridge for C. Shaler Smiths Kentucky High Bridge originally built in 1877. The railroad was looking for a bridge to go across the Kentucky River with two tracks on a much higher elevation than existed. His replacement bridge, built around Smiths bridge, was constructed in 1910-1911 without stopping traffic on the old bridge. While working on the Kentucky River Bridge, Lindenthal continued work on the New York Connecting Railroad. The largest of three bridges on the connection was the Hell Gate Bridge. He looked into several designs before arriving at the style he considered most economical for the site, finally choosing a spandrel arch. In June 1907 Scientific American was running articles on the bridge with the headline The Largest Arch Bridge in the World. The Engineering Record wrote, Besides planning a bridge of ample strength, the company has endeavored to make it a thing of beautyMr. Lindenthals conception is that of an imposing portal, or gatewayjust as the Brooklyn Bridge forms a gateway from the harbor. His design made it the longest and most heavily loaded railroad bridge in the world when it opened in 1916. While working on the Connecting Railroad and its bridges, Lindenthal designed the Sciotoville Bridge over the Ohio River. He looked at
Sciotoville Bridge.
all types of bridges that had been used to carry heavy railroad loadings over long spans. He determined that a continuous truss with two spans of 775 feet best met the site conditions. With the help of Ammann and D. B. Steinman it was, in 1916 when opened, the longest continuous riveted span in the United States. It continues to serve the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. In 1920, Gustav revived the North River Bridge Company and, with the assistance of his longtime assistant Othmar Amman, he designed a massive suspension bridge at 57th Street in Manhattan. His new bridge carried 16 lanes of traffic, four rapid transit lines on the top deck and two promenades. The lower deck had 12 tracks for railroads and rapid transit. The bridge maintained its 3,240-foot central span, with flanking spans of 1,590 feet and 825-foot tall towers. He estimated the project could be built for $100,000,000. Once again, he did not get the backing of the railroads or city officials to build his bridge. In 1922-23, Lindenthal was called to the Portland, Oregon area to review designs of the Sellwood, Ross Island and Burnside Bridges. He modified the designs of all three bridges, making the first two continuous trusses. Ammann was Lindenthals chief assistant on these bridges. For the Sellwood Bridge over the Willamette River, he used 246-foot spans flanking 300-foot central spans. The bridge opened December 15, 1925. The Ross Island Bridge also spanning the Willamette River, was significantly different than the Sellwood Bridge. The central span was 535 feet with the two flanking spans of 321 feet. It opened December 1, 1926. The Burnside Bridge had two 268-foot steel flanking spans and a 252foot double-leaf Strauss bascule draw span. It opened May 28, 1926 and is currently undergoing restoration. Ammann returned to New York in early 1923 and sensed Lindenthals insistence on a North River Bridge of his design, especially with a large commitment to the railroads, was placing the
entire project in jeopardy. After unsuccessfully urging Lindenthal to scale back his project, Ammann decided to prepare a design of his own and submit it to the Governor of New Jersey. The Governor submitted it to The Engineering Record, which published it with a small drawing and brief description in the January 3, 1924 issue. The article mentioned the drawings were by Ammann and the bridge was estimated to cost $30,000,000. Ammanns George Washington Bridge was completed and opened October 24, 1931 in a grand ceremony, with Lindenthal riding in the dedication parade with Ammann. Lindenthal was awarded the first Thomas Fitch Rowland Prize by ASCE in 1883 for his paper on the Monongahela Bridge replacement and again in 1922 for his paper on the Sciotoville Bridge. He was made an honorary member of ASCE in 1929. His memoir in the Transactions of the ASCE stated: It was often said of Mr. Lindenthal, during his lifetime and with truth, that he never built two bridges alikeAn innate love of beauty in engineering works went hand in hand with this seeking for the structurally best form. In part it seemed to spring from a conviction that a form satisfying the eye will also satisfy the demands of strength He was described as big and broad-shouldered with deep-set, blue twinkling eyes and iron gray hair and bushy beard. He is genial and good tempered in his moments of relaxation from the tremendous problems he wraps himself up in. He died July 31, 1935 at the age of 86 at his Metuchen, New Jersey home. Dr. Griggs specializes in the restoration of historic bridges, having restored many 19 th Century cast and wrought iron bridges. He was formerly Director of Historic Bridge Programs for Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP in Albany NY, and is now an independent Consulting Engineer. Dr. Griggs can be reached via email at fgriggs@nycap.rr.com.
STRUCTURE magazine
57
August 2010
InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
HSS Connections
By Leigh Arber and Erika Winters-Downey, S.E., LEED AP Although HSS have been used in structures throughout the world, some designers and fabricators are still reluctant to use HSS because of unfamiliarity and concerns regarding connections, says Don Sherman, professor emeritus at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee, who has been involved with research and design of HSS for many years. Hollow structural sections (HSS) are often used because of their elegant appearance as architecturally exposed members. HSS are also strong in torsion and compression, and beneficial because of their reduced surface area and weight compared with open sections. However, connections between HSS can be a challenge. The complex, unusual configurations of connections can pose geometry and access problems for fabricators, and reinforcement such as stiffener plates may be impossible to include on closed sections. Chapter K of the 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings addresses the design of HSS and box member connections. The chapter covers concentrated forces on HSS, HSS-to-HSS truss connections, and HSS-toHSS moment connections. The commentary to Chapter K describes the limit states in greater detail, and also cites important studies carried out by the International Committee for the Development and Study of Tubular Construction (CIDECT). AISC Design Guide 24: Hollow Structural Section Connections, written by Dr. Jeffrey Packer, Dr. Donald Sherman, and Dr. Maura Lecce, will be available in the summer of 2010. The design guide is based on the 2005 AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings and presents detailed information about HSS connections, including mechanical fasteners, methods of welding, and critical concerns such as notch toughness and internal corrosion. Practical design problems show, for example, calculations of required weld sizes and lengths, through-bolt strength, W-shape to HSS moment connections, and many other types of connections and configurations. The design guide presents general tips and guidelines, such as the appropriate slenderness ratios for main and branch members, to help engineers make good design choices that facilitate HSS connections. Explanations and photographs of the applicable limit states, including chord pastification and punching shear, help illuminate the possible failure modes. Because of the complex three-dimensional geometry, proprietary and custom connections may be used in HSS connections. More of these connections are used in Europe and Asia, where HSS represent about 30% of all steel construction, approximately double the market share they represent in the U.S. Cast Connex Corporation is an example of a North American company that manufactures several types of cast pin connectors. Their Universal Pin Connectors are clevis-type connectors especially suited for round HSS elements in architecturally exposed applications. These connectors, used in the Air National Guard Operations and Training Facility in New Jersey at the ends of 12.750-inch diameter HSS columns, are shown in Figure 1 . Cast pin connections are an aesthetically attractive alternative to the traditional slotted HSS-to-gusset plate connection. The castings are attached to the HSS members in the fabrication shop, eliminating the need for expensive and laborintensive field welding. AISC continues to encourage research on HSS for designing members and connections. The AISC Faculty Fellowship, an annual program that provides research funding to a promising university faculty member for four years, has recently been awarded to Professor Jason McCormick of the University of Michigan. Professor McCormick will study and develop the use of HSS connections in high seismic zones, including HSS connections in intermediate moment frames (IMF) and special moment frames (SMF). Unlike most prior research on HSS connections, Professor McCormicks study will investigate connections in which both the column and beam are HSS or concrete-filled tube (CFT) sections. HSSto-HSS, CFT-to-HSS, and CFT-to-CFT connections will be studied, modeled and tested and, with industry input, the most viable
Figure 1: Cast Connex Universal Pin Connectors used in the Air National Guard Operations and Training Facility, New Jersey. Courtesy of Carlos de Oliveira, Cast Connex Corporation.
connection configurations for each will be identified. Other goals of the research are: to establish limits for the development of plastic hinges with adequate ductility, to understand the limit states relevant to flexural deformation in CFT beam sections, and to provide detailed design guidelines for HSS and CFT moment connections, including parameters such as weld/bolt details, continuity plates, and optimal configurations. HSS continue to be an attractive choice because of their structural properties and aesthetic appeal. The forthcoming AISC Design Guide 24, ongoing research in the industry, and the availability of proprietary connections can help designers make wise decisions about HSS connections. Leigh Arber is a structural engineer with the American Institute of Steel Construction in Chicago. She works on the development of new design guides, and acts as secretary to the technical committees which develop the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings and the Seismic Design Manual. Erika Winters Downey, S.E., LEED AP, is the Great Plains Regional Engineer for AISC. Erika helps assess the viability of structural steel framing options on upcoming projects. She is also an educational resource on technical and economic aspects of building with structural steel. Erika can be contacted at wintersdowney@aisc.org.
STRUCTURE magazine
58
August 2010
Spotlight
award winners and outstanding projects
Project FROG Leaps Ahead in HighPerformance Learning Environments

By Alethea ODell Degenkolb Engineers was an Award Winner in the 2009 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering program (New Buildings under $30M category) The days of marginally constructed, unattractive, and uninspiring trailers segregated to the back of schools are fading in favor of dynamic, high-tech, environmentally friendly spaces that respond to schools and students needs. The industry leader is Project FROG. FROG has invented a state-of-the-art building kit that provides schools, among many other commercial uses, a brighter, healthier environment which inspires better performance. Frogs are also safe and structurally sound, exceeding seismic codes. In California alone, there are more than two million students learning in temporary classrooms, and the need for fast, flexible, and reasonably priced facilities is growing especially in places struck by natural disasters and overwhelmed by population growth. This pre-engineered approach offers educational institutions a quick-to-deploy, highperformance, reasonably priced middle ground between the traditional design/bid/build construction process and modular trailers. Degenkolb Engineers designed the structural system for this innovative building kit.
Learning and Technology Center, Sonoma, California.
Structural Innovation and Complexity

To achieve maximum flexibility in the system, Degenkolbs engineers Ray Pugliesi and Kirk Johnston redefined how a modular system could be constructed. Degenkolb designed the structural system for the FROG kit with light gage and structural steel to improve the lifespan of the structures, comparable to traditional buildings that last 25 to 50 years. FROGs highly engineered building frames exceed California seismic codes and wind loads over 90 mph. The Division of State Architects (DSA) has awarded FROG several PCs (PreCheck certifications) for use in California. This over-the-counter permit process allows the units to be installed without a structural plan check every time, which greatly speeds up the process. Meeting the states requirements for a pre-approved school building was one of the biggest engineering challenges we faced and we did it, says Pugliesi.
One of the first modifications to the process was creating a threedimensional computer model of the design. The model allows the project team to analyze wind, gravity, and seismic loads for various styles of the building and for various environments. One of the challenges was the lack of anchorage of foundations exhibited by modular systems. In order to achieve maximum stability in the structure, Degenkolbs engineers used a standard foundation system with concrete grade beams supporting the gravity and lateral loads. This allowed for simple construction methods and improved performance of the modular system. Pugliesi and Johnston developed a lateral system of diagonally braced metal deck roof diaphragms and steel braced frames to meet the requirements of a pre-approved product. The roof diaphragm bracing is atypical for a modular system, especially one intended to be one-story. While schools are usually built with solid walls, the steel frame structure of the FROG units allow for all the seismic needs without interrupting the openness and free form of the space. The structural steel lateral system ensures the safety of occupants in the event of an earthquake, with minimal damage to the structure. Return to operations is expected to occur soon after an earthquake. All connections are bolted for easy field assembly, with no field welding required. At the roof, double angle steel roof trusses support metal deck and aluminum joists over the central portion of the unit, and light gage built-up headers support the framing at the low roof eaves. The trusses and headers are supported by a combination of light gage and structural steel tube columns. Light gage tube steel joists and steel wide flange beams make up the floor framing system. Around the perimeter are optional cantilevered sunshades that are designed integrally with the aluminum window wall.
Project Team
Structural Engineer: Degenkolb Engineers Architect: Project FROG General Contractor: B&H Engineering
Meeting the Green High Performance, Affordable Challenge

Green elements help to create the ultimate learning space with minimal impact on the external environment. The buildings are constructed using highly recycled materials and low/no volatile impact organic compound (VOC) interiors. Additionally, occupancy and daylight sensors reduce the amount of electricity used, while clerestory allow abundant natural daylight. Optional solar panels, living roof, and sunshades offer additional energy and environmental benefits. Units are easily assembled with a small crew and simple installation equipment, with almost zero site waste. The entire building can be purchased, permitted, delivered, assembled and ready for occupancy in approximately 6 months. FROG buildings are priced below the cost of a similar structure using traditional construction methods. The smart modular system can be easily configured to create labs, administration spaces, and a variety of other classroom types. Its flexibility is key to owner satisfaction. Project FROG brings the construction industry into the twenty-first century with a new way of building. Alethea is the Director of Marketing and Business Development at Degenkolb Engineers.
STRUCTURE magazine
59
August 2010
Eighteenth Annual Conference

News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations September 30 October 2, 2010 Hyatt Regency on the Hudson Jersey City, New Jersey
Plan your fall to include the NCSEA Annual Conference at the Hyatt on the Hudson, Jersey City, NJ, September 30 October 2, 2010. Enjoy a great meeting and, after the lectures, be able to cross the Hudson River via ferry or the PATH train in only a few minutes, to view construction at the site of One World Trade Center, or send your spouse or guest to enjoy sightseeing and mid-town shops, theatre and museums. Visit www.ncsea.com now to see the full program and register in time to obtain the early-bird discount (before August 21).
Courtesy of Sarah McGee Photography.
Dont Miss the Saturday Afternoon Plenary Session on NCSEAs 2011 2015 Strategic Plan
Discuss NCSEA Goals for the Future with the NCSEA Board 1. Promote the Practice
a. Promote to the Media and General Public b. Promote to Structural Engineers c. Promote to Students d. Promote to Allied Professionals and Potential Clients e. Promote to Regulators f. Promote to Elected Officials a. Increase our representation and effectiveness in influencing Building Codes and Standards b. Strengthen our SEER Committee and its work c. Strengthen the additional (other than CE) Membership Services and Programs provided d. Provide effective Continuing Education programs e. Broaden and strengthen our liaisons with related organizations a. Obtain separate structural engineering licensure in all 50 states b. Establish a structural engineering degree program in at least one University c. Increase Member Organization Involvement in all states d. Raise the Quality of Practice e. Establish or regain qualification-based selection in 5 states
Exhibitors
American Institute of Steel Construction Azz Galvanizing Services CMC Steel Products Construction Tie Products ConXtech, Inc. CSC Inc DESIGN DATA Fabreeka International Inc. Fenner & Esler Professional Liability FYFE Company, LLC Grace Construction Products Hardy Frames, Inc. Hilti ITW Red Head LINDAPTER North America, Inc. Singer Nelson Charlmers Powers Fasteners QuakeWrap, Inc. RedBuilt, LLC RISA Technologies, LLC SidePlate Systems, Inc. Simpson Strong-Tie Steel Cast Connections LLC Tekla, Inc. TurnaSure LLC USP Structural Connectors Valmont Industries Vector Corrosion Technologies Voight & Schweitzer, Inc. Wheeling Corrugating
2. Represent the Profession
3. Improve the Profession
Sponsors
Cives Steel Company Girder-Slab Technologies LLC Steel Institute of New York Thursday Lunch Sponsor Friday Breakfast Sponsor Friday Lunch Sponsor
NCSEA News
4. Enhance Communication with the Member Organizations
a. Annually determine MOs at-risk and develop an action plan to provide them with additional attention b. Enhance MO communication thru semi-annual conference calls and Board Member liaison annual (or semi-annual) visits c. Enhance communication thru NCSEA website improvements, the MO Delegate Handbook, and monthly e-newsletters sent to all MO members a. Write, or review and re-write, Committee charges and post on website b. Select Effective Committee Chair for each Committee c. Select Effective Committee Members d. Improve Committee Operation Effectiveness e. Increase Committee Communication f. Increase Interaction Between BOD/Committees/Parallel MO Committees g. Perform Committee Evaluation
PLATINUM
Steel Institute of New York
Friend
Concrete Industry Board, Inc. ITW Red Head Nicholson & Galloway Inc. Powers Fasteners SE Solutions, LLC Skyline Steel West NY Restoration of CT Wheeling Corrugating Bentley Systems, Inc.
GOLD
ACEC New York Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
5. Energize Committee Activity
SILVER
Simpson Strong-Tie Urban Foundation USP Structural Connectors
To become a sponsor of this event, please contact Erica Fischer (ericacfischer@gmail.com) or Melissa (Melissa@ncsea.com).
6. Ensure Financial Security STRUCTURE magazine
60
August 2010
NCSEA News
Next NCSEA Webinar August 17

Load Testing of Existing Structures Presented by F. Dirk Heidbrink
This webinar will describe the current static load test procedure contained in Chapter 20 of ACI 318, provide information on the proposed quasi-static load test procedure to be included in the ACI 437 specification, and present a few load test case studies. Load testing of an existing structure typically occurs when a building official calls into question the serviceability of a structure, a change in building usage occurs, or major modifications to the structural system are made. Procedures for conducting a static load test typically follow the requirements set forth in Chapter 20 of the American Concrete Institute ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. A new ACI code is currently in the development stages for repair of existing structures (ACI 562 Evaluation, Repair, and Rehabilitation of Concrete Buildings). ACI Committee 437 Strength Evaluation of Existing Concrete Structures is preparing a load test specification that is planned to be referenced in the new ACI 562 code. In addition to including the current 24-hour static load test procedure, this new specification would also include an optional quasi-static load test wherein a series of increasing load increments are applied and removed to the structure using hydraulics in order to better understand its elastic and inelastic behavior. The webinar will be presented by F. Dirk Heidbrink, Associate Principal with Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) in Northbrook, Illinois. During his 30year tenure at WJE, Mr. Heidbrink has conducted numerous load tests on existing structures. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in many states. Mr. Heidbrink has written articles and given presentations on load testing at ACI, ASCE, and International Structural Engineering and Construction conferences. He is an active member of ACI Committee 437 and a member of the subcommittee currently developing the load test specification.
Upcoming NCSEA Webinars
September 9, 2010: Wind Design for Storm Shelters and Critical Facilities Bill Coulbourne September 14, 2010: Wood and Cold Formed Steel Trusses Ed Huston October 19, 2010: ATC-58 Ron Hamburger October 28, 2010: Design Considerations for Ponding Loads on Roofs Tom Wallace November 9, 2010: Geometric Axis and Principal Axis Bending of Single Angles Whitney McNulty November 4 & 11, December 2 & 9: Practical Design of Structures for Blast Effects Jon Schmidt November 4, 2010: Design Criteria November 11, 2010: Design Methods 1 December 2, 2010: Design Methods 2 December 9, 2010: Progressive Collapse
Guide to the Design
News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
NCSEA has published a new design guide

Guide to the
Purchase it from ICCs website today. Attend the course and receive the book onsite! Guide to the Design of Out-of-Plane Wall Anchorage: Based on the 2006/2009 IBC and ASCE/SEI 7-05
Course Instructor: Timothy Wayne Mays, Ph.D., P.E. is President of SE/ES and an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at The Citadel in Charleston, SC. Dr. Mays currently serves as Chairman of the Structural Technical Group for ASCE SC Section and NCSEA Publications Committee Chairman. He is a prolific speaker who sits on several code writing committees. His areas of expertise are code applications, structural design, seismic design, steel connections, structural dynamics, and civil engineering aspects of antiterrorism. Course Description: The 2006/2009 International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE/SEI 7-05 contain detailed design requirements for wall anchorage systems to resist out-of-plane wind and seismic load effects. However, the provisions are scattered throughout the code and/or referenced standards, are material specific, and are often challenging for practicing structural engineers to apply for many practical building configurations. Using concept oriented instruction, Dr. Mays breaks down the analysis and detailing requirements separately for seismic and wind anchorage. Structural walls, nonstructural walls, parapets, and cladding are each considered separately as related to governing
Packed with example problem detailing requirem s, this one of a kind guide ents. is the solution The 2006/200 to out-of-plane 9 International wall anchora Building Code cladding anchora ge analysis (IBC) and ASCE/SE and ge systems to in the code resist out-of-p I 7-05 contain and/or lane wind and detailed design building configur referenced standards, seismic load requirements are material effects. ations. This book for wall/ requirements solves this problem specific, and are often These provisions are not separately for easily located challenging and breaks down seismic and each conside to apply the wind loads. red separate Structural walls, out-of-plane anchorage for many practical ly as required analysis and Key Features by governing nonstructural detailing : code provisio walls, parapets ns. , and cladding are Solutions are provided for each example SDC D. problem for high Example anchora wind areas, Seismic Design ge problems Category (SDC) diaphragms are presente composed of A, SDC B, and various material d for connecting concrete Special provisio , masonry, timber, s. ns and wood ledgers. are included for subdiap and precast walls/panels hragms, continuo to A detailing us ties/struts, example is presente pilasters, straps, Comprehensive d for econom eccentric connect ical tilt up wall examples are ions, framing and anchorage using provided for metal decking subdiaphragms just the metal on steel joists. composed of This guide is wood structur decking. an ideal referenc al panel sheathin It addresses e for the practicin g on wood many issues frequently encount g civil and structural engineers as ered during out-of-p well as college Also availabl lane enginee wall anchora e from ICC: ring students ge design. . Guide to the Design 2009 IBC Handboo of Diaphragms, Chords and Collecto rs: Based on Structural Load k: Structural Provisions the 2006 IBC (#4001S09) Determination and ASCE/SE Under 2009 IBC I 7-05 (#7042S0 and ASCE/SE 6) I 7-05 (#4034S0 9)
Design of Out-o Based on the f-Plane Wall Anch 2006/2009 IBC and ASCE/SEI orage by Timothy W. 7-05 Mays, Ph.D., P.E. Published by ICC and NCSEA
Based on the 2006 /2009 IBC and
Guide to the De Wall Anchoragesign of Out-of-Plane

ASCE/SEI 7-05
Courses Scheduled For August 2010:

Item No. 7043S0 9
(Visit www.ncsea.com for recent additions) August 2, 2010 Albuquerque, NM August 5, 2010 Little Rock, AR August 9, 2010 Atlanta, GA
provisions. Solutions for high wind areas, Seismic Design Category (SDC) B, and SDC D are provided for each problem presented in the course. Example anchorage problems for connecting concrete, masonry, timber, and precast walls/panels to diaphragms composed of various materials are presented. Special provisions for subdiaphragms, continuous ties/struts, pilasters, straps, eccentric connections, and wood ledgers are included. A detailing example for economical tilt up wall anchorage using just metal decking is presented. Comprehensive examples are provided for subdiaphragms composed of wood structural panel sheathing on wood framing and metal decking on steel joists. If your member organization would like to schedule this 8 hour course, please contact Dr. Mays directly at timothymays@bellsouth.net.
of Out-of-Plane
Wall Anchorage
Based on the 2006/20 09 IBC and ASCE/SE I 7-05
Timothy W. Mays , Ph.D., P.E.
STRUCTURE magazine
61
August 2010
Structural Fire Resistance Design Seminar

Register Now For a One-Day Seminar: Best Practice Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance Design of Concrete and Steel Buildings The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
New York City September 10 San Francisco September 13 Chicago September 29
Over the past four years, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), working through the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) and in collaboration with industry experts, has prepared a comprehensive document providing guidelines on designing structural fire resistance. The Guidelines contain the current best practices for fireresistant design of concrete and steel structures including a review of existing U.S. and international guidelines and design standards, which use approaches that range from simple prescriptive methods to sophisticated software programs with advanced methods of analysis under a wide range of realistic fire conditions. This seminar will provide general guidance on the approaches to, and practical aspects of, implementing a fire-resistant design approach for concrete and steel buildings. The guidance includes key concepts and examples for identifying performance objectives, conducting risk analyses, selecting design fire scenarios and fire exposure curves, and implementing heat transfer and structural response analyses for the structural fire-resistant design of concrete and steel structures.
EARN 6.0 PDHS

Visit www.SEInstitute.org for more information and to register
Committees Call For New Members

Athletic Field Lighting Structures Standards Committee
The newly authorized Athletic Field Lighting Structures Standards Committee is seeking members. The committee is developing a national consensus guideline for the proper specification, design, installation, and on-going maintenance of athletic field, or other similar large area lighting system support structures. Those interested in serving on the committee should apply online at: www.seinstitute.org/committees/codeform.cfm. For more information, please contact Lee Kusek, ASCE Standards Administrator at lkusek@asce.org or 703-295-6176.
Performance Based Design of Structures Committee

The recently renamed Performance Based Design of Structures Committee is seeking new members. Their new mission is To identify and assess the performance-based design methodologies, tools, procedures, and engineering practices for new and existing structures with regard to strength serviceability or survivability criteria under extreme events. To apply, visit the SEI website at www.seinstitute.org/committees/tadjoin.cfm.
Structural Columns
Proceedings Available
Structures Congress 2010
This set of proceedings contains more than 380 papers presented at the 2010 Structures Congress and the 19th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference held in Orlando, Florida from May 12-15, 2010. This collection contains papers on topics that are redefining structural engineering in the areas of bridge and transportation structures, buildings, strategies for todays global economy and advances in research. The papers presented here cover: analysis and computation; bridges; building design; buildings seismic; business and professional practice; concrete and masonry structures; education and educational reform; extreme loads and loading; non-building structures; research; and tall buildings. Order 2010 Structures Congress online at www.asce.org/bookstore or by calling 800-548-ASCE.
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our publications at www.SEInstitute.org. Click on Publications on our menu, and select Errata. If you have any errata that you would like to submit, please email it to Jim Rossberg at jrossberg@asce.org.
Errata
2011 Ammann Call for Nominations

The O. H. Ammann Research Fellowship in Structural Engineering is bestowed annually to a member for the purpose of encouraging the creation of new knowledge in the field of structural design and construction. The O. H. Ammann Fellowship was endowed in 1963 by O. H. Ammann, Hon.M. ASCE, and was increased in 1985 by Klary V. Ammann (widow of O. H. Ammann). The deadline for 2011 Ammann applications is: November 1, 2010 For more information and to download an application visit the SEI website at: http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/ammann.html
STRUCTURE magazine
62
August 2010
Structural Columns
Call for 2011 SEI/ASCE Award Nominations

Nominations are being sought for the 2011 SEI and ASCE Structural Awards. The objective of the Awards program is to advance the engineering profession by emphasizing exceptionally meritorious achievement, so this is an opportunity to recognize colleagues who are worthy of this honor. Nomination deadlines begin October 1, 2010 with most deadlines falling on November 1, 2010. Visit the SEI Awards and Honors page at http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/honorawards.html for more information and nomination procedures.
American Society of Civil Engineering Structural Awards:

Jack E. Cermak Award This award was created by the Engineering Mechanics Division/ Structural Engineering Institute to recognize Dr. Jack E. Cermaks lifetime achievements in the field of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics. Norman Medal and J. James R. Croes Medal The Norman and Croes Medals recognize papers that make a definitive contribution to engineering science. The Norman Medal was instituted and endowed in 1872 by George H. Norman, M. ASCE. The Croes was established by the Society on October 1, 1912, and is named in honor of the first recipient of the Norman Medal, John James Robertson Croes, Past President of ASCE. Shortridge Hardesty Award This award was instituted in 1987 by the firm Hardesty & Hanover to honor the contributions of Shortridge Hardesty as the first chair of the Column Research Council (Structural Stability Research Council since 1976). The Shortridge Hardesty Award may be given annually to individuals who have contributed substantially in applying fundamental results of research to the solution of practical engineering problems in the field of structural stability. Ernest E. Howard Award This award may be presented annually to a member of ASCE who has made a definite contribution to the advancement of structural engineering, either in research, planning, design, construction, or methods and materials. This award was instituted and endowed in 1954 by Mrs. Howard in honor of her husband, Ernest E. Howard, Past President of ASCE. Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prizes In July 1946, the Board of Direction authorized annual awards on the recommendation of the Societys Committee on Research to stimulate research in civil engineering. In October 1964, Mrs. Alberta Reed Huber endowed these prizes in honor of her husband, Walter L. Huber, Past President of ASCE. Up to five prizes may be awarded for notable achievements in research related to civil engineering and are often seen as helping to establish careers of the top researchers in civil engineering. Moisseiff Award The Moisseiff Award recognizes a paper contributing to structural design, including applied mechanics, as well as the theoretical analysis or construction improvement of engineering structures, such as bridges and frames, of any structural material. The award was established in 1947 in recognition of the accomplishments of Leon S. Moisseiff, M. ASCE, a notable contributor to the science and art of structural engineering. Raymond C. Reese Research Prize The Raymond C. Reese Research Prize may be awarded to the author(s) of a paper published by ASCE that describes a notable achievement in research related to structural engineering and recommends how the results of that research (experimental and/ or analytical) can be applied to design. The prize was established in 1970 in honor of Raymond C. Reese.
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
(Contact SEI directly for more information on these awards-visit the SEI website at www.seinstitute.org) Dennis L. Tewksbury Award The Tewksbury Award recognizes an individual member of the Structural Engineering Institute 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. Walter P Moore, Jr. Award This award honors Walter P Moore, Jr. for his dedication to technical expertise in the development of structural codes and standards. The 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. Gene Wilhoite Award The Wilhoite Award recognizes an individual who has made significant contributions to the advancement of the art and science of transmission line engineering. The SEI Technical Activities Division Awards Committee makes recommendations regarding who should receive the Gene Wilhoite award. However, they seek the opinions of the members as to which papers are meritorious. If a reader encounters a paper that s/he believes is outstanding for any reason, please convey this information along with a statement as to why s/he considers the paper exceptional to Susan Reid at sreid@asce.org.
Structural Engineering Institute Awards:
STRUCTURE magazine
63
August 2010
CASE Risk Management Convocation Comes to Puerto Rico This October

The next CASE Risk Management Convocation will take place during the ACEC Fall Conference, October 1720, 2010, at the El Conquistador Resort in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. For more details and to register go to www.acec.org/conferences/fall-10/registration.cfm. On October 18, the CASE Convocation will include the following conrmed sessions:
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
Avoiding the Pitfalls in Working with Architects By Using AIA C401 Using Commercial Software Effectively for Building Structural Designs Lessons Learned from Actual Claims (Key Cases)
SEI Challenges A/E Leaders

New Class Starts in September
In the course of ve separate ve-day sessions over an 18-month timeframe, ACECs Senior Executives Institute (SEI) participants acquire new tools and high-level skills and insights to prosper in our changed and challenging A/E/C business environment. Since its inception, SEI has attracted public and private sector engineers and architects from rms of all sizes, locations, and practice specialties, who are drawn to a highly interactive, energetic, exploratory and challenging learning opportunity. Class 16 begins in September 2010. Course size is limited, and registrations for Class 16 are being accepted. Executives with at least ve years experience managing professional design programs or businesses are invited to register for this highly regarded leadership building opportunity. For an overview of the full SEI program and to register, visit www.acec.org/education/sei/. To inquire, contact Deirdre McKenna at dmckenna@acec.org.
CASE Offers Web Seminar Series on AIA C401

Do you know the important changes to make to AIAS C-401 Agreement between Architect and Consultant? Now that architects are using C401, it is essential that your project manager is familiar with both C401 and AIA B101 Agreement between Owner and Architect. Learn to work with these and more by attending the following web seminars: Thursday, October 7 Project Management for Structural Engineers as a Sub-Consultant Thursday, October 14 and 28 Understanding and Using AIA C401, Agreement between Architect & Consultant, AIA (This is being offered in two parts, Part I will be October 14 and Part Two will be October 28) Thursday, November 11 Retirement Plans - Which is Best for Your Firm To register for these seminars and receive special pricing reserved for CASE, SEI and NCSEA members, go to: www.acec.org/case/news.cfm.
Scarborough, Altschuler, Yarema Lead All-Star Line-up of Conference Speakers

A battery of leading industry and national experts will provide market information and critical insights on challenges facing engineering rms at the upcoming 2010 ACEC Fall Conference in Puerto Rico, October 17-20. Featured speakers include: Morning Joe Scarborough, MSNBC, on national politics Barry Worthington, executive director of the U.S. Energy Association, on energy markets and opportunities Geoffrey Yarema, National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, on the future of transportation funding Mick Morrissey, Morrissey Goodale, on M&As and consolidation in the engineering industry James Walsh, CIO of AECOM, on leveraging intranets and social media Daniel Altschuler, former director of the Arecibo Radio Observatory in Puerto Rico, on life in the universe For more information on the 2010 ACEC Fall Conference and to register, www.acec.org/conferences/fall-10/registration.cfm. STRUCTURE magazine
ACEC Offering New Course on Coping with Changes in Federal Procurement

With the federal government in the midst of implementing the most far-reaching procurement reforms in a decade, ACEC presents a unique program of experts for a timely exploration of up-to-the-minute insights on probable and potential changes in federal procurement practices. Coping With Key Changes in Federal Procurement and Project Delivery is a wide-ranging discussion of new public safety and security requirements, contractor disclosure rules, performance-based contracting, measureable contract performance standards and the outsourcing versus in-sourcing debate from the government source perspective, as well as ACECs own procurement experts. This one-of-a-kind course includes speakers from important awarding agencies, as well as contracting and legal experts who practice in Washington, focusing daily on public acquisition and federal markets. For rms pursuing federal work as well as those contemplating entry into this market, this 1-day course is of vital importance. To review the agenda for this course or to nd additional details, go to: www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1061
CASE in Point
64
August 2010
CASE in Point
CASE Summer Meeting Planned for Boston in September

The CASE Summer Meeting will take place on Thursday and Friday, September 16-17, 2010, in Boston, Massachusetts. On Thursday, the CASE committee breakout meetings will be held for the National Guidelines, Contracts, Programs & Communications, and Toolkit committees to continue work on their respective assignments and planning for future CASE products. The CASE Executive Committee will meet on Friday. A CASE roundtable on structural engineering issues will be held in conjunction with the Boston Association of Structural Engineers (BASE) dinner/meeting on Wednesday, September 15 at the MIT Faculty Club. The theme of the evening will be Risks for Engineers, and the roundtables will focus on the following: Risk vs. Award with Integrated Project Delivery BIM Investment vs. Payback Sustainable Design and the Risk for Structural Engineers How to Collect Your Money Without Getting Sued CASE committees have been the reason behind CASEs success for over 20 years and they remain vital to CASEs future. As part of the committees ongoing activities, face-toface meetings and informal discussions are held twice a year to explore current issues and work on projects like new and revised Risk Management Tools, Guidelines and Contracts, as well as Publications and Risk Management Convocations. These meetings also allow the various CASE committees to interact across all of CASEs activities. For more information on the CASE committees and CASE in general, visit their website at www.acec.org/CASE. Contact CASE Executive Director Heather Talbert (htalbert@acec.org or 202-6824377) if you are interested in joining.
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
Government
Congress to Consider ACEC-Backed Good Samaritan Bill
Affairs Update
House leaders are poised to reintroduce legislation that will provide Good Samaritan protection for engineers who volunteer their services after a major disaster. The ACEC-backed Good Samaritan Protection for Construction, Architectural, and Engineering Volunteers Act would give architectural, engineering and construction companies qualied immunity from liability when providing services or equipment on a volunteer basis in response to a declared emergency or disaster. ACEC is also working to advance H.R. 847, legislation that would limit the liability of engineering rms that worked at Ground Zero after 9/11, as well as broader efforts to provide liability relief to emergency responders. For more information on the new health care law, contact Katharine Mottley at kmottley@acec.org.
ACEC Achieving Success against S Corporation Tax Increase in Senate

ACEC, and its coalition and Senate allies, has been successful in recent weeks in turning back a proposed tax increase that would have affected many A/E rms organized as S corporations. The tax provision was included in the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 (H.R. 4213), which the Senate has dropped from consideration after three failed attempts at passage. The increase would have applied payroll taxes to S corporation distributions in cases where (1) an S corporation is engaged in a professional services business where 80 percent or more of the gross income of the business is attributable to the service of three or fewer shareholders, or (2) a professional services S corporation is a partner in a partnership. While these provisions would have affected smaller rms, ACEC had earlier eliminated broader language that applied to large, as well as small, S corporations. Council President Dave Raymond emphasized the importance of the Councils continuing vigilance on this matter, as the tax provision could re-emerge in future legislation. If it does, well nip it in the bud, he said.
STRUCTURE magazine
65
August 2010
Project Specific Peer Review Guidelines

A Professional Odyssey
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE, SECB As a result of my exposure to project specific peer reviews (PSPRs) over the course of my 33-year professional career, I became aware of the lack of industry guidelines for structural peer reviews. My interest in this subject led to the acquisition of a compilation of available material on peer review guidelines. This in turn led to the presentation of a paper on the topic at the 2006 Structures Congress in St. Louis. Portions of the same paper appeared in the January 2007 issue of STRUCTURE magazine. After the 2006 Structures Congress, Jim Rossberg of SEI approached me about chairing a Standards Committee for the development of a peer review guideline. I subsequently submitted a formal proposal to the SEI Codes and Standards Activities Division Executive Committee. Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected. I subsequently wrote a follow-up article on peer review guidelines that appeared in the June 2007 issue of STRUCTURE magazine. This article discussed the critical issues that needed to be addressed by any guideline, as well as the benefits that a standard guideline would provide to the structural engineering community and the public as a whole. In addition, the rationale behind the need to concentrate on PSPRs over all other types of peer reviews was also discussed. In an attempt to find an alternate path for the development of a set of guidelines, I reached out to the Risk Management Division of ASTM to see if that organization would be interested in developing a set of structural PSPR guidelines. Unfortunately, this approach also led to a dead end. At the same time, I was invited by CASE Minnesota to make a presentation on peer reviews at one of the monthly meetings in Minneapolis (April 2008). At the CASE presentation, Andy Rauch, Chairman of the CASE Guidelines Committee, became aware of my body of work on peer review guidelines. Andy subsequently asked me to participate in the CASE committee with the purpose of working towards the development of a peer review guideline. Unfortunately, at the time I was unable to make a commitment because of a prior obligation to fill an adjunct teaching position at Lehigh University in the fall of 2008. After my obligation was satisfied at Lehigh, I contacted Andy in 2009 and was asked to submit an outline for the development of a peer review guideline to the Committee. I agreed, and at the same time recommended that he contact Tom DiBlasi with the Structural Engineers Coalition of Connecticut (SEC/CT) about participating, as well, because of Toms experience with the development of the peer review guidelines associated with the Threshold Review requirements in Connecticut. Tom also agreed to participate and submitted a separate outline of his own. Developing an outline for the CASE committee gave me a chance to revisit all of the material that I had compiled prior to 2006. As a result, for the first time, I was able to develop what I believed was a comprehensive summary of the critical components required for a PSPR guideline. The entire outline is provided with the online version of this article (www.STRUCTUREmag.org). The primary outline sections are also identified in Figure 1. It is my sincere hope that this next step in the process of developing a peer review guideline for the structural engineering community, which has been ongoing for some time since at least the late 1970s will result in the publication of standards that can be referenced and used by structural engineers, architects, owners, attorneys and all other stakeholders in our industry. At the same time, I believe that CASE is the right organization to develop peer review guidelines for the following reasons: 1) The majority of SEI Standards are technical documents, whereas most of the CASE guidelines are geared more toward business practices. This is an important consideration, because even though the material being reviewed in a PSPR is technical in nature, the process itself involves considerable professional business practice acumen. 2) Secondly, the various existing CASE guidelines have been well-accepted, respected and used by the structural engineering I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Background Definitions Objectives Purpose Scope Qualifications, Liability and Compensation VII. Procedures VIII. Check Lists IX. Reports X. Resolution of Conflicts of Interest XI. Certification of Review
Figure 1: Primary Outline Sections.
Structural Forum
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
community for some time. This track record of success bodes well for the ultimate acceptance and implementation of the proposed structural peer review guidelines. If you have an interest in this topic and have a desire to participate in the development of the proposed new CASE peer review guidelines, I encourage you to contact Andy Rauch (arauch@bkbm.com). If, however, you feel that the development of a structural peer review guideline is not a worthwhile endeavor, then I ask that you consider the following. PSPRs will continue to occur in our industry, whether they are mandated by a governmental agency, dictated by a state law or happen voluntarily at the request of an owner, attorney or other interested party. With this in mind, at the very worst we should consider them as a necessary evil, and recognize that it is in everyones best interest to agree to a set of acceptable guidelines to help better control the process. D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F.ASCE, SECB (mstuart@pennoni.com) currently works as the Structural Division Manager at the Corporate Headquarters of Pennoni Associates, Inc., which is located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The online version of this article contains an extensive outline. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board. STRUCTURE magazine
66
August 2010

Aug 10

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Aug 10

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

STRUCTURE

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

Typical Applications that Require Code Compliant Anchors According to ICC:

Powers Compliant Products Have You Covered:

2009 IBC 2006 IBC 2003 IBC

Metal Wood Framer for Revit

30 BIM Dimensional and Material Quantity Control of Wood-Framed Construction

32 The Expanding Use of Wood in School Construction

54 Quality Assurance Corner

36 Special Section Engineering Software

Tips for Designing Constructible Steel-Framed Structures Part 1

By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E., SECB and Todd R. Campbell, P.E.

Anchor Bolts in Light-Frame Construction at Small Edge Distances

By Leigh Arber and Erika Winters-Downey, S.E., LEED AP

Multiple-Bolt Wood Connection Design Topics

26 Codes & Standards

Project FROG Leaps Ahead in HighPerformance Learning Environments

By Donald A. Bender, P.E., Ph.D. and Frank E. Woeste, P.E., Ph.D.

Anchorage Design for PreFabricated Shear Panels in Light-Framed Structures

The Truth about Corrosion in SelfDrilling/Self-Tapping Screws

Project Specific Peer Review Guidelines

Is Roof Eave Blocking Required To Transmit Wind/Seismic Forces?

By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE, SECB

Eighteenth Annual Conference

National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Council of American Structural Engineers

Courtesy of Sarah McGee Photography

Structural Engineering Institute

Visit us online at www.ncsea.com

Hyatt Regency on the Hudson Jersey City, New Jersey

John E. Durrant, P.E. Manager ASCE Engineering Programs 703-295-6360 sei@STRUCTUREmag.org

IRVINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

Ph: (949) 585-9137

Aug10 cover saddle stitch.indd 1

Graphic Designer Web Developer

Please support these advertisers

reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher.

Multiple-Bolt Wood Connection Design Topics

Local Stresses in Connections

design issues for structural engineers

Figure 4: Double shear splice connection.

Structural Glued-Laminated Timber Horizontal Shear Values

Design Example for a Multiple-Bolt Connection

Summary and Conclusions

Cracked & Uncracked

Anchors that crack the code.

IN THE SPECS ON THE JOB AT YOUR SERVICE

Strong-Tie Company Inc. THDSBSETXP10-S

The Truth about Corrosion in Self-Drilling/Self-Tapping Screws

Hydrogen embrittlement in self-drilling self-tapping screws.

The Pitfalls of Electroplating

updates and information on structural materials

Mechanical Zinc Plating

Reactions in the Field

custom built to the highest standards.

800-825-6668 www.valmont.com Valley, Nebraska

Strong-Tie Company Inc. SF10-E

Is Roof Eave Blocking Required To Transmit Wind/Seismic Forces?

Figure 1a: Wood Framed Eave with Eave Blocking.

Building Code Requirements