A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

STRUCTURE

August 2014 Steel/Cold-Formed Steel

NCSEA 2014

Annual Conference
New Orleans, LA
September 1720

SPECIAL

SOFTWARE

S E C T I ON

Power-Stud+ Sd4 & Sd6

Now Available!
Power-Stud+ SD4 wedge expansion
anchor in 304 stainless steel and
Power-Stud+ SD6 wedge expansion
anchor in 316 stainless steel, have
officially received their approval report
for consistent performance in cracked AND
uncracked concrete.

Code
Listed
ICC-ES
ESR-2502

Consistent performance in high & low

strength concrete

For sizes 1/4- 5/8

Nominal bit size matches

anchor diameter; anchor can be
installed through standard
Type
fixture holes
304 &
Allows follow-up
expansion after
setting under tensile
loading

316

This Product Available In

Knurled mandrel provides

consistent performance
in cracked concrete & helps
prevent galling during service life

knurled
Mandrel

3/4 Diameter
Coming This Fall!

Powers Design Assist

Real Time Anchor Design Software
www.powersdesignassist.com

300 series stainless steel

Available in diameters 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8,
and lengths 1-3/4 through 8-1/2
Powers Fasteners, Inc. 701 E. Joppa Road Towson, MD 21286 www.powers.com P: (800) 524-3244 F: (877) 871-1965

Presenting a New Level of Ease and Automation with

S-FOUNDATION
Analyze and Design your Foundations in a Single Program with
Advanced Automation Tools and two-way S-FRAME Analysis links
Increase Efficiency
Automatically apply loading from imported S-FRAME Analysis
results. Automatically merge optimized foundations with
S-FRAME s structural models for a more detailed soil structure
interaction analysis.

Improve Analysis and Design Accuracy

Analyze using the Rigid Method or Flexible Method of foundation
design; S-FOUNDATION automatically creates, manages and
solves the FE model.

No Blackbox Solutions
Support for ACI 318-11, CSA A23.3-04 and more

Comprehensive report generation includes all analysis & design

results, material volume, weight and quantity totals, soil
pressure distributions, equations employed and clause references.

Automate Processes

S-FRAME

Download, create, or customize Toolbox Extensions to automate

and distribute workflow processes throughout your organization.

SOFTWARE

Delivering Structural Analysis and Design Solutions for over 33 years

BIM Link Support

CONTENTS

FEATURES
Fault Line Pipelines

35

August 2014

By Stephanie A. Wong, P.E. S.E.

The 78-inch and 96-inch-diameter Bay Division Pipelines 3 and 4 are two
of the major regional transmission pipelines in the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commissions Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System. These two
pipelines cross the Hayward Fault at the intersection of a major interstate
freeway and a state highway. To address this area of vulnerability in the
system, a seismic retrofit program was initiated for the two pipelines to
ensure that water delivery continues after a major earthquake.

Atrium Roof Structural Artistry

38

By John P. Miller, P.E., S.E. and Marc A. Friedman, P.E., S.E.

Most structural engineers are creative, but they are not often thought of
as artistic. Once in a great while, a design team and an owner come
together, and the whole is truly more than the sum of its parts. This was the
case with the new Knight Hall and Bauer Hall on the Danforth Campus of
Washington University in St. Louis.

Full Metal Jacket Part 2

42

By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., SECB and

Richard H. Antoine III, P.E., S.E.

By Larry Kahaner
Structural engineers are starting to see wisps of the cloud. What has
become common in many industries working from the cloud is beginning
to see daylight among those engaged in construction. Read how software
vendors are approaching changes in technology for 2014 and beyond.

DEPARTMENTS
Awakening Young Minds to
Structural Engineering

By Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB

and Jennifer dos Santos

62 Professional Issues
Deferred Submittals Part 2

Exclusively published for the practicing structural engineer

STRUCTURE

By Dean D. Brown, S.E.

August 2014 Steel

SPECIAL

SOFTWARE

SECTION

9 Structural Licensure
10 Obstacles to Meaningful
Licensing of Structural Engineers

By Marc S. Barter, P.E., S.E., SECB

12 Structural Economics
Engineering Costs Out of
the Steel Project

By Joseph Penepent, P.E. and

Phillip Knodel, E.I.

16 Building Blocks
Modern Timber Connections

20 Structural Performance
Modern Construction: Standing
Solid on Shaky Ground
By Jerry Hatch, P.E.

24 Code Updates
By John Buddy Showalter, P.E.,
Bradford K. Douglas, P.E., Philip
Line, P.E., Peter J. Mazikins, P.Eng
and Loren Ross, E.I.T.

28 Historic Structures
B&O Railroad Bridge at
Harpers Ferry 1836

32 InSights
Post-Installed Anchors

Recognizing Outstanding
Structural Engineers

74 Structural Forum
Certification as a Bridge to
Structural Licensure

By Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E.,

SECB

A work of structural art the atrium

roof for the Olin Business School at
Washington University in St. Louis.
Courtesy of Alan Karchmer. See feature
article on page 38.

By Carrie Johnson, P.E., SECB

By Frank Griggs, Jr., D.Eng, P.E.

67 Spotlight

ON THE COVER

Topics That Structural Engineers

Can Really Use

2012 WFCM Changes

Working from the Cloud

60 Education Issues

7 Editorial

By Eric Karsh, M.Eng, P.Eng

Part 1 of this series discussed the investigation of an existing timber-framed,

multi-story building, that is over one hundred years old, and the resulting
evacuation of the occupants due to an unsafe condition. This installment
discusses the nature of the deterioration observed and the solutions
considered for repair.

45
Special
Section

COLUMNS

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 2014

By Neal S. Anderson, P.E., S.E.

and Donald F. Meinheit, Ph.D.,
P.E., S.E.

57 Structural Forensics
Engineering Evaluation of Fire
Damage to Concrete Foundations
By Peter Marxhausen, M.S., P.E.

IN EVERY ISSUE
8 Advertiser Index
52 Resource Guide
(Software)
64 InBox
68 NCSEA News
70 SEI Structural Columns
72 CASE in Point

Design concrete anchoring

connections in minutes!
Truspec is a new and free anchor calculation software allowing Architects and
Engineers to design concrete anchoring connections in minutes in accordance with
ACI 318 Appendix D. This software includes a user-friendly integrated design and
implements real-time 3D graphics, color coded results, and value displays in US
Customary or Metric Units. Product datasheet, photos, ICC-ES evaluation reports, and
specification packages are all included in the Truspec anchor calculation software.

Truspec anchor calculation software users

can quickly and easily:
Create anchor connections in accordance with
ACI 318 Appendix D

Select the number of anchor points

Model simultaneous moment forces in

x-, y-, z-axis

Predict mode of failure for anchor connections

Model multiple edge and spacing distance

configurations

Recommend most efficient anchor size

Calculate critical values for total strength

design of anchor connections

Download at

Optimize designs across multiple scenarios.

Recommend most efficient anchoring method
Specify anchoring methods to achieve a
desired failure mode

www.ITW-RedHead.com

Editorial

Topics
That Structural Engineers
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Can Really Use
By Carrie Johnson, P.E., SECB, NCSEA President

Laissez les bon

temps rouler!

m very excited about the upcoming 2014 NCSEA Conference

in New Orleans. This year, we once again focused on putting
together a schedule of well-known speakers with topics that the
practicing structural engineer can really use, and we continued
last years practice of offering concurrent sessions that allow attendees a choice between topics. We also have several receptions, giving
attendees the opportunity to meet and mingle with other practicing
engineers and leaders of our industry. Plus, New Orleans is a great
location one of the most fascinating places you can visit!
The formal program begins on September 18 with our keynote
speaker, Kelly Riggs with Vmax Performance Group. Mr. Riggs is
a powerful speaker and dynamic trainer in the field of leadership,
development, and strategic planning and will present Prepare Your
Practice: Why Your Strategic Plan is Doomed to Fail featuring tips on how
to create an effective strategic plan for your business or organization.
This will be followed by a presentation given by a panel of speakers
from NCSEAs Code Advisory Committee entitled Prepare for the
Future: Where Codes and Standards are Heading and promises to include
lively discussion. Then Bill Coulbourne with the Applied Technology
Council will present Prepare for the Unthinkable Designing Buildings
for Tornadoes. The presentation will use information recently developed
from research and disaster assessments to illustrate how to perform
calculations for buildings that are expected to survive a tornado.
After lunch, we begin our concurrent sessions. The first two sessions
will be titled ACI 562 Building Code for Repair of Existing Concrete
Structures and Wind Engineering Beyond the Code. Keith Kesner, a
Senior Associate with WDP & Associates in New York and Chair of
the 562 Code Committee, will speak about the development of the
ACI 562-13 Code for evaluation, repair and rehabilitation of concrete
buildings. Roy Denoon, with CPP Wind Engineering Consultants in
Fort Collins, will speak about unique wind cases not covered by the
code and provide insight on how to analyze these structures.
Our next two sessions are titled 2012 National Design Specification
for Wood Construction Overview and Three Diverse Adaptive Reuse/
Renovations. Michelle Kam-Biron, who is director of Education for the
American Wood Council, will provide an overview of recent changes
to the NDS code. Bill Bast, a Principal with Thornton Tomasetti in
Chicago, will speak about the unique challenges faced on adaptive
reuse projects. Our last two concurrent sessions on Thursday will
be AISI Standard & Tech Notes and High Roller Observation Wheel.
Vince Sagan, Chairman of the Cold-Formed Steel Engineers Institute
(CFSEI), will focus on CFSEIs recent Tech Note developments,
intended to aid design engineers in the application of the AISI code.
Brandon Sullivan with ARUP in San Francisco will discuss the unique
design constraints and challenges faced designing the new Las Vegas
High Roller the worlds largest observation wheel at 550 feet with
a maximum capacity of 1,120 passengers.
Friday morning, attendees can choose to either sit in on a presentation
where each of the 44 NCSEA Member Organizations will provide
updates on recent activities, or several presentations given by the
vendors exhibiting at our trade show. The remainder of the morning
will feature a panel discussion led by the NCSEA Young Member
Group Support Committee, entitled Student to Teacher Gaining
STRUCTURE magazine

Competency after the University. The session will focus on technical

training programs and will include young engineer panelists as well
as established structural engineers.
After lunch, we will have a presentation titled The Most Common
Errors in Wind Design & How to Avoid Them given by Emily
Guglielmo, an Associate with Martin/Martin in San Francisco
and a member of the ASCE 7 Committee. Her presentation will
include information on the future of the wind load provisions
and how the practicing structural engineer can help focus the
direction of the code. Following this presentation, we have The
Most Common Errors in Seismic Design & How to Avoid Them. It
will be given by Tom Heausler with Heausler Structural Engineers
in Kansas City and a member of the ASCE 7 Seismic Provisions
Committee. He will cover both low and high seismic design areas
and how to avoid misapplication of the code.
Our next session, Practical HSS Design with the Latest Codes
and Standards, will be presented by Kim Olson with FORSE
Consulting in Eau Claire and a technical advisor to the Steel Tube
Institute. The presentation will include a look at novel uses for HSS
members, available software, and a look at potential upcoming
changes to HSS design and capabilities. Our final presentation
will be Practical Steel Connection Software Design Using 2010 AISC
Standard. Our speaker, Steve Ashton with Ashton Engineering &
Detailing in Kansas City and a former senior engineer with AISC,
will focus on designing connections, including tips on how to
quickly evaluate software results.
Friday evening, attendees will want to go to the NCSEA Banquet
and Awards Presentation. The NCSEA Excellence in Structural
Engineering Awards program celebrates our profession by annually highlighting some of the best examples of structural ingenuity
throughout the world. The program also includes awards given out to
engineers who have made outstanding contributions to the structural
engineering profession.
We finish up on Saturday morning with the Annual Meeting of
NCSEAs 44 Member Organizations. This is an open meeting and
includes reports on the activities of NCSEAs committees. It is always
interesting to hear updates highlighting the hard work everyone is
doing to enhance our profession.
What started out as a meeting between the member organizations of
NCSEA has grown to be so much more. To reflect this, it is our intent,
starting next year, to call this the Structural Engineering Summit. I
hope all of you will consider joining us. Registration discounts are
available for young members (under 36) and first time
attendees. Young members can also apply for scholarships.
For more information, visit www.ncsea.com. I hope to
see you in New Orleans! Laissez les bon temps rouler!

August 2014

ADVERTISER INDEX

PLEASE SUPPORT THESE ADVERTISERS

Albina Co., Inc...................................... 37

American Galvanizers Association ......... 65
Atlas Tube ............................................. 34
Baldridge & Assoc. Structural Engin. .... 13
Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................. 75
CADRE Analytic .................................. 33
Canadian Wood Council ....................... 53
Clark Dietrich Building Systems ........... 11
Design Data .......................................... 44
Enercalc, Inc. .......................................... 3
Engineering International, Inc............... 17
Gerdau .................................................. 23
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 66
Integrity Software, Inc. .......................... 33
ITW Red Head ....................................... 6

KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 41

Lindapter .............................................. 19
LNA Solutions ...................................... 43
MMFX Steel Corporation of America ... 29
National Concrete Masonry Assoc......... 31
Nemetschek Scia ................................... 47
New Millennium Building Systems ....... 15
Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2
PPI (Professional Publications, Inc.) ...... 25
PT-Structures ........................................ 33
Ram Jack Systems Distribution ............. 50
RISA Technologies ................................ 76
S-Frame Software, Inc. ............................ 4
Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 49
Soc. of Naval Arch. & Marine Eng. ....... 61

Editorial Board
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB

Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO

chair@structuremag.org

Davis, CA

John A. Dal Pino, S.E.

Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, CA

Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.

ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER

Chuck Minor

Dick Railton

Eastern Sales
847-854-1666

Western Sales
951-587-2982

sales@STRUCTUREmag.org

Brian W. Miller

CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA

A JOINT PUBLICATION OF
NCSEA | CASE | SEI
Interactive Sales Associates

Chair

Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB

Structural Engineers, Inc. ...................... 33

Structural Technologies ......................... 21
StructurePoint ....................................... 51
Struware, Inc. ........................................ 33
Tekla ..................................................... 56
USP Structural Connectors ................... 26
Wood Advisory Services, Inc. ................ 33
Wood Products Council ........................ 27

EDITORIAL STAFF

Evans Mountzouris, P.E.

Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE

Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.

Editor

execdir@ncsea.com

The DiSalvo Engineering Group, Ridgefield, CT

Christine M. Sloat, P.E.

publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA

KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA

Dilip Khatri, Ph.D., S.E.

Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.

Associate Editor

Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E.

John Buddy Showalter, P.E.

Graphic Designer

Khatri International Inc., Pasadena, CA

CCFSS, Rolla, MO

Brian J. Leshko, P.E.

HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA

BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA

American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA

Amy Trygestad, P.E.

Chase Engineering, LLC, New Prague, MN

Meet the new STRUCTURE website!

E
CTUR
STRU ite
webs

Web Developer

Nikki Alger

publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

Rob Fullmer

graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org

William Radig

webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE (Volume 21, 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 $75/yr domestic; $40/yr student; $90/yr Canada; $60/yr
Canadian student; $135/yr foreign; $90/yr foreign student. 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 reflect 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.

WWW.NCSEA.COM
3

Empty your cache, update your links and

visit us now at www.STRUCTUREmag.org!
STRUCTURE magazine

August 2014

C Ink, Publishers

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 online at

www.STRUCTUREmag.org

tructural engineers in certain parts of the

country have practiced under a separate
licensing law for many years, most under
a title act, not by choice, but by compromise. Two states have full practice acts limiting
the practice of structural engineering to structural
engineers and architects, also a compromise. The
number of U.S. jurisdictions that place some
form of limitation on the practice of structural
engineering beyond the typical practice within
ones area of expertise is less than 25% overall.
Why do so few choose the level of protection
for the public that licensing structural engineers
can provide?
The following are ten potential obstacles to
obtaining meaningful regulation of the practice
of structural engineering. Every group seeking
a change in the licensing laws will encounter at
least some of these obstacles. The concept that
engineers should only practice within their areas
of expertise is a dubious means of regulating a profession with such a direct relationship to public
safety and is tantamount to changing interstate
speed limit signs to read, Be safe.
1) Apathy. The vast majority of engineers practicing structural engineering are disinterested in
the issue of structural licensing, as evidenced
by just how few structural engineers associations have active committees working to
secure it in some form. Without a groundswell from the profession, any licensing
movement takes on the persona of a mission
of zealots and gatekeepers. To succeed, the
profession must become fully engaged in the
effort intellectually, politically, and with a
commitment of time and treasure.
2) Management. Large engineering concerns
are usually multi-disciplined, with structural
engineers comprising a small department or
division within the organization. Very large
firms, the ones most likely to have political connections, are often publicly traded
companies whose management may not be
engineers. They answer to a board of directors elected by stockholders, and focus on
profit and growth. Additional regulation
brings additional expense, which in turn
reduces earnings. Unfortunately, with the
consolidation of the industry, the support
of these entities is close to mandatory. The
significance of opposition from industry to
professional engineering licensure has already
been demonstrated in the form of industrial
exemptions in state licensing laws.
3) Public Indifference. Without images in the
news of death and destruction, and their
correlation to the actions of unqualified engineers, the public is not likely to have much
interest in the regulation of the practice of
structural engineering. The public takes notice
when there are events such as earthquakes,

associating structural engineers with better

designed buildings, translating into increased
public safety and reduced property damage.
Structural engineers in places directly affected
by this natural phenomenon have been able
to leverage such public awareness and get
licensing laws passed. Many U.S. jurisdictions
with equally devastating natural disasters have
yet to correlate bad design with increased
damage and utilize public awareness to pass
licensing laws. Public education is the answer,
but by whom and at what expense?
4) Organizational Dysfunction. Within the last
18 months, SEI, NCSEA, SECB, and CASE
have joined together to promote structural
licensure under the auspices of the Structural
Engineering Licensure Coalition (SELC). Up
until now, each organization has supported
the concept to a different degree and extent.
SEI and CASE are subsidiaries of larger
groups ASCE and ACEC, respectively
and their endorsement of the concept
reflects their political
realities. In the past,
civil engineers have
generally opposed
any practice restrictions, and ACEC
is a business-based
organization that looks at regulation with a
critical eye. By contrast, NCSEA is autonomous and has supported structural licensure
unequivocally, while SECB is a credentialing
organization that was established with the
stated goal of securing structural engineering licensure in all U.S. jurisdictions. The
four groups have now come together with a
unified voice to endorse structural licensure
as a post-P.E. credential for certain structures. While this development is promising,
and the compromise position of a post-P.E.
license is surely more palatable to the general
engineering population, the litmus test for
success will be the number of jurisdictions
that adopt structural licensure in the future
and the role that SELC takes in making that
happen. A national coalition could provide
significant assistance to state associations if
funded properly and focused accordingly.
5) Licensing Boards. Licensing boards are varied
in their makeup, from those that regulate
only the practice of engineering to ones that
regulate engineers, surveyors, architects, geologists, etc. It stands to reason that the more
generic the board, the more difficult the sell
for special treatment for structural engineers,
who are a very small segment of the engineering profession. Illinois has about 11,000
licensed professional engineers and 1,300
licensed structural engineers residing in the

STRUCTURE magazine

Structural
licenSure
issues related to the regulation
of structural engineering practice

10 Obstacles to
Meaningful Licensing of
Structural Engineers

By Marc S. Barter, P.E., S.E., SECB

Marc S. Barter, P.E., S.E., SECB

(mbarter@barterse.com), is the
president of Barter & Associates,
Inc., a structural engineering
consulting firm in Mobile,
Alabama. He is a past president
of NCSEA and current member of
the Alabama Board of Licensure
for Professional Engineers and
Land Surveyors.

state, suggesting that just 12% of licensed

engineers practice structural engineering.
There are about 420,000 licensed engineers in the U.S., and applying the Illinois
ratio leads to the conclusion that there
are about 50,000 who practice structural
engineering. Licensing boards are wary of
the potential for increased costs and difficulties associated with discipline-specific
licensing, as well as the signal that special
treatment of structural engineers could
send to the other disciplines. Without an
overwhelming mandate from structural
engineers, board support is unlikely to be
forthcoming; and without board support,
changing the laws will be much more
difficult, if not impossible.
6) Regulation. The United States has
become a hostile environment for new
regulations. While structural engineering
licensure is insignificant when compared
to Sarbanes-Oxley, the Affordable Care
Act, and Dodd-Frank, it still constitutes
new regulation and thus will be opposed
on principle by many people, especially
the more conservative members of a legislative body, regardless of their overall
understanding of the proposition. The
more conservative the legislative body,
the less likely new regulations affecting
business will be embraced without overwhelming evidence that public safety is
at stake, and even then it can be a hard
sell. It is essential that politicians be educated on the amount of public protection
afforded by structural engineering licensure, and that other stakeholders, such
as the insurance industry and building
officials, be supportive of the process.
7) Politics. Structural engineers tend to be
apolitical. As a rule, those firms that
have an interest in state politics express it
through membership in the state ACEC
organization. State ACEC organizations
expend their political capital on business issues such as infrastructure funding,
tort reform, and quality-based selection.
Licensing of structural engineers is not
a popular issue for business because it
costs money and is, therefore, somewhat
counter to ACECs mission. Additionally,
these organizations count as members
of large civil and multi-disciplined firms
who may view structural licensure as a
restrictive impediment. Given the current
trends in engineering organization membership, ACECs state organizations may
well become the de facto representative
of engineers in general and, due to their
broad composition and familiarity with
the political system, the voice to which

the politicians listen. Therefore, soliciting and receiving the active support of a
states ACEC organization is imperative.
Active opposition can spell the end for
any structural licensure effort.
8) Money. One undeniable fact is that the
passing of laws generally requires money. It
can take attorneys to write the legislation,
especially if it is a completely new law, and
it can take a lobbyist to promote the passage of the law. Some structural engineers
associations have had success with their
own grassroots efforts, but these have typically been in areas of high seismicity where
the routine shaking of buildings serves as a
reminder to the public and its representatives that just saying be safe is not the
answer. An impediment to raising money
is that many engineers are cheap. We do not
like to spend money, and it can take lots
of money to get a law passed. No doubt it
will take a national effort to raise the funds
for a single state initiative; improbable, but
not impossible. If each structural engineer
contributed $10/year to a political action
committee, with the stated goal of securing
structural licensure where it does not currently exist, many of the obstacles listed in
this article could be overcome.
9) Aversion to Change. Engineers generally
do not like change. We like symmetry,
consistency, uniformity, and predictability. We generally want today to be
the same as yesterday and tomorrow to
be the same as today. Structural engineers who currently make a living with
a P.E. license often see very little need to
distinguish themselves with a structural
license or SECB credential, especially if it
costs money. Colleagues who practice in
other disciplines are even more averse to
changing laws to suit one discipline. The
motivation to change is not there and, in
fact, the natural tendency to oppose this
change is strong. This is very difficult
behavior to modify, but it is necessary
if structural engineering licensure is
to receive broad support. We need to
view regulation of the profession in the
same vein that we are forced to view the
practice of the profession. We no longer
use slide rules, T-squares, vellum, Kroy
machines, or moment distribution. They
are not appropriate solutions, and generic
licensing is no longer an appropriate solution for the protection of the public. We,
as the engineering profession, have to
realize that and embrace the change.
10) Other Associations. It would be simple if a
single organizations opposition to structural licensure were the only impediment

STRUCTURE magazine

10

August 2014

to states passing such laws. Currently,

NSPE, with the recent compromise that
would make the structural license a postP.E. credential, is more an opponent of the
past than of the future; but associations of
the other disciplines and subsets of those
disciplines can be just as vocal in their
opposition. For structural engineers, the
P.E. is not the Holy Grail; prestige comes
with a structural license or the SECB
credential. That is not the case for other
disciplines. Many licensed engineers never
design a thing, never seal a drawing or a
document, or actually practice engineering
at all. Their Holy Grail is the P.E. license.
They hang the certificate on the wall, put
P.E. after their names, and are very proud
of it. They are defensive when it comes to
any change that lessens its significance. The
challenge for structural engineers wanting to pass licensure laws is to identify
these associations especially at the state
level then educate them and attempt to
eliminate them as an opponent.
On a more positive note, one major obstacle
of the past is gone, and an opportunity has
replaced it. The elimination of the NCEES
Structural I and Structural II exams leaves
structural engineers with only one test to take,
and that is the new 16-hour exam. In the past,
state licensing boards could assume that they
were properly testing structural engineers when
they allowed them to pass the Structural I for
licensure as a P.E. Now licensing boards are
left with only one correct choice, requiring
structural engineering candidates to sit for
the 16-hour exam. The Alabama and Georgia
boards of licensure have gone on record stating
that structural engineers who seek licensure as
PEs should take the 16-hour structural exam.
It would be very good for the structural licensure movement if all jurisdictions adopted this
approach. In the interim, structural engineering employers who routinely pay for their
employees to take P.E. exams can make it office
policy for their structural engineers to take and
pass the 16-hour exam.
If getting structural engineering licensure
laws passed was easy, there would not be 48
states without a full practice restriction and
40 states without a restriction at all (roster
designations aside). Recognizing obstacles
and addressing them is prudent strategy in
any endeavor. The ten obstacles presented
here are probably the most significant, and
all of them can be overcome. It has been
over 100 years since Illinois passed the first
structural engineering licensing law. If we
recognize the obstacles and methodically
address them, it will not take another 100
years to finish the process.

YOU INPUT HOW THE WALL NEEDS TO PERFORM.

2014 ClarkDietrich Building Systems

[It outputs the products that meet your specs.]

CLARKDIETRICH WALL TYPE CREATOR ADD-IN FOR REVIT.

By allowing you to specify walls as youre designing them, our first-of-its kind tool
will streamline your workflow. But beyond saving you time, Wall Type Creator
provides instant access to deeper, richer levels of BIM data. Specifically, build
walls right into your current Revit project that meet height, STC and UL
ratings. Download it for free at clarkdietrich.com/creator. STRONGER THAN STEEL.

SM

Interior Framing Exterior Framing Interior Finishing Clips/Connectors Metal Lath/Accessories Engineering

clarkdietrich.com

Structural
EconomicS
cost benefits, value engineering,
economic analysis, life cycle
costing and more...

teel joist and deck systems are already

an efficient means of construction, but
there are ways an engineer can design
these systems more efficiently and cost
effectively. Techniques include designing support
framing to maximize deck strength utilization,
selecting seat sizes to accommodate long joist top
chord extensions, detailing of moment and axial
connections in rigid frames, improving detailing
coordination, and deciding between ASD and
LRFD design methodologies.

Optimizing Joist Framing to

Maximize Deck Utilization
There are two ways to specify the loading for
joists. Either choose a standard Steel Joist Institute
(SJI) designation with its accompanying total
load (TL) and live load (LL) capacities, or specify
all applicable design loadings with a base TL/
LL designation. The latter specifying method
allows for the most economical joist design. The
joist will be designed specifically for the needs of
the project. Deck design,
however, only allows for
standard designations to
be chosen. The properties and capacities listed
in manufacturer provided load tables cannot be
changed, disregarding base material changes. The
best way to maximize the utilization of a chosen
deck size and section is to utilize the allowable
loads and maximum construction spans indicated
in the deck tables. In doing so, the specifying
professional is taking full advantage of the deck
strength, resulting in fewer joists, less steel to buy,
lower transportation costs, and shorter erection
time. For example, consider a given design load
of 25/30 psf, dead/live load respectively, a joist
span of 50 feet, a girder span of 40 feet, and a
common joist spacing of 5 feet. Using the economic joist tables (Figure 1) we get 30K10 as an
economical joist. Now if we re-orient the joist
while staying within the maximum construction
span for the deck, and try a 6-foot 8-inch joist
spacing, an economical joist is 32LH07. The
entire bay weight for the 5-foot joist spacing is
11,980 pounds and the entire bay weight for
6-foot 8-inch joist spacing is 9,960 pounds. This
yields a 16.8% weight savings and an estimated
erection savings of 22%.
Another consideration is to evaluate the capacities of the roof deck for higher yield strengths for
given spans. For example, standard B deck has a
minimum yield strength of 33 ksi, though materials with higher yields are available. American
Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) material standards
limit the maximum design yield stress to 60 ksi.
On larger projects, instead of increasing deck
gage, engineers should consider contacting the

Engineering Costs Out of

the Steel Project
5 Steps to Improved Steel
Joist and Deck Design
By Joseph Penepent, P.E. and
Phillip Knodel, E.I.

Joe Penepent, P.E.

(joe.penepent@newmill.com),
specializes in joist and deck
customer application engineering for
New Millennium Building Systems.
Phillip Knodel, E.I.
(phillip.knodel@newmill.com),
is a joist and deck design
engineer at New Millennium
Building Systems.

12 August 2014

Figure 1. Excerpt of economical joist design table.

deck manufacturer for the option of specifying a higher yield strength. In most cases, a
stronger steel deck will be more economical
than a thicker steel deck gage of lesser yield
strength. For example, consider a roof design
load of 100 psf, a triple span condition, and a
6-foot joist spacing. Typically a B20 deck section
would be specified with the standard 33 ksi yield
strength, but when considering increasing the
yield strength to 40 ksi, a B22 deck would be
sufficient. If this option is chosen, the material
requirements must be noted clearly on the contract documents so the deck coil can be properly
sourced for the minimum required yield and
carried out through the entire project. The use
of non-standard material strengths is most effective in situations where the deck section with
standard material strength is almost sufficient
in capacity, but still falls short. Non-standard
yield strength selections may result in additional
cost and/or additional required scheduling time.
The impact on both cost and schedule is greater
on smaller projects than it is on larger projects.
Another deck sourcing option for larger
projects is the use of alternate special deck
gauge. For example, a 500,000 square-foot
building using 20 gage B deck has an approximate weight of 490 tons. By using 21 gage
B-deck instead, the approximate weight of the
deck is lowered by 40 tons (now to 450 tons
total). As with non-standard material strength
requirements, non-standard gages may result
in additional cost and/or additional required
scheduling time, but result in an overall lower
construction cost. Coordinating with a deck
manufacturer early in the design process will
minimize these issues.

Selecting Appropriate
Joist Seat Sizing

Detailing of Moment
and Axial Connections
in Rigid Frames

Figure 2. SJI standard load table for top chord extensions.

Benets of Improved
Detailing Coordination

chords have a relatively low moment capacity. When these eccentric loads become large,
chord designs will generate larger sections and/
or expensive chord reinforcement. The most
economical way to design for these induced
axial loads is to provide a direct load path from
the chords to the support or to another abutting
member. The alternate load path will reduce
or eliminate the eccentric moment in the joist
or joist girder chord. It is preferred that the
specifying engineer design the tying mechanism
between the chords and/or support. In doing so,
the specifying engineer will have more control
over his or her design, require less coordination
with the joist manufacturer and obtain the most
economical joist or joist girder. Some example
connections are indicated in Figure 4 (page 14).
Also, visit www.steeljoist.org/design_tools to
access free moment connection design tools,
provided by the Steel Joist Institute.

At present, there is a need for more communication between suppliers, engineers,

architects, and fabricators. Often, structural
contract drawings are incomplete. Drawings
are missing dimensions and loads, have
canned notes which do not apply to the
project, or have contradicting requirements
in the notes and project specifications. These
and other issues can lead to project delays,
contingency fees, and occupancy income loss.
The RFI process, which must handle the drawing issues, is intended as a valuable way of
opening communication, expediting fabrication and delivery, and preventing additional
project costs. When the joist manufacturer is
brought into the design process early in a project, the specifying engineer can make use of the

LOOKING FOR ADVENTURE AND WORK ON

INTERESTING PROJECTS?

BASE, an award-winning Best Structural Firm to Work For, seeks creative and
skilled mid- and senior-level engineers for its India and Hawaii offices.
We offer a competitive salary
commensurate with experience
and a comprehensive benefit
package.

Using joists and joist girders as part of a

rigid moment frame is common. It can
often provide an economic advantage to the
project as compared to wide flange beams
in moment frames, or using steel braced
frames or concrete shear walls. The axial
loads induced by the rigid moment frame
develop secondary moments (M=+/- P x
Ecc.) in the joist chords, especially when
the load path is through the joists seats and
column connection. Joist and joist girder

Submit resumes and

(3) references to:
info@baseengr.com

2014 Aug_want ad.indd 1

www.baseengr.com

Pacifica Honolulu

STRUCTURE magazine

13

August 2014

Wave One, Noida, India

6/17/2014 5:42:04 PM

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Top chord extensions (TCXs) are a common

feature in most structures. They are excellent
elements for spanning small bays adjacent to
the main spans, and for providing a cantilevered
ledge over the edge of a building. TCXs tend
to be fairly unfavorable at shallow and longer
lengths. The SJI K-Series standard seat depth
is 2 inches and, therefore, joist top chords
are limited to angles with 2-inch legs or less.
The specifying professional can simply verify
acceptable load and length limits by referring
to the SJI standard load table for joist top chord
extensions (Figure 2). In Figure 2, notice that as
the length of the extension increases, the load
per foot capacity decreases. If the specifying professionals design criterion falls outside of the
limits listed in the SJI table, a change to the seat
design will need to be coordinated with the joist
manufacturer. Design loads may be achieved by
simply increasing the seat depth. K-Series joists
are designed for a maximum allowable uniform
load of 550 plf. Per the SJI table, for a 4-foot
6-inch span, the TCX can support a 550 plf load,
though this is possibly not the most efficient
design. For example, consider a 30K10 joist with
a 50-foot span and a TCX to be designed for
550 plf. If the 30K10 joist has a standard 2.5inch seat depth, the total joist weight will equal
810 pounds. This same joist with an increased
seat depth of 3.5-inch will have a total weight
of 710 pounds. With a 5-inch seat depth, the
weight is reduced further to 695 pounds. Using
the deeper seat depth of 5 inches results in an
approximate 14% weight savings. With a shallow seat depth, the size of the top chord (TC)
angles are controlled by the loading on the
TCX, not by the loading of the main span.
The deeper seats allow for the main span
of the joist to control material sizing of the
TC. See Figure 3 (page 14 ) for general seat
schematics and section properties.

Figure 3. Joist seat size examples.

engineering experience of the manufacturer to

create the most efficient joist and deck system.
This increased collaboration fosters increased
communication between the different parties
on the project and allows for the manufacturer
to think creatively about engineering from the
standpoint of cost-reduction.
A major subject of communication between
the project designer and the joist manufacturer is the issue of non-uniform loading.
Some common non-uniform loadings include
snowdrifts, roof top mechanical units, screenwalls, cranes, folding partition walls, fall arrest
systems, fire sprinklers, parapet bracing, and
wind uplift. The best way to communicate
special loadings is to include them in load diagrams with appropriate Tag End or gridline
labels. Using well-labeled and dimensioned
loading diagrams clearly communicates to the
joist manufacturer what loads to design for,
and where to exactly locate them.
Commonly, the final positions of nonuniform loads are not known until late in
the production schedule. In these situations,
there are several techniques that can be used
to allow the joist manufacturer to properly
design for the final loading. A concentrated
load can be applied in a zone across the joist.
The load would be specified with a location
dimension and an accompanying +/- length
dimension. The joist chord would need to be
reinforced in the field at the final load location
with a field vertical if the load did not land
at an existing panel point. If the location is
not known at all, the concentrated load can
be specified to land at any panel point or at
any point along the chord. A load located at
any point would not require field panel point
reinforcement; however, if it is located along
the chord, it would increase the section size
of the loaded chord to resist local bending.
For non-uniform loading, the more location
information that is provided, the more efficient the joist design can be.
Roofs will typically require design for snowdrift and uplift forces. Supplying the joist
manufacturer with net uplift drawings instead
of component and cladding loads will save
detailing time and shorten the approval process. Clearly indicating snowdrift loads on the

drawing, and whether the drift loading has

already been included in the design, will also
save time.
If moving loads from cranes or folding partition walls need to be specified, multiple load
cases and load locations must be provided to
the joist manufacturer to allow for the proper
design of the joists. For crane loads, it is very
important to include the Crane Manufacturers
Association of America classification (A, B, or
C) or the estimated lifetime loading cycles, the
impact loading, and the operating method of
the crane in question, as this information is
required for the fatigue design of the joists.
When considering joists supporting dynamic
loads such as these, it is also important to specify whether any special camber or deflection
requirements are required, as they can change
joist size requirements significantly.
Coordinating information about loading
early and completely to the joist manufacturer
will speed up the design process and limit the
extent of RFIs on a project.

ASD or LRFD Design

For some time now, the Steel Joist Institute has
provided ASD (Allowable Strength Design) or
LRFD (Load Resistance Factor Design) load
tables. The specifying professional should indicate on the contract drawings which design
method was chosen for the design. When
specifying the LRFD method, it is necessary
to provide factored loads on the drawings, as
well as to state that the loads are factored. When
specifying a girder, remember to provide the
total factored load and designate the girders
with F instead of the K designation, which
will help distinguish that the load has already
been factored. For example, a girder designation
in ASD would be 50G8N10K and the same
designation in LRFD would be 50G8N15F.
Joists built to the same SJI joist designation
will have the same weight, regardless of which
design methodology was used to select them.
The required SJI joist designation, however,
may differ for the same required TL/LL loading
depending upon which design methodology is
used. If a TL/LL designation is specified, any
joists could see savings. The simplest way to

STRUCTURE magazine

14

August 2014

Figure 4. Axial load tie examples.

determine which design method will provide the

most value is to examine the ratio of dead loads
to live loads. For exceptionally light dead loads,
an ASD design is more than likely to produce a
lighter joist. When the live loading is less than
three times the dead loading, the LRFD design
method would produce the lighter joist. For
example, consider a joist with a 50-foot span,
6-foot spacing (roof application), a DL of 20 psf
(120 plf), and a LL of 30 psf (180 plf). Using
the LRFD design method, the required factored
load capacity for the joist is (1.2*DL+1.6*LL)
= 432 plf. For this span and loading, a 30K10
would be the most economical joist (Figure 1).
The self-weight of a 30K10 is 11.5 plf. Using
the ASD design method, the required service
load capacity for the joist is (DL+LL) = 300 plf.
For this span and loading, a 30K11 would be
required (Figure 1). The self-weight of a 30K11
is 13.1 plf, which is 1.6 plf heavier than the
LRFD chosen 30K10. An important note to
remember when deciding on a design method
is that the methodology must remain consistent
across all joists on a project. The cost savings
across the entire project must be considered, not
the individual savings on a small area.

Summary
These techniques, when used individually, can
have small impacts on the economy of the
steel joist and deck system. However, when
used together and used often, the cascading
savings will lead to shorter project schedules,
less re-work, fewer joists to erect, and lower
material pricing. Partnering with a joist and
deck manufacturer early in a project will bring
in more expertise and experienced engineers
who can help you design the most efficient
joist and deck system possible.

Specify New Millennium. We are your unparalleled resource

for competitive structural steel solutions. Nationwide engineering,
manufacturing and supply of standard and special profile steel joists,
plus steel decking for roof and floor applications.

Building
Blocks
updates and information
on structural materials

ntil the middle of the 19th Century,

wood was commonly used as a primary structural building material in
many types of non-residential buildings around the world. Many of these timber-built
structures remain standing and are still in use
today, including factories, warehouses, schools,
temples, and churches some dating as far back
as the seventh century. Famous examples include
the 106.6-foot (32.5 meter) high Horyu-ji Temple
in Nara, Japan, which demonstrates the durability
and strength of building with wood.
With the industrial revolution came significant
evolution in steel and concrete technology, and
these materials, popularized by construction of
revolutionary projects such as the Eiffel Tower and
new skyscrapers in America, took over as materials of choice for large and important projects.
As a result, timber has more or less been relegated
for use as a material for smaller structures. And
with the development of efficient and versatile
light wood-frame construction monopolizing
the low-rise residential market in North
America, wood initially
all but lost large portions of the non-residential construction market
to steel and concrete.
Over the past two or three decades, however,
timber engineering and construction has experienced significant and transformative advances,

Modern Timber Connections

By Eric Karsh, M.Eng, P.Eng,
StructEng, MIStructE, Ing

Eric Karsh, M.Eng, P.Eng,

StructEng, MIStructE, Ing, is a
founding principal of Equilibrium
Consulting Inc., a structural
engineering consulting firm
located in Vancouver, BC. Eric has
designed a number of innovative,
award winning timber structures,
and is co-author of the Tall Wood
report. Eric can be reached at
ekarsh@eqcanada.com.

HSK connector at the fully cantilevered atrium

stair at UBC Earth Sciences Building. Courtesy of
Equilibrium Consulting.

setting wood products up for a comeback. These

include new engineered wood products, including solid panel products such as cross-laminated
timber (CLT), computer numerically controlled
(CNC) fabrication, versatile high-efficiency
timber connectors, and progress in fire protection engineering. With technical progress and
increased demand for wood products comes
greater economic opportunities.
Today the most ancient construction material,
and the only one that is naturally grown by the
sun, is becoming more high-tech and still has
considerable development potential in store.
This technical progress seems to have combined
with other positive influences to reposition wood
on the world stage. A renewed interest in timber
as an architectural medium, combined with
strong trends in sustainability, is promoting
the expanded use of wood in several countries
including Canada, the U.S., Japan, Australia
and several countries in Europe. Emboldened by
these trends, timber is slowly but surely reclaiming its place as a viable option for commercial
construction in a wide variety of building types
including airports, museums, university facilities
and even skyscrapers.

Timber Connection Options

Cantilevered atrium stair at UBC Earth Sciences

Building. Courtesy of Martin Tessler.

16 August 2014

Key to the successful execution of large timber

structures is the availability of economical,
versatile and reliable connectors. The different timber connection systems available are
comparable to individual tools in a toolbox.
As an engineer looking for innovative, elegant
solutions, one needs a toolbox with a variety of
reliable and high-quality tools. Some of these
were covered previously in STRUCTUREs
January 2007 article, New Concealed Connectors
Bring More Options for Timber Structures; however, several new options have been added in
the time since then. The North American toolbox for wood connections is the first of four
main compartments: standard through bolts,
screws and nails, timber rivets, truss plates and

pre-engineered light gauge metal connectors. These are all longstanding inductees
of local codes and are well known to most.
This does not include North American style
split rings and shear plates, which are specified less frequently today.
In compartment number two, we find connection systems that are not explicitly covered
by building codes but can be designed within
the scope of the codes using first principles.
These include castings, shear keys, wood-towood notches and steel-to-wood notches.
The third compartment includes generic
connection systems, which are not covered
in North American codes but are officially
recognized in reputable foreign codes such
as the Swiss, German or Eurocode. These
include tight-fit bolts and pins and ring nails.
The final compartment houses state-of-theart proprietary systems that are supported
by empirical data and usually by foreign
(European) codes and approvals. These require
careful review and, occasionally, local testing.
The National Design Specification (NDS)
for Wood Construction 10.1.1.3 states,
Connection design provisionsshall not
preclude the use of connections where it is
demonstrated by analysis based on generally recognized theory, full-scale or prototype
loading tests, studies of model analogues or
extensive experience in use that the connections will perform satisfactorily in their
intended end uses. The Canadian standard
includes similar provisions.
The proprietary systems the authors firm
engineers have used the BVD or Bertsche

system developed by German engineer Peter

Bertsche, the SFS WS system by SFS Intech,
the HBV and HSK adhesive-based system by
TiComTec and developed by Dr. Leander
Bathon, the Sherpa or Pitzl aluminum dovetail systems and finally, but not least, the very
versatile self-tapping screws.
The following are a number of modern connector types, all of which the authors firm has
used and continue to use. North American
connectors are well known to most and will
not be discussed in detail here.

Wood-to-Wood
Bearing Connections
The entire family of wood-to-wood bearing
connections are an ancient way to transfer shear and compression loads in timber.
They used to be done by hand and required
skill and time to fabricate. They fell out of
favor over the last century, but are making a
comeback with the use of CNC equipment.
Direct bearing is often the most efficient
way to transfer heavy shear and compression
loads in wood, and appropriately designed
notches, used in combination with selftapping screws, can be a very cost effective
connection solution.
Where notches are required, they should
be designed from first principles using the
bearing and shear formulas of the code. As a
matter of standard practice, ensure that the
longitudinal shear portion of a connection,
particularly at the end of a member, is proportioned so as not to be the primary failure
mode, as it is brittle.

STRUCTURE magazine

Castings
Castings, usually made of Ductaline steel,
are also designed from first principles. They
offer an elegant, very versatile way to achieve
architecturally important connections, and
can be relatively economical in large numbers.
Their drawback is that they are susceptible to
fire and cannot be used in exposed conditions
in a rated assembly.

Tight-Fit Bolts and Pins

Tight-fit bolts are essentially regular bolts
installed in bolt holes, both in timber and
connecting steel plates, which are drilled
to much tighter tolerances. The Eurocode
requirement for tight-fit bolts is to have a bolt
hole which matches the bolt diameter or is
up to 0.5 mm smaller. The bolt hole in the
steel must be less than 1.0 mm larger than
the bolt diameter. Tight-fit pins, often used
for high-end exposed connections, must meet

240

Structural Design
Spreadsheets

www.Engineering-International.com
Self-Centering Lateral Frame Design
Based on ASCE 7-10, AISC 360-10
& ACI 318-11.
4E-SMF with Wood Nailer Design
Based on AISC 358-10 & NDS 2012.
Thin Composite Beam/Collector
Design Based on AISC 360-10
& ACI 318-11.
Coupon for Package: $120 off Code: ASCE 7-2010

17

August 2014

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Stainless tight-fit dowels and steel castings at the

Prince-George Airport. Courtesy of MacFarlane
Green Architecture.

Terminal 2 at the Raleigh Durham Airport with BVD moment connections. Courtesy of Brady Lambert.

3D model of a BVD moment connection

at the Raleigh Durham Airport. Courtesy
of Equilibrium Consulting.

HSK connector being test-fitted for the fully cantilevered atrium stair at UBC Earth Sciences Building.
Courtesy of Structurlam Products.

the same requirements, and usually consist of

a headless stainless steel shaft with slightly
chamfered edges.
The advantage of tight-fit dowels is that the
connectors can be relied upon to take the load
at essentially the same time, mostly eliminating group effects. A very high degree of
accuracy is required, and CNC fabrication is
almost always required to achieve a multiple
fastener tight-fit connection, particularly with
multiple knife plates.
Tight-fit pins are the basis of many proprietary connections, some of which are
discussed below.

systems strength and reliability is enhanced

by the intersecting dowels, which help contain the wood fiber and resist splitting force.
Ultimate loads of 2.5 to 3 times the specified
loads are consistently achieved. The system is
very efficient for high-tension connections,
to carry direct axial loads.
The system is completely tight-fit and therefore can be used in groups without concerns
for group effects. It is also concealed by the
wood and therefore resistant to fire.

Ring Nails
Ring nails are Europes version of timber rivets.
Shiny and having a round head, they look
somewhat tidier than timber rivets. The Swiss
code provides specific guidelines based on
empirical data for achieving ductile connections. One proprietary ring nail connection
system is called the Gunnebo nail from Sweden.

The WS System by SFS Intec

The proprietary WS System by the billiondollar Swiss fastener company SFS Intec,
consists of self-drilling, small diameter
dowels equipped with a drill tip designed
to core through wood and 3 to 5 mm mild

The BVD System by Bertsche

The BVD system is a proprietary connector developed and sold by engineer Peter
Bertsche of Germany. The system consists
of a grooved, drop-forged insert, locked
into place by intersecting 16 mm diameter (0.63-inch) tight-fit pins. The cavity
is grouted solid with a high-performance
cementitious grout to ensure a completely
tight-fit load transfer between the dowels
and the cast insert. The insert is threaded
on the end and can receive a bolt supplied
with the insert. Alignment tolerances are
dealt with using a spherical washer.
BVDs come in six sizes, normally installed
in the shop with 4 (BVD 1) to 24 pins (BVD
6), and can carry a specified pull-out load of
13 to 80 kips (60 to 360 kN) per anchor. The

Pre-engineered dovetail connection and HSK

wood concrete composite connection at the
UBC Earth Sciences Building. Courtesy of
Equilibrium Consulting.

STRUCTURE magazine

18

August 2014

steel internal plates. The pin is driven using a

hydraulic press sold by the company.
The advantages of the system are that it
requires no pre-drilling, avoids fabrication tolerances and is completely tight-fit. It is ductile,
yet very compact due to the small diameter
of the pins (5 to 8 mm), and is concealed
making the system fire resistant. The system is
quite efficient and versatile, and can be used in
shear, axial or moment connections.

Self-Tapping Screws
Self-tapping screws are the space-age version
of the North American lag screw. They are
now sold in North America by four major
suppliers: SFS, GRK, Wurth and Heco. They
are the main connector type now used in solid
wood panel construction.
Self-tapping screws are proprietary, selfdrilling screws made from high strength
(around 115ksi or 800 MPa) steel, and come
in a wide variety of sizes from 3/16 to -inch (5
mm to 12 mm) in diameter and 3 to 23 inches
(8 cm to 60cm) in length. The diameter refers
to the diameter of the thread, not the shaft.
There are three major types of self-tapping
screws. Fully threaded screws are used to
transfer large tension loads in wood-to-wood
connections without the need for a washer
plate. Partially threaded screws are used to
anchor steel bearing plates and can transfer
shear as well. They have great clamping capacity. Variable pitch screws are used to pull two
pieces of wood together and are often used in
solid wood panel edge-to-edge connections to
align the panels and transfer longitudinal shear.
Self-tapping screws are extremely versatile,
efficient, and reliable, as they require no
pre-drilling. They eliminate the risk that an
inexperienced carpenter may not drill and
counter bore a lag screw hole correctly.

Pre-Engineered Aluminum
Dovetail Connections
Aluminum dovetail connectors are preengineered aluminum dovetail inserts,
normally installed in the shop using selftapping screws, allowing for timber elements
to be very rapidly and accurately erected on
site. There are two main suppliers for this
type of insert, both represented in North
America: Pitzl and Sherpa.
The inserts come in a variety of sizes and capacities. They are recessed and completely concealed
by the timber material, making the connection
completely invisible and also fire resistant.

The HBV and HSK Connector

The HBV and HSK connectors were both
developed by German engineer Leander
Bathon. HBV is a connector used to achieve
wood-concrete composite floor systems. It
consists of an expanded steel mesh glued into
a saw cut on the top of the timber beam or
solid wood panel using a proprietary adhesive,
and cast into the concrete above, rigidly connecting the two together.
The HSK system is similar, but is used to
connect steel elements to wood or, occasionally, to connect two wood elements together.

It consists of a 2.8 mm (approximately 3/32inch) perforated steel plate, welded to a steel

part in the case of a steel-to-wood connection
and glued into a kerf in the timber element,
rigidly connecting the two members.
The HSK system is ductile, as the steel
parts are usually designed to yield before
the adhesive or the wood fails. It can also
be completely concealed and therefore resistant to fire.

Growing Market for

Timber Applications
The North American timber construction
industry has transformed signifi cantly
throughout history and even more rapidly in the past decade alone. At the turn
of the 20 th century, steel and concrete
widely replaced wood in the construction of commercial buildings. A century
later, technical advances in fabrication
techniques and connection engineering,
coupled with a renewed interest in timber
as an environmentally friendly building
material, have driven renewed interest in
the building material. Wood products are
being re-examined for new opportunities, in
a wider range of building types and reaching
greater heights than ever before.

Cantilevered atrium stair at UBC Earth Sciences

Building. Courtesy of Martin Tessler.

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Hollo-Bolt

by

ICC-ES approved

for compliance with the International Building Code

ICC-ES has published Evaluation Report ESR-3330 for designing Hollo-Bolt

connections to LRFD and ASD methods. This assures both building officials
and the wider building industry that Lindapters Original Expansion Bolt for
Structural Steel meets I-Code requirements.
ESR-3330

ICC-ES Evaluation Report

Exclusive Hollo-Bolt features include:

Issued March 1, 2014

This report is subject to renewal March 1, 2015.

www.icc-es.org | (800) 423-6587 | (562) 699-0543

DIVISION: 05 00 00METALS
Section: 05 05 02METAL FASTENINGS
REPORT HOLDER:

4 Highest resistance to tensile loading in accordance with AC437

LINDAPTER
LINDSAY HOUSE, BRACKENBECK ROAD
BRADFORD, WEST YORKSHIRE
BD7 2NF
UNITED KINGDOM
44 (0) 1274 521444
www.lindapter.com
www.lindapterusa.com

The Hollo-Bolt 5 Part Fasteners are similar, except that

they include a nitrile rubber washer and separate collar.

Figure 1 provides a picture of the Hollo-Bolt 3 Part and

Hollo-Bolt 5 Part. Table 1 provides part codes, design

strengths, and installation information.

EVALUATION SUBJECT:

HOLLO-BOLT
FASTENERS

4 Use in Seismic Design Categories (SDC) A, B and C

3 PART AND HOLLO-BOLT

5 PART

1.0 EVALUATION SCOPE

Compliance with the following code:

2009 International Building Code (IBC)

Property evaluated:

4 Standard HDG product at standard pricing

ICC

4 Available in sizes 5/16 - 3/4 from your local distributor

Structural
2.0 USES

Fasteners are designed for connecting

Hollo-Bolt
structural steel to hollow structural section (HSS) steel
members and other structural steel elements where

access is difficult or restricted to one side only. Hollo-Bolt

fasteners are intended for use with rectangular or square
HSS members and are recognized for resisting static
tension and shear loads in bearing-type connections. The
fasteners are alternatives to bolts described in Section J3
of AISC 360, which is referenced in Section 2205.1 of the
IBC, for bearing-type connections.
The Hollo-Bolt Fasteners may be used to resist wind
loads, and seismic loads in Seismic Design Categories
A, B and C.
3.0 DESCRIPTION

4 Patented High Clamping Force design (sizes 5/8 and 3/4)

3.1 General:

A Subsidiary of the International Code Council

slits 90 degrees from each other. The collar is a circular
element having two flat surfaces (to accommodate
an open-ended wrench) with a circular hole integral with
the sleeve. The cone is a steel circular internally
threaded nut with grooves on the outer surface.
Nominal Hollo-Bolt sizes include 5/16 inch (M8), 3/8 inch
(M10), 1/2 inch (M12), 5/8 inch (M16), and 3/4 inch (M20),
with each size of bolt available in three lengths.

Hollo-Bolt 3 Part Fasteners are assembled from three

components, consisting of the core bolt, the body (sleeve)
including the shoulder (collar), and the cone. The steel
core bolt features a threaded shank and hexagonal head.
The body is a steel segmented hollow cylinder, with four

3.2 Materials:
3.2.1 Set Screw: The core bolt is manufactured
from steel complying with EN ISO 898-1, Class 8.8,
having a specified Fu of 116,030 psi (800 MPa).
3.2.2 Body (sleeve) with Integral Collar, Body (sleeve
without collar), Collar and Cone: The parts are
manufactured from free cutting carbon steel Grade
11SMn30 or 11SMnPb30, conforming to BS EN 10087,
having a minimum tensile strength of 62,400 psi
2
(430N/mm ) (sizes up to LHB16) or 56,500 psi
(390N/mm2) (size LHB20); or cold drawn steel AISI
C10B21, having a minimum tensile strength of
2
68,000 psi (470N/mm ).
3.2.3
Rubber
Washer: The
measured on the A scale 80-90.

shore

hardness

is

3.2.4 Finish Coating: All components, except the

rubber washer, are hot dipped galvanized/high
temperature galvanized to BS EN ISO 1461, as
described in the quality documentation.
4.0 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION
4.1 Design:
The fasteners are alternatives to bolts described in
Section J3 of AISC 360, which is referenced in Section
2205.1 of the IBC, for bearing-type connections. The
design of the Hollo-Bolt Fasteners must comply with this
report, Section J3 of AISC 360 and the strength design
information for the Hollo-Bolt provided in Table 1 of this
report. The load-carrying capacity of the assembly
depends on the fasteners, the type of elements
connected, such as a HSS and its their cross

ICC-ES Evaluation Reports are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other attributes not specifically addressed, nor are they to be construed
as an endorsement of the subject of the report or a recommendation for its use. There is no warranty by ICC Evaluation Service, LLC, express or implied, as
to any finding or other matter in this report, or as to any product covered by the report.
1000

Copyright 2014

Page 1 of 6

Visit www.LindapterUSA.com to download the full Evaluation Report today.

STRUCTURE magazine

19

August 2014

Structural
Performance
performance issues relative
to extreme events

ife safety has always been a fundamental goal of U.S. building codes. With
the introduction of the International
Building Codes (IBC) in 2000, new
demands have been placed on engineers, manufacturers and builders who produce structures
in earthquake-prone regions. Prior to the IBC,
engineers were accustomed to designing buildings
to prevent damage such as buckling and yielding. Today, the challenge is to better understand
what happens after buckling and yielding, up
to and including collapse. Life safety through
the avoidance of earthquake-induced collapse
is the approach todays engineers must take to
accomplish the intent of the code for structures
in areas with high seismic activity. This change in
design objective spurred much needed research
and testing in the industry.
There are numerous ways to determine when a
building will reach collapse. The most advanced
of these are complex, lengthy and ill-suited for use
in a production
design setting.
Fortunately, the
IBC code writers
had the foresight
to include a simplified method for
production settings that approximates building
behavior when considering collapse for common
systems made of concrete, masonry, steel and
wood structures. Since 2000, Metal Building
Manufacturers Association (MBMA) has been
working to extend the knowledge base contained
in the code by researching the particular phenomenological, or characteristic, behaviors (such as
buckling and yielding) of moment frames with
tapered members subject to earthquake-induced

Modern Construction: Standing

Solid on Shaky Ground
New Advances in
Design and Testing for
Seismic Demands
By Jerry Hatch, P.E.

shaking. The objective has been to quantify how

tapered member frames behave after buckling
and yielding, and then to confirm or develop
new factors and limits for design.

Framing the Situation

Moment frames make up a key force-resisting
system in any building. For decades, MBMA
and its member companies have been designing
buildings with moment frames containing tapered
members with the objective of precluding yielding
and buckling within a margin of safety. Today, most
companies design for seismic demands using the
simplified method contained in the IBC. Seismic
performance factors (SPFs) in building design are
simplified and approximate methods of accounting
for post-peak behavior exhibited when buildings
are subject to strong earthquake shaking. Post-peak
behavior occurs after buckling and yielding, but
before collapse. More advanced methods of analysis
include inelastic pushover and inelastic dynamic
analysis methods that consider post-peak behavior,
and then set an adequate margin of safety against
collapse. The FEMA P695 document illustrates a
detailed analysis method used to generate seismic
performance factors for simplified design.
Steel ordinary moment frames (OMF) are used
by the industry where allowed by the code. Steel
OMF SPFs have been used to address a wide
range of building configurations. Steel OMFs,
in general, are expected to exhibit limited ductile behavior and, therefore, have limits placed
on design. For example, steel OMFs in Seismic
Design Category D are limited to building heights
up to 65 feet with a roof dead load that does not
exceed 20 psf and a wall dead load does not exceed
20 psf above 35 feet.

Jerry Hatch, P.E., is manager of

engineering development for NCI
Building Systems and past chairman
of the Metal Building Manufacturers
Association Technical Committee.
Jerry may be reached at
Jerry.Hatch@ncigroup.com.

A 60-foot wide steel building tested during the MBMA and AISI sponsored Moment Frame Seismic Study at the
University of California San Diego in Spring 2011. The study included three frames placed on the largest shake table
in the U.S. to better understand how metal buildings behave when subject to earthquake loading.

20 August 2014

Ductility is important in building materials because it allows dissipation of the

energy introduced by an earthquake through
damage to the structure. It changes the
physical behavior of the structure, thereby
reducing the damaging effects of the shaking.
Said another way, ductility is the ability of an
element to sustain large amounts of damage
prior to developing degrading behavior.
Ductile behavior is not only important in
preserving life safety but also in producing
economical buildings.
Researchers and engineers in the metal
building industry have long felt that better
differentiation was needed in the simplified method to characterize building types
produced by MBMA. The MBMA has been
working to fully understand the post-peak
behavior exhibited by the frames produced.
Therefore, the industry is using detailed
testing and analysis to develop appropriate
SPFs and limits for tapered member moment
frames for a range of applications.

State-of-the-Art Products
STRUCTURAL TECHNOLOGIES provides a wide range of custom
designed systems which restore and enhance the load-carrying
capacity of reinforced concrete and other structure types, including
masonry, timber and steel. Our products can be used stand-alone or
in combination to solve complex structural challenges.

V-Wrap

Understanding Behavior
MBMA, under the guidance of Lee
Shoemaker, Ph.D., P.E., F.SEI, MBMAs
director of research and engineering, has
been working to better understand the phenomenological behaviors of metal building
components which have contributed to
metal buildings faring well in recent major
California earthquakes, like those in Loma
Prieta in 1989 and Northridge in 1994. The
low level of damage experienced by metal
buildings in those seismic events can be attributed in large part to their low rise and
lightweight. MBMA does produce structures
with heavier loads such as buildings with tiltwalls and mezzanines. For these structures,
seismic loads have a large influence on design.
A multi-year research program is now
underway to help researchers and engineers
understand why metal buildings perform so
well, and to take full advantage of the benefits of these structures. To better understand
ductility in metal buildings, MBMA initially
sponsored full-scale push over and shake table
tests at The University of California at San
Diego (UCSD). Chia-Ming Uang, Ph.D.,
and graduate student Matt Smith, performed
initial research on tapered member frames.
These tests determined that low-rise buildings
with metal roofs and wall panels exhibit a
large degree of over-strength for seismic loads.
In addition to metal buildings with roof and
wall metal panels, shake table tests were also
performed on a frame with tilt-wall panels
and a frame with a mezzanine. During the
test, lateral-torsional buckling (LTB) followed

DUCON

Micro-Reinforced Concrete Systems

VSL

External Post-Tensioning Systems

Tstrata

Enlargement Systems

Engineered Solutions
Our team integrates with engineers and owners to produce
high value, low impact solutions for repair and retrofit of existing
structures. We provide comprehensive technical support services
including feasibility, preliminary product design, specification
support, and construction budgets. Contact us today for assistance
with your project needs.

www.structuraltechnologies.com

+1-410-859-6539
To learn more about Structural Group companies visit www.structuralgroup.com
DUCON trade names and patents are owned by DUCON GmbH and are distributed exclusively in North America
by STRUCTURAL TECHNOLOGIES for strengthening and force protection applications.
VSL is the registered trademark of VSL International Ltd.

STRUCTURE magazine

21

August 2014

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Carbon Fiber System

results, it may also be appropriate to use a

patterned vertical load to reflect wide span
rafter behavior subject to lateral loads.
Smith also developed a fundamental period
equation that approximates low-rise building
behavior more closely than the approximate
options currently contained in the codes for
all building heights.

Solutions for the Future

A close-up of the panel zone, showing buckling

sustained during the shake table testing at the
University of California San Diego in Spring
2011. The building actually survived 300 percent
of its design load.

by flange rupture was observed in the rafters

of these frames, along with damage found in
the panel zone and at the column base plates.
The most ductility in the frames tested was
attributed to the dissipation of energy in the
panel zone. The LTB of frame rafters allowed
redistribution of lateral load to a more stable
configuration. These initial frame tests will
provide data for future studies and ideas.
Redistribution of load was another interesting observation resulting from the shake
table tests. Once LTB occurred in a rafter of
single span frames, the load on the frame was
redistributed. Smith noticed the single span
frame behaved like a three-pinned arch after
LTB, which is a stable configuration. With
load applied to the right side, the right rafter
developed LTB. When the load was reversed,
the LTB in the right rafter straightened out
and LTB occurred in the left rafter. Again,
the result was a stable three-pinned arch. The
different unbraced lengths at the top and
bottom flanges of the rafter made this possible. The extent of this behavior has yet to be
determined, but doing so will help to predict
behavior all the way to collapse.
Based on observations during the shake table
tests, it was concluded that rafter LTB would
be useful in evaluation of when a building will
collapse. The decision was made for UCSD to
perform 10 rafter component tests in order to
gather the data to calibrate rafter LTB postpeak behavior models, which will be useful
in the more advanced analyses.
Through the shake table tests, unanticipated
rafter vertical behavior was observed. The code
currently requires a uniform vertical load be
applied to frame design, which approximates
the vertical motions of an earthquake. Based
on the observations of the shake table test

A major goal of the metal building industry is to numerically define the behavior
and ductility available in the frame components. MBMA, through their research
efforts, has gathered data to model LTB
in rafters. These data provide some of the
building blocks for the detailing, design and
construction of tapered members intended
to preclude collapse under code prescribed
seismic loading. Focuses of current studies
were determined from observations of the
shake table testing of three full-scale single
span buildings.
Modeling for the panel zone, beam-tocolumn connections and column bases still
needs to be addressed. Data collected from
the shake table testing was used to create
models that characterize panel-zone behavior in the test frames, but it needs to be
extended to accommodate all the panel-zone
geometries produced by MBMA member
companies. Connection modeling is well
under way. The metal building industry has
been studying bolted beam-to-column connections for the past 40 years. Tom Murray,
Ph.D., P.E., professor emeritus at Virginia
Tech, and others have provided multiple
research papers describing bolted connections subject to static and dynamic loading.
This connection research contributed to
the development of the AISC Steel Design
Guides No. 4 and No. 16. Work is underway
at Virginia Tech by Matt Eatherton, Ph.D.,
and Murray to expand the applicable configurations addressed in Design Guide No. 16.
Tapered rafters attached to columns tend
to move the location of first damage (LTB)
away from the column. Due to this behavior,
the industry feels that AISC Design Guide
No. 16 connections are adequate for tapered
member rafters since the first damage is not
adjacent to the connection. The connections
used in the shake table testing were designed
using the AISC Design Guide No. 16 and
performed well when load was applied.
Many distinguished researchers have
studied column base modeling, including
Bora Gencturk, Ph.D., at the University of
Houston. He is working to understand the
level of stiffness available in column bases

STRUCTURE magazine

22

August 2014

accessible to the engineer in production

design of metal buildings and to observe
post-peak behavior of these elements. He
is also researching the pinned assumption,
or when the connection is free to rotate but
not free to translate, and at what point it
no longer adequately models actual frame
behavior in the column base configuration.
For metal building frames, it is a conservative
assumption that the column base is pinned,
especially when estimating building drift.
The implications on the foundation are of
more concern.

Putting the Pieces Together

Once post-peak models of appropriate elements are generated, FEMA P695 modeling
can begin. The benefit of this analysis comes
from quantifying the post-peak behavior of
appropriate elements. Shoemaker assembled
a peer committee to oversee efforts to perform a P695 analysis. The peer committee,
composed of Greg Deierlein of Stanford
University, Tom Sabol of Englekirk and
Sabol, Mark Saunders of Rutherford &
Chekene and Mike Engelhardt of The
University of Texas, attended the UCSD
shake table testing to provide insights and
recommendations.
The task of P695 modeling is not isolated
to one building or one type of building.
The range of products offered by MBMA
member companies is large and several different groups of SPFs will need to be better
understood, including the following types
of buildings: single span, multi span with
light metal panel wall, walls clad with tiltpanels, brick, and masonry. Heavy roof
loads or crane loading, along with buildings
with mezzanines, are also on the agenda to
be investigated. Once MBMA has obtained
numerical modeling of appropriate components, the effort of inelastic pushover
and dynamic analysis begins. Only then
will researchers truly understand the ways
different buildings behave up to and including collapse.
It is important for engineers to understand
that the limits placed on systems in the building code as part of the simplified procedure
were placed there for a reason. It was the
judgment of the experienced engineers who
wrote the limits, and designing beyond them
should only be done through the P695 methods of analysis. MBMA is closer than ever
before to understanding how tapered member
frames behave up to and including collapse.
Accomplishing this goal will give the industry
more flexibility in design with appropriate
limits set on these systems.

Building dreams that inspire future generations.

Gerdau is installing 6,650
tons of steel in San Diegos
New Central Library.

All across America, Gerdau helps build dreams.

San Diego dreamed of a library with 3.8 million books. Every day, people will
walk in curious and emerge inspired.
www.gerdau.com/longsteel

Code
Updates
code developments
and announcements

he Wood Frame Construction Manual

(WFCM) for One- and Two-Family
Dwellings was updated and is designated ANSI/AWC WFCM-2012
(Figure 1). The 2012 WFCM was developed by
the American Wood Councils (AWC) Wood
Design Standards Committee and is referenced
in the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC)
and 2012 International Building Code (IBC).
The WFCM includes design and construction
provisions for high wind, seismic, and snow loads
for connections, wall systems, floor systems, and
roof systems. A range of structural elements are
covered, including sawn lumber, structural glued
laminated timber, wood structural sheathing,
I-joists, and trusses.
Primary changes to the 2012 WFCM are listed
here, and are subsequently covered in more detail:
Design load provisions are updated per
ASCE/SEI 7-10 Minimum Design Loads
for Buildings and Other Structures
Wood structural
panels are
permitted to resist
wind uplift
Shear wall story
offset provisions are
clarified
Design values for lumber, structural glued
laminated timber, and fasteners are in
accordance with the 2012 National Design
Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction
and 2012 NDS Supplement: Design Values
for Wood Construction
Engineering design of horizontal
diaphragm assemblies and vertical wall
assemblies are in accordance with Special
Design Provisions for Wind and Seismic,
ANSI/AWC SDPWS-2008
Wind exposure categories B and C are
incorporated together in Chapter 3
prescriptive provisions
Header tables include both dropped and
raised header conditions

2012 WFCM Changes

By John Buddy Showalter, P.E.,
Bradford K. Douglas, P.E.,
Philip Line, P.E.,
Peter J. Mazikins, P.Eng and
Loren Ross, E.I.T.

John Buddy Showalter, P.E.,

is Vice President of Technology
Transfer, Bradford K. Douglas,
P.E., is Vice President of
Engineering, Philip Line, P.E., is
Director of Structural Engineering,
Peter J. Mazikins, P.Eng, is
Senior Manager of Engineering
Standards, and Loren Ross,
E.I.T., is Manager of Engineering
Research with the American Wood
Council. Contact Mr. Showalter
(bshowalter@awc.org)
with questions.

ASCE 7-10 Load Provisions

Tabulated engineered and prescriptive design provisions in WFCM Chapters 2 and 3, respectively,
are based on the following loads from ASCE 7-10:
0 to70 psf ground snow loads
110 to 195 mph 700-year return period,
3-second gust basic wind speeds
Seismic Design Categories A-D

Figure 1. Wood Frame Construction

Manual (WFCM) for One- and TwoFamily Dwellings, 2012 Edition.

Ground snow loads in the WFCM take into

account both balanced and unbalanced snow
load conditions. Unbalanced snow load provisions were revised in ASCE 7-05 which resulted
in reduced loads (ORourke 2006). Those provisions are relatively unchanged in ASCE 7-10,
resulting in net reductions to snow loads where
unbalanced cases govern.
All seismic-related tables in the 2012 WFCM are
updated to new ASCE 7-10 seismic provisions.
New risk-based maps generally reduce areas of
highest seismic risk along the New Madrid fault
and in the Charleston, SC area. Revised map
contours will influence Seismic Design Categories
of some geographic areas.
Revised wind speed maps are on a strength
design basis. Wind speeds are higher, but load
factors for design are also adjusted so that the
net effect will be a reduction of wind pressures
in some regions (Line 2011). There are separate
wind speed maps for each Risk Category in the
code, and Exposure D will become applicable
again in hurricane prone regions.
When basic wind speeds from ASCE 7-05 are
used, the value shall be converted to the ASCE
7-10 basis using the Table.
While the 90 mph wind speed zone from ASCE
7-05 and the 2012 IRC covers approximately
the same geographical area as the 115 mph wind
speed zone in ASCE 7-10, the Table shows a
slight difference of 116 mph versus 115 mph
due to rounding in the direct conversion from
the ASCE 7-05 basis to the ASCE 7-10 basis.
The local authority having jurisdiction should
be consulted to determine whether conversion
to a 115 mph basis is permissible.

Wind speed conversion.

ASCE 7-05 Basic Wind Speeds based on 50 yr. return period 3 second gust (mph)
The online version of this
article contains detailed
references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.

85

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Equivalent ASCE 7-10 Basic Wind Speeds based on 700 yr. return period 3 second gust (mph)
110

116

129

142

24 August 2014

155

168

181

194

Wood Structural Panels

Resisting Wind Uplift
Walls sheathed with wood structural panels
can be used to resist uplift alone, or simultaneously resist uplift and shear from wind forces.
These provisions were adapted from the 2008
SDPWS (Coats 2010). Section 3.2.3 of the
2012 WFCM now contains provisions for
the use of certain wood structural panel shear
walls, with a list of requirements for installation and illustrations for nailing. Capacities
are based on provisions in the 2005 NDS and
have been verified by full scale testing.
The primary characteristic of this method is
increased nailing of panels to framing to provide a continuous load path and enable uplift
loads to be transferred to existing wall anchorage at the foundation. A desire to investigate
the inherent uplift capacity of nailed wood
structural panel shear walls was the impetus for development of this design method.
In the last two decades, as design standards
have evolved to address losses associated with
high-wind events, designers and home builders have been challenged by the substantially
beefed up methods and equipment required
to resist wind forces. Among the concerns is
the number of tie-downs required for shear

Shear Wall

Triple Joists, 2x8 or Larger,

at Shear Wall Ends

Offset d
( of Stud to
of Stud)

Hold-down
d
Blocking Required
(Omitted for Clarity)

Setback Offset

Tension Strap to
Resist Overturning

Shear Wall

Triple Joists, 2x8 or Larger,

at Shear Wall Ends

Shear Wall
Tension Strap to
Resist Overturning

Twist Tension Straps

d

Blocking Required
Shear Wall
Cantilever Offset

Figure 2. Shear wall story oset limits.

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Prepare to Pass

the FE, PE, and SE Exams with PPI

Save 15% and view the 2014 catalog at

PPI2Pass.com/StructureMag

STRUCTURE magazine

25

August 2014

Offset d
( of Stud to
of Stud)

walls, which can present both cost increases

and practical construction challenges.
Traditional methods of providing for uplift
resistance with additional tie-downs at shear
walls can be cumbersome and expensive.
An integral Appendix of the 2012 WFCM still
contains uplift strap and ridge strap capacity
tables for those wishing to maintain that option.

Shear Wall Story Offsets

Shear wall story offset provisions were clarified
in the 2012 WFCM. Shear wall segments are

permitted to be offset out-of-plane from the

story below by a maximum distance equal
to the depth, d, of the floor joists (Figure 2,
page 25), where all of the following conditions are met:
Upper and lower story shear wall
segments are attached to the floor
diaphragm through wall plate to
blocking connection and wall plate to
band joist connections
Floor diaphragm wood structural panel
sheathing is nailed to blocking and
band joist at 6 inches on-center.

SELECT AND CONNECT.

FREE USP SPECIFIER
SOFTWARE.

Allowable unit shear capacity for the

shear wall above does not exceed 436
plf for wind or 239 plf for seismic
Floor joists supporting the shear wall are
nominal 2x8 or larger, tripled at ends
of shear walls, and provide support for
loads from roof and ceiling only
Continuous load path is provided for
uplift and overturning.

Design Values
Design values for structural lumber, structural
glued laminated (glulam) timber, and fasteners were incorporated in the integral
Supplement of the 2001 WFCM. The
2012 WFCM now references the 2012
NDS Supplement for lumber and glulam
design values. For fastener design values,
the 2012 NDS is the reference standard.

Shear Wall and

Diaphragm Design
Design properties for horizontal diaphragms and shear walls were incorporated
in the integral Supplement of the 2001
WFCM. The 2012 WFCM now references the 2008 SDPWS for engineered
design of shear walls and diaphragms.
Prescriptive tables in WFCM Chapter
3 still contain shear wall and diaphragm
tables similar to the 2001 WFCM.

Quickly create connector lists from thousands of USP products.

And image verification gives you confidence that the right

product has been specified. USP Specifier also lets you find
and compare USP alternatives to other manufacturers

products and review and print code evaluation reports.

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Its project management and cost control all in one.

Wind Exposure B & C Tables

Wind Exposure C tables were incorporated in a separate Appendix in the 2001
WFCM. The 2012 WFCM now integrates Exposure B and C tables together
in the prescriptive provisions of Chapter 3.

More Details
A comprehensive table listing section by
section changes to the WFCM, including
modifications to Supplement and Appendix
material, is available at www.awc.org.

Conclusion
The 2012 WFCM represents the state-ofthe-art for design of one- and two-family
dwellings for high wind, high seismic, and
high snow loads. Its reference in the 2012
IBC and 2012 IRC will allow for its use
in those jurisdictions adopting the latest
building code.
Download at uspconnectors.com/specifier

This article originally appeared in the

Winter 2012 issue of Wood Design Focus
published by the Forest Products Society
and is reprinted with permission.

USP Structural Connectors is a MiTek product.

2014 MiTek, All Rights Reserved.

STRUCTURE magazine

26

August 2014

Historic
structures
significant structures of the past

he Baltimore & Ohio Railroad broke

ground in Baltimore, Maryland on
July 4, 1827 and planned on running from Baltimore to the Ohio
River along the Potomac River to Cumberland,
Maryland. After delays at Point of Rocks due to
a right of way conflict with the Chesapeake and
Ohio (C&O) Canal, it arrived at Sandy Point,
across the river from Harpers Ferry, on December
1, 1834. The Virginia Free Press reported,
Monday last, will be remembered by the citizens
of Harpers Ferry as an important one in its history. On that day, at half past 2 oclock, P. M. a
locomotive came thundering up to the bridge,
drawing after it a train of cars carrying nearly
a hundred passengersthe hand of man has
cut a pathway through the cliffs that had been
considered impregnable; and he has constructed
causeways to bear him in safety, where he and
his steel had trembled at the dashing billows.
A four span wooden bridge built in 1829 by Lewis
Wernwag as a toll bridge
for James and Catherine
Wager crossed the river at
the time. Wernwag also
built a wooden three arch
deck bridge across the
Monocacy (Monoguay)
River in 1831 for the B&O. It was the first
wooden bridge to carry railroad traffic in the
United States. The Frederick Herald reported of
this bridge,
We here present our readers with a description of the splendid bridge or viaduct, over the
Monocacy, constructed by Lewis Wernwag, Esq.
whose reputation as a scientific bridge-builder
no one will question. The bridges constructed by
him in various parts of the country have long
been celebrated for their beauty, strength and
scientific adaptation to the difficulties encountered but we regard that which we are now
about to describe as his chef douevre which
will long remain a monument of his genius, and
the discrimination of the directors in assigning
its erection to his judgment and experience.
In addition to many bridges across the
Susquehanna River, etc., he built the Colossus
Bridge across the Schuylkill River (STRUCTURE,
June 2014). The C&O Canal arrived at Harpers
Ferry in 1833 and the Frederick-Harpers Ferry
Turnpike arrived in 1832. As a part of the right
of way settlement between the B&O and C&O,
the canal was given the right to extend its line
along the easterly bank of the river, forcing the
B&O to cross the river and reach Cumberland
along or westerly of the west bank of the river.
Construction was underway on the Winchester
and Potomac (W&P) Railroad with Moncure
Robinson as Chief Engineer. It connected
Winchester, Virginia with Harpers Ferry to the
north. Construction on the C&O was proceeding

B&O Railroad Bridge at

Harpers Ferry 1836
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Dist. M. ASCE,
D. Eng., P.E., P.L.S.

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 at
fgriggs@nycap.rr.com.

28 August 2014

up the left bank of the Potomac past Harpers

Ferry towards Cumberland. A bridge, strong
enough to carry a railroad, was badly needed by
the B&O to pick up traffic from the W&P and
continue its route westerly to Cumberland and
thence to the Ohio River.
In the summer of 1834, Benjamin Latrobe (the
son of Benjamin Latrobe, an early architect/engineer in the United States) of the B&O, along
with Robinson, began looking into using Wagers
bridge. Since the entrance to the bridge from the
east required a 90-degree left hand turn, which a
railroad could not navigate, they decided it wasnt
feasible. The B&O decided,
to construct a substantial viaduct across
the Potomac, on the prolonged trace of the
Winchester road and capable of permitting the
passage of locomotive engines, with their usual
trains, to which the present bridge is wholly
incompetent. Contracts for this purpose have
already been entered into, and it is expected
that the viaduct will be completed nearly in the
ensuing summer. The piers, six in number, with
their abutments will be of undressed masonry,
and the superstructure of wood. Its entire length
including the portion crossing the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal will be 830 feet.
Philip Thomas, the President of the B&O, along
with John Bruce, President of the W&P, determined the cost of a new bridge on this alignment
would be $85,000, not all that much more
than the cost of paying Wager to use his bridge;
$15,000 for the privilege of laying a track over it
(on which he planned to levy tolls) and building
a depot on his land, and $25-30,000 for reconditioning the structure Even with their own
bridge, it had to be on Wagers land and they had
to recognize Wagers right to carry toll passengers,
carriages, etc. across the river on it. It wasnt until
July 15, 1835 that a contract was prepared which
met all of the Wagers demands.
At the time, they did not know how they would
be leaving Harpers Ferry to the west, so they went
straight across the river and tied into the projected
line of the W&P tracks with W&P to build the
westerly abutment and the B&O to build the rest
of the bridge. Jonathan Knight, Chief Engineer
of the B&O, reported to the Board,
The plan of a viaduct to be erected across the
Chesapeake and the Ohio Canal and the
Potomac river at Harpers Ferry, has been
designed chiefly by my late assistant, B. H.
Latrobe. The mason work of this structure
which is (besides other uses) to form a connection between the Baltimore and Ohio and
the Winchester and Potomac Railroads, has
already been contracted for and it is intended
likewise to contract for the superstructure of,
which is to be of wood, as soon as practicable;
in order the entire viaduct may be finished in
the shortest time possible.

In Latrobes diary, he recorded his first meeting with Wernwag at Harpers Ferry, who was
then 66 years old. They had been out looking
at the bridge site when a fierce southeast
wind, bearing rain, blew through the Potomac
passes like a hurricane and chased the surveyors from the river the next day. Latrobe
spent most of the day with Wernwag in his
shop, Examining his models and amusing
and edifying myself with his conversation
Wernwag is certainly a most uncommon man.
His conceptions of complicated machinery
are exceedingly clear and ingenious. He is
a thorough-bred German in his dialect and
manners and knew my father 35 years ago.
Wernwag and Latrobe arrived at a bridge
style, something like the famous Schaffhausen
Bridge across the Rhine River in Switzerland
built by Grubenmann in 1757, that Latrobe
would design and Wernwag would build.
The B&O, based upon the agreement with
the Wagers, designed the bridge to serve the
railroad, carriages, pedestrians, livestock, and
a towpath for the Shenandoah Canal. The
towpath was to be added on the downstream
side to accommodate canal boats transferring
from the Shenandoah River into the C&O
Canal. The C&O canal would build an inlet
lock to lift this traffic from the Potomac to
the canal just east of lock #33. After Latrobe

Bridge with Wye Span and Bollman Truss on W&P line, lower right.

finished his design in mid to late 1835, he

left the B&O for a short time to work on the
Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad.
Work began on the bridge in the fall of 1835.
The Virginia Free Press wrote, A grand piece
of workmanship is about to commence at
Harpers Ferry. Proposals are to be received in
a few days for the mason work of the bridge,
which is to be constructed across the Potomac.
It is to rest on seven substantial piers and
two abutments the whole to be erected by
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company,
except the abutment on this side, which is
to be raised by the Virginia Company. This
structure, when completed will be regarded
with peculiar interest. It will make the two
great works of Internal Improvement, and

connect with bands of iron, two independent

sister states. The Baltimore Railroad Company
may address those States in the language of
Virgil, Conubio iungam stablili (I will join
together in steady union).
Caspar Wever, Knights assistant in charge
of all masonry, after receiving bids, awarded
the masonry contract to Charles Wilson
and Wernwag was given the superstructure
work, probably without any competitive
bidding as no announcement was published
in the Virginia Free Press. On March 31,
1836, the opening of W&P was celebrated
along its entire length. With the completion
of railroads on both sides of the river, the
pressure was on to finish the connecting
bridge. Wernwag did not start his work

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

EW

TODAYS HIGH-STRENGTH REBAR

New from MMFX Steel is Grade 100 ChrmX 4100 rebar.
High-strength with ductility reinforcing steel is the perfect
blend of value and benefits for large construction projects.
Solve Rebar Congestion
Improve Concrete Placement
Lower Rebar Placing Costs

Reduce Placing Time

Lower Cage Weights
Fewer Couplers

Mat Foundations | Shear Walls | Confinement Ties

Drilled Shafts | Bridge Piers | Precast Beams

For more information (866) 466-7878 | www.mmfx.com

STRUCTURE magazine

29

August 2014

Wye Span and original Wernwag/Latrobe truss, top left.

until late summer 1836. After he had his

first span up, Latrobe, now back with the
B&O, visited the site and wrote in his
journal, it is a beautiful combination of
timbers, but the lumber of which it is built
is rough stuff. Latrobe next visited the site
in January 1837 after the bridge was completed, but not covered. Upon inspecting
the bridge, he determined that the foundations were inferior and suggested wrapping
the heads of the masonry piers with iron
bands, as well as other remedial work.
The Virginia Free Press reported in early
1837, We learn that the bridge of the
Potomac at Harpers Ferry, for the purpose
of uniting the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
with the branch to Winchester, Va. is so far
completed that locomotives and their trains
have passed over it. Much work, however,
was still required to make the bridge safe and
stable. During the repair, no heavy locomotives were allowed on the bridge. There were
no problems with the foundations on the
span over the C&O Canal, so it was roofed
and covered in 1837 while repairs to the river
piers were made. Latrobes report to the Board
in 1838 noted,
The wooden superstructure of the bridge has
justified the confidence entertained, in the
excellence of its principle of construction,
the only weakness which it has exhibited,
being shown by three of the timbers supporting a part of the flooring, which cracked

during the passage of one of the trains. The

recurrence of such a fracture, caused by
an accidental imperfection in one to the
timbers which failed, will be effectually
prevented by the proposed immediate introduction of an additional timber between
each of those upon which the floor and
tracks depend for their support.
The total cost of the bridge is not known, but
it was surely in excess of the $85,000 estimated earlier by Thomas. It is known that the
company spent $23,450.60 on the repairs in
1837 and another $5,596.34 later in the year.
In 1839, after the passage of an Act by the
Virginia Legislature permitting the line to
cross over the Potomac and run through
the state to Cumberland, the B&O had
to determine its route through the state.
The options were to run about six miles
southwesterly on the W&P lines and then
northwesterly across Virginia to Cumberland
or, after crossing the bridge, run through the
Arsenal (Armory) grounds along the westerly
side of the Potomac for some distance and
then run inland through Martinsburg to
Cumberland. The latter route was chosen,
but this required a branch to be built into
the existing bridge to provide the change
in direction of the main line to the north
and west. Latrobe solved this problem by
designing a two span addition to the bridge
that branched off at the second pier from
Harpers Ferry. What was called Pier A was

STRUCTURE magazine

30

August 2014

extended 38 feet upstream to accommodate

the necessary curvature for the track. The
two new spans were called the WYE span
and the curved span and they had a variable width to permit the track to be curved
as required. It was at the WYE spans that
the rail traffic had to cross over the carriage
traffic lanes that followed the W&P line,
since they were on the northerly side of the
bridge. Gatekeepers were placed to stop all
carriage and wagon traffic when a train was
passing over the bridge. The remainder of
the bridge was not covered until the WYE
and curved spans were completed. Latrobe
spent a large sum of money in the covering
and portal on the Harpers Ferry approach
to give the bridge what he thought was a
necessary amenity for the community.
There is no evidence that Wernwag was
involved in building the WYE or curved
spans, even though he did not die until
August 1843. Maybe it is just as well that he
was not involved, as the bridge failed twice,
once in September 1844 and again in March
1845. The failures were due to decay combined with the fact that the very long floor
beams overloaded the trusses.
On June 15, 1861, General Joseph
Johnson, CSA, upon evacuating Harpers
Ferry early in the Civil War, burned the
bridge. After the war, all spans were rebuilt
with Bollman iron truss spans which survived until the 1890s.

Concrete Masonry Design Solutions

Structural Masonry Design Software Version 6.1
Now updated to include the 2012 International Building
Code and 2011 MSJC:
n

New! Larger allowable stresses in allowable stress design

New! Beneficial effects of transverse reinforcement in

reducing lap splice lengths

Reinforced and unreinforced walls, shear walls, columns,

lintels, custom face shell thicknesses, interaction diagrams
for quick optimization and much more

Combined axial and flexural loading

Calculates member forces from external loads, boundary conditions

and spans

Direct Design Software

Using the IBC and IRC-referenced standard Direct Design Handbook
for Masonry Structures (TMS 403), this software package allows
users to generate final structural designs for whole concrete masonry
buildings in minutes.
n

Supports either edition of the Direct Design Handbook TMS 403-10

or TMS 403-13

Fully automated table lookups and repetition of simple steps

Provides a direct, simplified procedure for the structural design of a

single-story, 8-inch concrete masonry structures for both reinforced
and unreinforced masonry

Excellent graphics and fully detailed wall elevations generated

SRW Design Software

Stay on the cutting edge of SRW design with the latest industry standard
design tools. Features include:
n

Updated bulging calculation methodology

New! Offset surcharges

New! Rectangular distribution of dynamic load

New! Variable deflection on dynamic analysis

New! Internal Compound Stability (ICS) Analysis

Get free download trials at www.ncma.org

(703) 713-1900

Turn your challenges into solutions...1000s of free, online technical

and promotional guides, details and videos covering all aspects of
the manufactured concrete products industry. Available on the NCMA
Solutions Center (contains e-TEK) or the bookstore at www.ncma.org.

InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques
and current industry issues

ormal concrete anchorage design provisions first appeared in ACI 318-02 as

Appendix D, with applications limited
to cast-in-place anchors and postinstalled mechanical expansion anchors. The
codified design provisions represented a generic
approach to anchorage design, which diverged
from past design practice of using manufacturers
design tables; these tables may or may not have
represented all characteristics associated with an
anchors design capacity.
In 12 years, we have codified anchorage design
procedures and developed anchor qualification
standards that have greatly raised the reliability
bar for anchors used in practical design conditions. So, what is the state of the anchoring
industry and where do the codes go from here?

ACI 318-14
The new structural building code (ACI 2014) will
be re-organized based on
member type. Appendix
D will now formally be
placed in the body of the
Code as Chapter 17. But
unlike other chapters in
the re-organized Code, Chapter 17 essentially
remained an untouched clone of Appendix D.
This was a conscientious decision by the 318 Code
Committee at the beginning of the reorganization work, because: (1) the Appendix D anchor
design provisions are still relatively new and
(2) there was a desire to keep things the same, as
the design profession and university classrooms
are just getting familiar with the provisions. The
next code cycle will contemplate further additions
and layout reorganization.

Post-Installed Anchors
The Present State of
the Industry
By Neal S. Anderson, P.E., S.E.
and Donald F. Meinheit, Ph.D.,
P.E., S.E.

Neal S. Anderson, P.E., S.E., is

a Staff Consultant at Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc. in
their new Chicago office. He is
involved with anchorage issues
through his participation on ACI
355 Anchorage to Concrete,
ACI 318-B Reinforcement, and
ACI 318 Structural Concrete
Building Code. Neal may be
reached at nsanderson@sgh.com.
Donald F. Meinheit, Ph.D., P.E.,
S.E., retired from Wiss, Janney,
Elstner Associates Chicago, is the
past chair of ACI 355 Anchorage
to Concrete and member of ACI
318-B Reinforcement. He
has been involved with concrete
anchorage issues throughout his
career and is a frequent lecturer
on the subject. Donald may be
reached at dmeinheit@wje.com.

Adhesive Anchors
This anchor type was accepted by ACI 318-11 in
a three-part acceptance format:
Design Provisions
Adhesive anchors were incorporated into ACI
318 under the premise that the existing design
models would be minimally affected. Adhesive
anchor design provisions for tension were the
only provisions supplemented, necessitating
new checks for concrete bond stress. Adhesive
anchors loaded in shear behave similar to other
post-installed and cast-in-place anchors, and,
hence, existing design models and procedures
could be used.
Qualification
For post-installed mechanical anchors, anchors
must be qualified to the criterion in the ACI
355.2 standard (ACI 355 2007). Similarly, adhesives used in ACI 318-11 (2011) anchor designs

32 August 2014

Figure 1. Undercutting of screw threads in concrete

(from Olsen, et. al., 2012).

must be qualified in accordance with the ACI

355.4-11 standard (ACI 355 2011). ACI 355.4
is a comprehensive product standard for structural adhesives used for anchoring, modelled
after the ICC/ES Acceptance Criteria (AC) 308
(2013). Due to improvements in the ACI qualification document, AC308 was recently revised
to conform to ACI 355.4-11, to avoid having
the anchoring industry work to two different
standards for acceptance.
Certification
Based partially on the Boston Big Dig tunnel
accident, the adhesive anchor installer must be
certified to install anchors in certain orientations and under certain load conditions. This
requirement is recognition by the ACI 318
Code committee that adhesive anchor installation needed some oversight qualifications
to achieve satisfactory installations, consistent with the written design requirements and
anchor manufacturer installation instructions.
The success, or failures, of adhesive anchors
are highly dependent on the installer and the
procedures employed to install the anchor.
Certification was deemed an important component of adhesive anchor usage, on par with
certified welders for welding key structural steel
connections. In addition to installer certification, inspection is an important requirement
required in ACI 318-11.
The ACI Code provisions are not mandatory
unless adopted by the local building code for the
given jurisdiction. For states and municipalities
using the 2012 International Building Code (IBC
2012), IBC 2012 has adopted ACI 318-11 and
ACI 355.4-11. However, the U.S. is under a
stepped phase-in period for adoption of the
design and qualification of adhesive anchors.
As of 15 January 2014, the following actions
were taken:
All adhesive anchor Evaluation Service
Reports (ESR) will reference ACI
318-11, Appendix D. This includes the
design provisions for bond strength and
concrete breakout.

 ESRs also carry forth several of

the code provisions for qualified
installation personnel and inspection.
As of 15 January 2015, the following will
be required:
Testing referenced in the ESRs by the
manufacturers will conform to the
revised AC308, which is essentially
ACI 355.4-11.
There are many more nuances to the IBC
2012 and ACI codes referenced and the
phase-in situation. Reference should be made
to a paper by Hoermann-Gast (2013) for
additional information.

Screw Anchors
There are a wide variety of post-installed
concrete anchors, and the newest postinstalled anchor is the screw anchor. In
reality, screw anchors have been around
since the early 1990s. They are intended
to carry direct tension, direct shear, or
combinations of tension and shear loadings. Although the design procedure for
screw anchors has not been codified, they
are gaining acceptance in building practice

as a reliable fastening element (Olsen, et.

al., 2012).
To provide the mechanical interlock to the
concrete, the screw anchor cuts a thread into
the concrete during the installation process.
This makes the use of screw anchors a singleuse item; removing and reusing the screw
anchor in the drilled hole is not advised
because the cutting threads on the screw are
worn and getting the screw threads into the
original cut threads in the concrete is difficult.
In Figure 1, the undercutting of the threads
in the concrete is illustrated. The creation of
the threads in the concrete gives the screw
anchor some advantage in cracked concrete
where a small-narrow crack intersecting the
threads has only a minor reduction on tension capacity.
Currently, screw anchors fall outside the
scope of ACI 318-11 Appendix D and
Chapter 17 of ACI 318-14, Anchoring to
Concrete. In the next Code cycle, screw
anchors will be studied for inclusion.
Research testing of screw anchors has shown
that failure can occur in tension via three
modes: steel failure, concrete breakout failure, and pullout failure. Pullout failures look

very much like bond failures for adhesively

bonded anchors. Pullout failures also occur
for screw anchors only when they are deeply
embedded. Deep embedments are often difficult to achieve because the friction of cutting
a thread can exceed the torsional capacity of
the screw shank and fail the steel in torsion.
Consequently, it is recommended that screw
anchors be used within a limited embedment
depth, that is, 15/8 inches < hef < 11 da.
A design procedure for screw anchors does
exist; they can be safely designed using a procedure found in ICC/ES AC193 (2012). The
AC193 design procedure follows closely the
European design procedures in ETAG 001
(2013). AC193 also outlines the qualification tests required for screw anchors. The
ACI qualification standard,
ACI 355.2, is being updated to
include screw anchor qualification testing.
The online version of this article
contains detailed references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Software and ConSulting

FLOOR VIBRATIONS
FLOORVIBE v2.20 New Release

Software to Analyze Floors for Annoying Vibrations

Demo version at www.FloorVibe.com
Calculations follow AISC Design Guide 11 and SJI
Technical Digest 5 2nd Edition Procedures
Analyze for Walking and Rhythmic Activities
Check floors supporting sensitive equipment
Graphic displays of output
Data bases included

CONSULTING SERVICES

Expert consulting available for new construction

and problem floors.

Structural Engineers, Inc.

Radford, VA 540-731-3330 tmmurray@floorvibe.com

CADRE Pro 6 for Windows

Solves virtually any type of architectural
structure for internal loads, stresses,
displacements, and natural modes. Easy
to use modeling tools including import
from CAD. Element types include many
specialized beams and plates.
Advanced features for stability, buckling,
vibration, shock and seismic analyses.

CADRE Analytic
Tel: 425-392-4309

www.cadreanalytic.com

StruWare, Inc

Structural Engineering Software

The easiest to use software for calculating
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
CMU or Tilt-up Concrete Walls with &
without openings ($75.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Bms & Joists ($75.00).
Concrete beams with/without torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com

STRUCTURE magazine

33

August 2014

Attention Bentley Users

Have you received your automatic
quarterly invoice from Bentley?
Would you like to reduce or eliminate
these invoices?
Use SofTrack to control and manage
Calendar Hour usage of your Bentley
SELECT Open Trust Licensing.
Call us today, 866 372 8991 or visit us
www.softwaremetering.com

Wood Advisory Services, Inc.

The Wood Experts

Consultants in the Engineering Use
of Wood & Wood-Base Composite
Materials in Buildings & Structures
Product Evaluation & Failure Analysis
In-situ Evaluation of Wood Structures
Wood Deterioration Assessment
Mechanical & Physical Testing
Non-Destructive Evaluation
Expert Witness Services

www.woodadvisory.com
845-677-3091

STRUCTURAL
SUPPORT
AT ITS BEST

Specify Steel HSS

Hollow structural sections (HSS) provide the best structural
support for long spans, tall columns and aesthetic appeal.
Theyre also the best choice for seismic requirements, fire
resistance and torsion control. Plus, value engineering with
HSS can cut the total weight of the structural steel on your
project by 35% or more! Atlas Tubes structural engineer,
Brad Fletcher, and his team of experts can show you how.

Learn why HSS are your best choice at

atlastube.com/hssbest
HSS are readily available in sizes up to 22" square.

Fault line PiPelines

Delivering Water unDer Pressure

By Stephanie A. Wong, P.E. S.E.

Figure 1. The slip joint was lowered into the vault by crane. Courtesy of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Robin Scheswohl.

nstalled between 1952 and 1973, the 78-inch and 96-inchdiameter Bay Division Pipelines (BDPLs) 3 and 4 are two of the
major regional transmission pipelines in the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commissions (SFPUCs) Hetch Hetchy Regional Water
System. The system delivers water a distance of 167 miles from the
Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park across California
to the Bay Area, and supplies approximately 260 million gallons per
day of drinking water to 2.6 million people in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Water is critical to the economic viability of the Bay Area, and
the public health and safety of those who live and work there.
BDPLs 3 and 4 cross the Hayward Fault at the intersection of a
major interstate freeway and a state highway in the city of Fremont
on the east side of San Francisco Bay. The 2007 Working Group on
California Earthquake Probabilities, made up of the U.S. Geological
Survey and partners, estimated a 31% probability that an earthquake
of magnitude 6.7 or greater would occur on the Hayward Fault by
the year 2036. Studies by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (2004) and
William Lettis & Associates (2008) concluded that a major earthquake
could cause a significant fault displacement at the project site, which
would result in certain rupture of both pipelines and extensive localized flooding and loss of water supply to the Bay Area. To address
this area of vulnerability in the system, the SFPUC initiated a seismic
retrofit program for the two pipelines to ensure that water delivery
continues after a major earthquake.

The Program
The first phase of the seismic retrofit program included installing two
isolation valve vaults on BDPLs 3 and 4 on either side of the Hayward
Fault. This work, which was completed in 2007, provided the SFPUC
with the capability of shutting down the pipelines quickly if they rupture at the fault, reducing the extent of flooding and property damage.
The objective of the second phase of the retrofit program, the $78
million Seismic Upgrade of BDPLs 3 and 4 Project designed by
URS Corporation (2011), is to ensure continuous delivery of water
after a major earthquake. This project spans approximately half a
mile between the two previously-constructed isolation valve vaults.
STRUCTURE magazine

Figure 2. Hayward Fault Traces A, B, and C. Courtesy of URS Corporation.

The limited 80-foot-wide right-of-way through a congested freeway

interchange and residential neighborhood does not allow for both
pipelines to be replaced with parallel pipelines while remaining in
service. Also, hydraulic studies showed that post-earthquake service
could be maintained with only one of the two pipes remaining in
service. Thus it was decided that BDPL 3, the older pipeline, will
be replaced with a new welded steel pipeline and BDPL 4 will be
retrofitted to limit damage and leakage.

Criteria
The seismic design criteria for the project consist of both ground
shaking and fault displacement criteria corresponding to a 975-yearreturn-period earthquake, which is the SFPUC standard for critical
facilities that need to be operational within 24 hours after an earthquake. The ground-shaking criteria were developed via site-specific
probabilistic hazard analysis considering the Hayward, Calaveras and
San Andreas Faults, and numerous other subsidiary faults within
31 miles (50 km) of the project site. The resulting design response
spectrum has a zero-period acceleration of 1.05g.
A site-specific study including extensive fault trenching and study
of historical records was carried out to determine the fault displacement design criteria. At the project site, the Hayward Fault consists
of three distinct traces, Traces A, B and C, with defined primary and

35

August 2014

Figure 3. Plan of Trace B fault-crossing. Courtesy of URS Corporation.

Figure 4. Trace B fault-crossing concept. Courtesy of URS Corporation.

secondary rupture hazard zones (Figure 2, page 39 ). To be conservative,

it was assumed that all of the expected displacement for a particular
trace will occur as a knife-edge displacement anywhere within the
primary rupture zone.
Trace A intersects the pipelines under a major interstate freeway
and has an expected horizontal displacement of 1 foot and vertical
displacement of 0.7 feet. Trace B, the main and central trace, crosses
the pipe under a state highway (Mission Blvd.) and has an expected
horizontal displacement of 6.5 feet. Trace C intersects the pipe in a
residential neighborhood and has expected horizontal and vertical
displacements of 0.5 feet. In addition to the large expected displacements, the approximately 45-degree angle at which the pipe crosses the
fault traces would cause both compression and rotation forces in the
pipe which are much more challenging to accommodate than tension.

zones of Trace B (Figure 3). The design intent is to allow the pipe
to rotate at the ball joints and compress at the slip joint to accommodate the fault displacement, while the concrete vault protects the
pipe within (Figure 4).
The 20-foot-wide, 18-foot-high, and 305-foot-long articulated
vault has 2-foot-thick reinforced concrete walls and slabs and
consists of eleven vault segments separated by 6-inch-wide gaps
which will allow it to articulate to absorb the compression
and rotation from the fault displacement. Each vault segment is
expected to shift transversely with respect to each other, and to
also shift longitudinally to close the gaps. In plan, each of the
nine 20-foot-long middle segments is shaped as a 45-degree-angle
parallelogram. Both computer analyses by URS Corporation and
scale-model laboratory testing at Cornell University showed that
vault segments with gaps parallel to the fault perform better than
segments with gaps perpendicular to the pipeline.
Inside the vault, the 72-inch-inner-diameter ball joints are installed
approximately 200 feet apart and are capable of accommodating 12
degrees of rotation. To the authors knowledge, these ball joints that
were specially fabricated for the project by EBAA Iron, Inc. are the
largest ever built. Also specially designed and fabricated for the project, the slip joint is capable of accommodating 9 feet of contraction
and 1 foot of extension, as well as an external bending moment of 55
kip-feet and shear of 32 kips which result from the design earthquake.
Since no commercially-available slip joints even came close to meeting
these specifications, the SFPUC conducted a nationwide search for
qualified suppliers and ultimately contracted with Stress Engineering
Services, Inc. to design and build the slip joint.
Inside the articulated vault, the pipe is supported on various fixed,
sliding, and guided supports. At the sliding supports, the pipe is
welded to a steel-plate saddle with a stainless steel bottom sliding
surface. This saddle sits on a concrete pedestal topped by a steel plate
with a Teflon (PTFE) sliding surface that will allow the pipe to slide
in any horizontal direction.
The four guided supports consist of upside-down W-beam U-frames
that reduce the bending moment and shear in the pipe, and allow
only axial movement of the pipe in the direction of the slip joint to
prevent binding. The section of pipe through the guided supports
is strengthened with steel stiffener plates and fitted with stainless
steel and Hastelloy sliding plates on four sides (Figure 5 ). The use of
the highly corrosion-resistant Hastelloy alloy for the southernmost
guided support was necessary to achieve a sliding surface that will
maintain its low coefficient of friction long-term in the cold and
damp underground vault.

Solutions
The BDPL 3 replacement consists of installing approximately 2,175
feet of new welded steel pipe (ASTM A1018 Grade 60) with a wall
thickness ranging from 1 to 1.25 inches between the two existing
isolation valve vaults. The new pipeline has the same inside diameter
of 78 inches as the existing pipeline, except for the section that crosses
Trace B which is 72 inches in diameter.
Due to the differing magnitudes of expected displacement at the
three traces, three different fault-crossing designs were developed. To
accommodate the displacements at Trace A, the new BDPL 3 consists
of 1.25-inch-thick-wall steel pipe inside of an existing 114-inchdiameter corrugated metal pipe casing under the freeway that provides
rattle space for the pipe to flex and bend in response to fault movement. The annulus between the pipe casing and the pipe is filled
with low-density cellular concrete. At Trace C, the new BDPL 3 has
1-inch-thick pipe walls and is buried. This new welded steel pipeline
was calculated to have sufficient strength capacity for the relatively
minor displacements predicted for Trace C.
The large displacement of 6.5 feet expected at Trace B, which would
produce a large amount of compression and rotation in BDPL 3,
requires a unique and innovative design solution. Design concepts
used on previous fault-crossing projects, such as the zig-zag pipeline
concept used for the Denali Fault crossing of the Alyeska oil pipeline
in Alaska, could not be used for this project due to space limitations.
The resulting fault-crossing design consists of new 1-inch-thick wall
welded steel pipe with a ball joint on each side of the fault trace and a
slip joint to the north, all installed within an underground articulated
concrete vault that spans both the primary and secondary rupture
STRUCTURE magazine

36

August 2014

Analysis and Testing

Since the Trace B fault-crossing concept was newly developed for
the project, the SFPUC evaluated its reliability through an extensive
program of computer analysis and laboratory and factory testing.
Explicit dynamic finite element analyses of the pipeline were performed using ANSYS to capture the effects of sliding friction and
large axial pipeline displacements from both fault displacement and
ground shaking. Parametric studies were done to test and optimize
pipe wall thickness, location and number of ball and slip joints, and
location and number of sliding and guided supports. The design
objective was a system that would offer a high degree of seismic reliability with relatively low maintenance.
To vet the articulated vault concept, soil-structure interaction analyses
were performed using FLAC 3D (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua)
which is an advanced geotechnical software program used for continuum analysis of soil, rock and structural support in three dimensions.
Concurrently, a 1/10 scale model of the vault was built and tested at
the Large-Scale Lifelines Testing Facility at Cornell University. Both
the computer analyses and the laboratory testing modeled the 6.5-foot
fault displacement and confirmed the individual vault segments would
shift and rotate to accommodate the expected ground displacement,
while leaving enough rattle space for the pipe within.
Lastly, vigorous factory testing of the ball joint by EBAA Iron, Inc.
and the slip joint by Stress Engineering Services, Inc. were performed
to demonstrate their behavior under the expected fault displacement.
A third full-size ball joint was fabricated for the testing which involved
rotating the joint between +8 and -8 degrees while under 200 psi of
internal hydrostatic pressure. The slip joint was first hydrostatically
tested to 200 psi at the three following static positions: fully extended

Figure 5. Cross-section of guided supports. Courtesy of URS Corporation.

at +1 feet, fully compressed at -9 feet, and in the as-installed position of

zero. Then to prove dynamic performance, the slip joint was subjected
to a simultaneous contraction of 9 feet, hydrostatic pressure of 125 psi,
bending moment of 55 kip-feet, and shear of 32 kips. The rate of the
contraction of the test was 6.25 feet in 2.0 seconds, which is the predicted
speed of the fault displacement. Both the ball and slip joints
performed as designed. Construction of this project by
contractor Steve P. Rados, Inc. began in September of 2012
and is expected to be completed in early 2015.
Stephanie A. Wong, P.E. S.E., is a licensed Structural Engineer who
is the lead SFPUC engineer for the Seismic Upgrade of Bay Division
Pipelines 3 and 4 Project.

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Toll-Free: (866) 252-4628 12080 SW Myslony St. Tualatin, OR 97062

info@albinaco.com
www.albinaco.com

75

CELEBRATING
YEARS! Est. 1939

YOUR BENDING EXPERTS

-Angle -Flat Bar -Square Bar -Wide Flange

-Tee -Rectangular Tubing -Round Tube & Pipe

Villa Sport Athletic Club Colorado Springs, CO.

Presidio Parkway San Francisco, CA.

-Channel -Square Tubing

-Round Bar -Rail -Plate

Disneys Aulani Resort & Spa Ko Olina, HI.

USS Arizona Memorial Visitors Center Honolulu HI.

STRUCTURE magazine

37

August 2014

Personal Residence Lake Tahoe, NV.

Atrium Roof Structural Artistry

The Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis
By John P. Miller, P.E., S.E. and Marc A. Friedman, P.E., S.E., LEED AP
Figure 1. Interior view of completed atrium. Courtesy of Alan Karchmer.

ost structural engineers are creative in the sense of

finding a structural solution to an architectural challenge, but they are not often thought of as artistic.
Once in a great while, a design team and an owner
come together and the whole is truly more than the sum of its parts.
This was the case with the new Knight Hall and Bauer Hall, the new
building for the Olin Business School on the Danforth Campus
of Washington University in St. Louis. Structural engineer KPFF
Consulting Engineers took an active artistic role with the architect
in developing a unique roof structure. While there are many interesting structural aspects about this beautiful new $70 Million, 177,000
square foot building to accommodate faculty, numerous large classrooms, a 300-seat auditorium, and a magnificent multi-functional
atrium space, the atrium roof structure deserves special emphasis as
a work of structural art.
The building footprint is generally U-shaped and organized around
a roughly 90- by 90-foot atrium space. Tiered seating is carved from
the lower floors of the atrium to create a forum. The architectural
firm of Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners of Santa Monica,
CA working with Mackey Mitchell Associates and the Owner wanted
this space to be light-filled and open, able to host large and small
functions, and to serve as an informal gathering space. It was obvious
that this place needed to be surrounded by a very special structure,
and the atrium roof was to be the architectural centerpiece of the
Olin Business School expansion project.
Structural art is defined by three guiding principles known as the
Three Es: Efficiency, Economy, and Elegance. Structures that minimize the use of materials while they safely carry loads are efficient;

STRUCTURE magazine

ones that are less costly in terms of construction are economical; and
structures that are pleasing to the eye are elegant. All three of the Es
must be present in a structure to be characterized as structural art.
Starting with a blank canvas, the design team seized the opportunity
to compose a beautiful glass-covered work of structural art.

Design Constraints
The atrium space was to be column-free, so the atrium roof structure
would be supported on its perimeter. It was preferred not to have
any roof structural systems with a bottom horizontal plane, since this
would tend to reduce the soaring volume of the space. The west wall
and part of the south wall would be all glass, and the spring-line of
the atrium roof structure would be a few feet above the surrounding
U-shaped main building. Therefore, there would be no rigid perimeter means to resist horizontal thrust from the roof structure, and
these forces would need to be resolved internally. It was also desired
to have some roof surfaces angled to the south or vertical to regulate
the sun, add ventilation, or to use for solar arrays. Because this roof
structure would be on the interior of the building footprint, at the
farthest reach from both of the tower cranes, it would be important
to be able to erect the structure in small, manageable sections.

Evolution and Symbology of the Roof Form

Elegant and mysterious. These were the two words Buzz Yudell of Moore
Ruble Yudell used to describe what the atrium roof structure should be
within the context of the building. The roof form evolved by studying

38

August 2014

Figure 2. Buff sketches showing conceptual evolution of the atrium roof structure.

numerous structural concepts, generally categorized as compression

type and flexural type. Compression type forms rely on stiff perimeter
members to resist horizontal thrust and vertical deflections, while the
members that span over the space are generally in compression. Several
different compression type structural concepts were studied, including
wood and steel lamellas, various arched notions, and several configurations of steel domes. All of these roof structures were quite elegant, and
they could be made relatively thin and soaring, but they all required
uneconomical perimeter framing to resist thrust and deflection. None
of them were particularly mysterious, meaning one could look up at it
and immediately resolve the forces with the eye.
Flexural type forms rely on bending stiffness of the structure to
resist vertical loads. A series of flexural type structural concepts were
imagined such as arching trusses, various pin-connected trusses, and
undulating flexural members. While these designs minimized the
thrust problem and were relatively efficient and economical, they
encroached into the volume and were fairly common looking.
A breakthrough came one day with a roll of yellow tracing paper,
and sparked a very iterative design process between KPFF and Moore
Rubel Yudell. What if two arches leaned on each other? Why not
move them to the corners, where the compression could be resolved?
Then the arches were pulled apart, vertical surfaces were created by
lowering a roof plane surface on both sides, and the leaning arches
became curved trusses. The spaces in between were filled with various forms of flexural secondary members that had very little thrust,
which set up an interesting visual hierarchy. Now we had a soaring
roof with the spatial focus of a dome, but with a dynamic modern
expression. The curved trusses also recall the iconic form of St.
Louiss Gateway Arch, just seven miles east, which is a symbol of
the westward expansion of the country.

Geometric Basis of the Roof Form

In order to accurately model, analyze, render, and ultimately construct
the roof structure, geometric parameters needed to be established that
resemble the art form. Figure 3 illustrates the intersection of two sloping planes and a cylinder, forming two ellipses. These ellipses define
the top chords of the elliptical trusses. To form the bottom chords
of the elliptical trusses, two more sloping planes intersect vertical
surfaces projecting through the top chords (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Geometric basis of elliptical truss

top chords.

Structural Flow of Forces

Secondary trusses collect load from the glass panels and deliver it
to the elliptical trusses and the perimeter ring beam. The elliptical
trusses, primarily through axial compression, carry the load to the
corners of the structure where the perimeter ring beam resolves the
forces in tension. The top HSS chords of rod trusses at the center of
the roof also serve as compression struts between the elliptical trusses.

Structural Loading and Analysis

The atrium roof structure was modeled and analyzed using RISA 3D.
Load cases and load combinations were defined using ASCE 7-05.
Load cases include dead, live, snow, wind, seismic, and temperature.
In particular, unbalanced snow and wind loads were given careful
consideration. In total, 197 load combinations were analyzed. Basic
loads were applied as line loads to the secondary members. Steel rods
were modeled as Euler buckling members.
The elliptical trusses consist of a round HSS18 top chord, 6-inch
standard pipe verticals, rectangular HSS bottom chords, and steel rod
web members. The trusses are separated by ten feet at their apexes.
Three pipe X-braces connect the two elliptical trusses at their apexes
to resist unbalanced vertical loads.
The secondary infill members between the elliptical trusses are
generally of two types: parallel-chord steel trusses and rod trusses,
the depths of which vary in proportion to their span length. The
steel trusses span one direction and form sloping planar roof surfaces on the north and south sides of the roof, and are comprised
of rectangular HSS top chords to receive the glass roof panels, with
steel pipe bottom chords and diagonal web members. All truss panel
points and top chord bridging elements align with the glazing system
they support. The steel trusses are designed to be as small as possible
to achieve lightness, and so bottom chord compression under wind
uplift is resisted by almost invisible bottom chord wire bracing.
The rod trusses were inspired by many iconic glass buildings around
the world, such as the glass pyramid at the Louvre in Paris, France.
Rod trusses were used in the atrium roof where it is a cylindrical form
and they form a two-way system. The webs of these trusses in the
north-south direction lie in a plane perpendicular to the cylindrical
surface of the roof. All bottom chords and diagonals of the rod trusses

Figure 4. Geometric basis of elliptical truss

bottom chords.

STRUCTURE magazine

39

August 2014

Figure 5. Structural flow of forces in primary

roof members.

Figure 7. RISA3D model.

Documentation

Figure 6. Examples of wind pressure load cases.

are designed for the predicted compression and tension forces under
various unbalanced and uplift load cases, and the depth of each truss
varies according to its span. The rod trusses have rectangular HSS
top chords to receive the glass roof panels and round pipe verticals.
The rods are all reverse threaded to their clevises so no turnbuckles
are required. To reduce the compression demand to within allowable
limits on the steel rod bottom chords under wind uplift conditions,
steel cables anchored to building columns were added in four discreet
locations to hold down the field of the curved rod trusses.
A ring beam consisting of an HSS18x18 resolves the thrust from
the elliptical trusses in the corners and also resists the minor amount
of horizontal thrust from the secondary members. Steel columns
support the ring beam vertically at each corner and intermittently
around the perimeter. Slotted holes and fixed bearings were carefully
arranged around the perimeter of the ring beam to anchor the roof
structure for horizontal and uplift loads, and to allow for horizontal
movements due to thermal changes and live loads.

KPFF chose to document this roof structure in AutoCad 2D,

although study models in Revit, Sketch-Up, and AutoCad 3D
were utilized. Conventional plans, sections and details were drawn
to fully describe the dimensional parameters of the structure.
Figure 8 shows one building section cut through the center of the
cylindrical portion of the roof.

Fabrication and Erection

The construction manager, Tarlton Corporation of St. Louis,
contracted with The Gateway Company of St. Louis to provide
the detailing and fabrication of the atrium roof structure and
the associated glass wall steel framing. Gateway had the elliptical
pipes rolled out of town and shipped to their fab shop, where they
pre-assembled most of the roof structure in their yard to assure
good fit up in the field.
The steel erector for the entire building, including the atrium roof
structure, was Ben Hur Construction of St. Louis. In order to safely

Figure 8. Construction document section through center cylindrical portion of roof structure.

STRUCTURE magazine

40

August 2014

Figure 9. Roof pre-assembly at fabricators yard.

Figure 10. Temporary work platform during roof erection.

erect the atrium roof steel, along with facilitating roof glazing, sprinkler
piping, field painting, and electrical work, Tarlton and Ben Hur chose
to build a temporary work platform just below the roof structure. The
scaffold for this platform extended some 65 feet down through the
atrium floor openings below, and was a significant structure in and
of itself. It also proved to be an invaluable benefit to provide access
for inspections of the structure.
Gateway and Ben Hur collaborated and separated each of the elliptical trusses into three sections to stay within the tower cranes load
capacity. Due to careful planning, the atrium roof structure was
erected quickly in a little over one month.

Conclusion

John P. Miller, P.E., S.E., is one of

the founding principals of the St.
Louis oce of KPFF Consulting
Engineers. John can be reached at
john.miller@kpff.com.
Marc A. Friedman, P.E., S.E., is
an Associate at KPFF Consulting
Engineers St. Louis oce. Marc can be
reached at marc.friedman@kpff.com.

Owner: Washington University in St. Louis

Structural Engineer: KPFF Consulting Engineers, St. Louis
Architect of Record: Moore Ruble Yudell Architects &
Planners, Santa Monica, CA
Associate Architect: Mackey Mitchell Associates, St. Louis
Construction Manager: Tarlton Corporation, St. Louis
Steel Erector: Ben Hur Construction, St. Louis
Fabricator: The Gateway Co., St. Louis

CHATHAM UNIVERSITY EDEN HALL CAMPUS, RICHLAND TOWNSHIP, PA

PHOTO BY: BLAKE INOUYE

SUPPORTING

SUSTAINABILITY
IN ARCHITECTURE

Seattle Tacoma Lacey Portland Eugene

Sacramento San Francisco Walnut Creek
Los Angeles Long Beach Pasadena Irvine
San Diego Boise Phoenix St. Louis
Chicago New York

KPFF is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

www.kpff.com

STRUCTURE magazine

41

August 2014

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

By listening to and embracing the artistic goals and visions of the architect, a
structural engineer can provide valuable feedback and input into an artistic
pursuit. The Olin Business School was a
project in which the structural engineer
was able to take an active artistic role in
developing a striking work of structural
art in terms of efficiency, economy, and
elegance in the atrium roof structure. The
soaring and dynamic atrium
roof structure has become the
architectural centerpiece of
Knight Hall and Bauer Hall.

Project Team

FULL METAL
JACKET
Part 2: Solutions
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE, F.SEI, SECB, MgtEng
and Richard H. Antoine III, P.E., S.E.
Part 1 of this series discussed the investigation of an existing timber-framed, multi-story building,
that is over one hundred years old, and the resulting evacuation of the occupants due to an unsafe
condition at the main support columns of the building. This installment discusses the nature of
the deterioration observed and the solutions considered for repair.
Figure 1.

he deterioration and damage of the timber columns could

be attributed to two primary causes: moisture and insects.
It was unclear to what extent each column base had deteriorated, but visual observations indicated that at least
three of the eight affected primary wood columns had lost almost
all of the cross-sectional area at the base below the top of the basement slab on grade. Partial removal of the concrete slab from around
the column bases at the remaining five locations, to determine the
extent of deterioration, was not possible because the slab in the same
immediate area provided the only support for the 3x12 side plates.
This restriction occurred because it had been observed that, as the
deterioration progressed in the main building columns, the load had
been transferred to the 3x12 side plates via the existing through bolts.
As a result, the 3x12 side plates were beginning to exhibit localized
crushing at their bases, which allowed the building to settle vertically.
The resulting deflection subsequently allowed the second floor framing
to move and rotate as the columns dropped unevenly into the voids
left by the deteriorated timber. Continued vertical movement was
also allowed by the deterioration of the column side plates; however,
at the worst areas of deterioration of the 3x12s, masonry piers had
been previously installed adjacent to the building columns (Figure
1). Unfortunately, these supplemental supports were only able to
engage the first floor framing, rather than assist with the transfer of
the main building column loads from any of the other floors above.
Solutions to the observed conditions were limited due to the lack
of continuity of the beam-to-column connections throughout the
building, and the unstable nature of the basement deterioration. One
option that was considered initially involved shoring the columns from
the basement slab up to the roof, removing the columns, and then
replacing them with structural steel. This conventional solution was
quickly ruled out after it was determined that it was not practical to
remove or shore around the large first-floor kilns that were located
immediately adjacent to the columns. In addition, it was also determined that the third- and fourth-floor residential plans were laid out
such that bathrooms, closets, kitchen countertops and other finishes
would have to be removed in order to facilitate the temporary shoring
and permanent replacement of the building columns.
A second option that was considered involved strengthening the
second-floor beams at the joint above the first-floor columns so that
the same beams could act as transfer girders to support the upper
floors, via new columns that would be installed down to additional
STRUCTURE magazine

foundations through the first floor and basement spaces. This option
was also ruled out because of the precarious rotated condition of the
second-floor beam, corbel and column joint, and the resulting difficulty of installing adequate strengthening of the second-floor beams
through this same joint directly above the existing adjacent kilns.
It was eventually decided that temporarily shoring of the timber
columns in the basement using miscellaneous steel plates and channels down to the slab on grade should be implemented until a more
permanent solution could be established. Ultimately, it was determined
that the best solution involved developing this temporary shoring
into a permanent fix. Initially this approach involved using through
bolts to attach the steel reinforcing to the sides of the column in
order to engage the wood, and transfer the entire reaction down to
the slab on grade by distributing the load over a large area via steel

42

Figure 2.

August 2014

grillage. However, due to the extensive damage to the wood columns

for most of the basement height, it was determined that the use of
through bolts would require extensive epoxy injection in order to
make the timber sound enough to engage the bolts properly. Because
there was a concern that the extent of epoxy injection might result in
localized failure of the adjacent deteriorated wood, and potentially
cause complete failure of the column, this alternative was discarded.
As a result, the final permanent solution evolved into an approach that
involved abandoning the deteriorated timber column in place. This was
accomplished by designing the steel reinforcing as a metal jacket built
completely around each column using various steel plates and chan- Figure 3.
nels (Figure 2). The jackets were prefabricated in such a way that they
could be brought to the site in two pieces and then erected and bolted
together around the column. Bolting the jacket assembly together was
preferred in order to avoid field-welding as much as possible, due to the
age and condition of the timber in the basement. The steel jackets that
encapsulated the timber columns were supported at the base by a series
of steel channels that transferred the vertical loads on to additional steel to stabilize the wood, and then drilling through the timber column
channel grillage, which were designed to span continuously over the top and installing the steel rods one by one in the specified sequence.
of the slab on grade parallel to the column centerline. The slab on grade Pre-drilling also enabled the detection of interior deterioration by
was analyzed as an unreinforced section, and the steel channel grillage noting any variations in the drilling resistance encountered. The rods
was arranged and extended in such a way that the modulus of rupture of were placed side-by-side such that, once all of the specified number
the unreinforced concrete slab was not exceeded under the full column of rods were in place, the load from the column would be entirely
design load. There were two critical assumptions that were made as a part supported by the rods and therefore transferred to the steel jacket,
of the grillage design and slab on grade analysis:
effectively abandoning the timber column below the rods.
1) The slab was a minimum of six inches thick.
Part 3 of this series will discuss the impact of the findings of a soil
2) The soil had an allowable bearing capacity of at least 3,000
investigation that resulted in the need to develop alternate
pounds per square foot.
foundation solutions for the support of the steel jacket,
Both of these assumptions were to be verified prior to the installation as well as repairs that were required in addition to the
of the grillage.
column jackets.
The final successful approach to avoid through-bolting of the jacket
to the wood columns involved the following solutions. First, because
D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE, F.SEI, SECB, MgtEng
the first floor beams did not attach directly to the building columns,
(MStuart@Pennoni.com), is the Structural Division Manager at
structural steel channel outriggers were cantilevered from the top of
Pennoni Associates Inc. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
each jacket to support the beam reactions that were being resisted by
Richard H. Antoine III, P.E., S.E. (rantoineiii@gmail.com), was a
the 3x12 side plates. Timber blocking was placed between the top of
project engineer at Pennoni Associates Inc. and is now with Jacobs in
the channel outriggers and the bottom of the existing beams, in order
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
to provide an adequate load path mechanism to the steel jacket for the
first floor framing. The critical method for
transferring the primary column load to
the steel jacket involved the use of a series
of 1-inch-diameter steel rods that were
drilled through the top of the column just
below the first-floor framing. Locating the
through rods at the top of the columns
was determined to be a safer approach
than the initial through-bolting scheme
over the entire height of the columns in
Versatile - allows for varying
the basement, because the extent of existcrossover angles
ing deterioration of the wood was much
Corrosion resistant
less at the top of the columns than that
Saves time and money -
observed over the lower portion.
no drilling or welding
The methodology for installing the rods
Guaranteed Safe Working Loads
was similar to that used for underpinning
Will not harm protective coatings
an existing foundation, in that the rods
Flush connection between both
were installed in a logical sequence that
steel sections
allowed for the progressive transfer of the
column load to the steel jacket (Figure 3).
This was accomplished by first pre-drilling
a pilot hole, inspecting for deterioration
of the wood, injecting epoxy as required
Fast service for info & pricing: Toll-Free: 1-888-724-2323 www.LNAsolutions.com/Fast-Fit

Universal Kits for Faster & Easier Steel Connections

A K E E S A F E T Y C O M PA N Y

STRUCTURE magazine

43

August 2014

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

NEW!

introDucing the

HoW/2

Design ConneCtions
with SDS/2

SerieS by SDS/2

true connection DeSign,

not SimpLy connection
veriFicAtion
SDS/2 is the only system that provides true connection
design for individual members, as well as all interacting
members in a structural joint.

compLete connection
DeSign reportS

FuLL Joint AnALySiS

Instead of choosing a connection from a library, SDS/2 designs
the connection for you, based on parameters that you establish
at the beginning of a project.
All connections SDS/2 automatically designs will comply with
the connection design code standards the user chooses.

learn more
Want to see how simple it really is to design
connections in SDS/2? Scan the QR code to
watch SDS/2s connection design in action.

SDS/2 provides long-hand calculations

of all designed connections, which simplifies the verification process. Scan the
QR code to view an example of SDS/2s
automatically generated calculation
design reports.

cLASh prevention
SDS/2 checks for interaction with other connections within
a common joint. That means adjusting connections for
shared bolts, checking driving clearances for bolts, sharing,
adjusting and moving gusset and shear plates when required, and assuring erectablity of all members. All adjusted
connections are automatically verified based on selected
design criteria.

800.443.0782
sds2.com | info@sds2.com

SPECIAL SECTION

Engineering Software

Working from the Cloud

New Software, Interoperability and Mobile Apps Pushing Construction Technology
By Larry Kahaner

tructural engineers are starting to see wisps of the cloud.

What has become common in many industries working
from the cloud is beginning to see daylight among those
engaged in construction.
There are a lot of questions about the cloud and what it means to
the structural engineer, says Raoul Karp, Vice President Structural
& BrIM, Bentley Systems (www.bentley.com/structural) in Exton,
Pennsylvania. On the information consumption side, the advantages
are clear; being able to access project data authored anywhere, at any
time, from any location. For example, Bentleys Field Supervisor is
the perfect companion for the structural engineer to help access all
project data in the field. In addition, Bentley Navigator provides
full 3D model navigation, visualization tools, and data interrogation capabilities. Soon we will have the ability to access and manage
site administration tasks, markups, RFIs, and much more from the
field. The cloud will also offer opportunities to consider more alternatives and more complex and complete solutions than ever before.
Optimization across multiple disciplines is something that has existed
in other industries for years, and we expect to see more of that with
greater cloud analytical capacity and better optimization tools in the
future. (See ad on page 75.)
At Enercalc, Inc. (www.enercalc.com) in Corona del Mar, California,
President Michael Brooks says that cloud-based software is on the way.
Our products are continually enhanced according to user requests
and advances in software development technology. Currently, weve
upgraded our software to support all new building codes and we will
be premiering a cloud-based software system before years end. (See
ad on page 3.)
Other new products and services are coming along, too, says Karp.
Last year, all RAM products were updated to 64 bit, which gave our
users the ability to create larger models and conduct faster analyses.
Information mobility was improved with RAM Connection and
RAM Concept, which are now managed directly through the RAM
Structural System to provide a more unified and seamless workflow.
Other enhancements include modeling, reporting, and analysis,
including the addition of the SJI Joist Girder tables to allow consideration of joists in lateral analysis, and the addition of new ASTM
A1085 and Jumbo HSS Shapes. The new release of RAM Connection
included the latest design standard and seismic requirements from
STRUCTURE magazine

AISC 360-10, AISC 341-10, and AISC 358-10 for moment, brace,
and HSS connection design.
He adds that Bentleys SELECT Open Access is an industry first
that provides any subscriber with unrestricted portfolio-wide access
to the companys products. This allows subscribers to employ the
best and most comprehensive mix of Bentley applications for all
disciplines for every project. Subscribers also benefit from convenient
and cost-effective Quarterly Term Licensing at the end of each calendar quarter, as well as on-demand and live training in the virtual
classroom through Bentley LEARN. With SELECT Open Access,
the purchasing barriers to the most effective software utilization are
eliminated so that all Bentley applications are at your service.
As for his companys new offerings, Brooks says that Enercalc releases
updates when available and not on a regular timetable. Instead, we
are continually improving the software and releasing it through our
web update system. New enhancements come in a continual flow to
our Maintenance & Support Plan subscribers.
He notes: Software trends in engineering design still follow the
basic trends of all software. These are cloud-based solutions for global
deployment, incremental pricing structures to provide more cost
effectiveness to customers, and software solutions made available on
multiple platforms (desktop, laptop, tablet) and multiple operating
systems (Windows, Mac, Android, IOS). ENERCALC is one of the
three senior structural engineering software companies, now in business for 31 years. This type of staying power reflects the necessity of
the market we serve and the dedication of our long-term staff to the
products and our loyal customers.
Amber Freund, Director of Marketing at RISA Technologies
(www.risatech.com) in Foothill Ranch, California, says that her
company has been developing world-class structural design software
for over 25 years. Our products are used to design towers, skyscrapers,
airports, stadiums, petrochemical facilities, bridges, roller coasters and
everything in between. The seamless integration of our product suite
creates a powerful, versatile and intuitive structural design environment, ready to tackle almost any design challenge.
Freund says: We recently released RISAFloor ES which will design
one and two-way elevated concrete slabs. This addition to RISAFloor
gives engineers the ability to design any commercial building within
one familiar, easy to use interface. After releasing RISAFoundation,

45

August 2014

SPECIAL SECTION
Engineering Software

which designs mat slabs, engineers started requesting that same interface and design features in an elevated slab design program. The most
requested feature, beyond the easy-to-use interface, was to be able to
customize design strips. Although RISAFloor ES can automatically
generate your design strips, the engineer also has the ability to modify
them to fit his/her design needs.
As for trends, Freund continues to see integration and interoperability being key to design projects. We are working closely with
Autodesk and Tekla to enhance our direct links so that data can be
transferred seamlessly between 3D modeling, analysis-design and
detailing software. Our developers, technical support group, and even
our sales team are all structural engineers. Given our background, we
are uniquely able to predict and meet the needs of our clients and
continually produce the most user-friendly software on the market.
(See ad on page 76.)
Another long-time software solutions company is Design Data
(www.sds2.com) of Lincoln, Nebraska, which has been in business
for over 30 years, says Doug Evans, Vice President of Sales. SDS/2
software solutions are a suite of products developed for the manufacturing and engineering components of the construction industry.
The flagship product, SDS/2 Detailing, automatically designs codecompliant connections and creates shop drawings and CNC data for
machines on the shop floor.
When it comes to new offerings, Evans says that SDS/2 Approval is
a proven product that has been utilized in the new model approval
process and is becoming increasing popular on BIM projects. With
the added ability to transfer job status, and new tools to approve and
review members, this product has seen significant market penetration.
Engineers and detailers are moving away from drawing-based methods
to approve project and design intent, and embracing model-based
methods to accomplish the same goal. SDS/2 Approval product
provides them the right tools to work in this environment, he says.
Evans wants SEs to know about two other new products. SDS/2
Erector combines the ability to build your own intelligent cranes
with the crane building functionality and the fabricated BIM model
from the manufacturer. This combination gives erectors and general
contractors the needed tools to plan and organize the site to make for
a smooth project. He adds: The SDS/2 Detailing flagship product
is bringing dramatic improvement to market this year. The automatic
connection design functionality now creates the ability to lock any
design element, and design a connection around that variable. This
gives engineers full control over every aspect of a connection. In addition, the ability to create components will increase the productivity
when modeling miscellaneous elements like outriggers, conveyors
and platework. (See ad on page 44.)
Evans concludes: All of the new offerings are a direct result of
the BIM work process, and utilizing the model and model data in
new and innovative ways to reduce cost and improve quality in the
construction cycle. A majority of the new products and features have
come out of the collaborative effort of development with our current
installed base and our experienced development staff.
There are four key trends that improve user experience: interoperability, ease of use, integration and the ability to easily automate
repetitive tasks, according to Marinos Stylianou, CEO of S-FRAME
STRUCTURE magazine

Software (www.s-frame.com) in Guilford, Connecticut. Ideally,

clients want a single model for their software and tools. They cant
afford to move back and forth between dissimilar products and technologies. Integration is key not only at the designer or engineering
level, but at the entire business level of the company and its partners.
With each new release of our product suite, we continue to offer our
clients tangible improvements in all four key areas.
S-FRAME recently released S-FOUNDATION, a foundation analysis and design product with automation and customization capabilities.
S-FOUNDATION has been very well received by the structural
engineering community since its release in 2013, and is helping to
expand our presence in the concrete analysis and design arena, says
Stylianou. In addition, all our core products saw significant updates
and new feature functionality with release R11. Our interoperability
with BIM and CAD systems was expanded through new bi-directional
links with Tekla and Revit. The DXF translator was also completely
rewritten and modified to handle increased customer needs.
He adds: Industry trends and demands motivate our team to
provide the best state-of-the-art technology, while providing an
enjoyable and simple user experience. The ability to communicate
among our products, and with 3rd party and in-house products, is
another driver requested by our clients. Clients are seeing a refresh
in their business that requires faster concepts and better designs at
a reasonable cost. Our solutions aim to address all three of these
points. (See ad on page 4.)
Celebrating its 40th anniversary, Scia Engineer is part of a new breed
of integrated 3D structural analysis software that makes it easy for
engineers to plug analyses and designs into todays BIM workflows,
says Dan Monaghan U.S. managing director of Nemetschek Scia
(www.nemetschek-scia.com) . He is based in Columbia, Maryland.
Flexibility is a big benefit of Scia Engineer. It is used by engineering
companies across a numbers of industries including plant/process,
buildings and transportation. Its a great design tool for day-to-day
engineering work, but has the advanced analysis capabilities and
multi-material code support firms need to tackle larger, more complex projects.
The company has recently released Scia Engineer v14. With Scia
Engineer v14 we are introducing a new Open Check technology that
allows firms to easily script their own custom structural calculations
inside Scia Engineers 3D FEA environment. Giving engineers the
ability to write and run their own custom checks and calculations
in their structural design software is a real game changer for some
firms, says Monaghan. It removes the dependency that firms have
on any one software vendor. Engineers can now easily extend their
analysis software by adding their own design checks whenever they
need them. It also removes the biggest criticism that engineers have
with structural engineering software: the software is too black box.
With Open Checks, engineers can see the formulas and methods that
are being used to derive a check. And, best of all, they can edit them
to suit their own preferences or design criteria.
Simpson Strong-Tie (www.strong-tie.com) of Pleasanton,
California, has worked with structural engineers for nearly 60
years providing engineered structural connectors, lateral-force
resisting systems and other building solutions, says Paul McEntee,
continued on page 48

46

August 2014

ADVERTISEMENT

Plugging Analysis and Design

into Your 3D Workflow

ITH new processes like BIM (Building

Information Modeling) and VDC
(Virtual Design and Construction) and new
project delivery methods like IPD (Integrated
Project Delivery), more and more engineering
firms are being asked to participate in
collaborative, model-based workflows.
Migrating to these new processes can be made
easier with software designed to support them
software like Scia Engineer from Nemetschek.
Scia Engineer is a new breed of integrated
structural design software that goes beyond
analysis and helps firms successfully join in
todays collaborative 3D workflows.

Fast and Efficient Modeling

Modeling is an essential requirement for
any 3D workflow. As projects become more
complex and project timelines compressed,
modeling needs to be fast and efficient, but
also not restrictive. Engineers need to be able
to keep up with the modern designs coming
from architects and contractors who push the
limits of new materials and methods.
A unique feature of Scia Engineer is its
modeling capabilities, says Mark Flamer,
M.I. Flamer & Associates. Its a very fast
and efficient FEA (Finite Element Analysis)
modeling tool. freeform modeling capabilities
make it easy for me to work up designs in 3D
and keep pace with my architects avant-garde
designs. And, its parametric object technology
has allowed me to automate routine and
repetitive work. I can quickly work up and
test design concepts. Then, when the design
has gelled, I can develop an accurate structural
model in Scia Engineer or link my design to
another BIM program for model coordination
or construction drawings.
With support for open standards like IFC
2x3 and direct links to a number of BIM
software programs, Scia Engineer makes it
easier for engineers to reuse models created
by others and leverage them into analysis.
This is a huge advantage when working in
a collaborative workflow.
For the new National Music Centre project
in Calgary, Canada, the architect made frequent
and sometimes dramatic changes, says Andrea
Hektor, KPFF Portland. We needed to be able
to give them a quick thumbs up or thumbs down
on their revised designs. With Scia Engineer it
was great. The architects would just send us their
updated models. We would import them into

Scia Engineer, update our model, run a quick

analysis, and give them enough information
to continue moving forward.
I dont think we would have been able to do
this with any of the other analysis software
we have in our office.
Another advantage of Scia Engineer is its
extensive functionality. Analysis and design
is becoming more rigorous, and owners are
looking for highly optimized structures to
minimize materials, construction time, and
costs. Being able to have one program that is
efficient for your day-do-day work, and at the
same time offers the ability to handle complex
analysis tasks is a big benefit.
With support for advanced FEA analysis
and multi-material design Ive avoided having
to invest in disparate analysis programs,
continues 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 occasions when I need to go outside
Scia Engineer, the programs Open Design
technology, allows me to script my own checks
to expand its built-in design capabilities.

When Modeling Matters,

Scia Engineer Delivers

More in tune with the

engineers workflow
Eye-opening
Extremely impressed

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 wherever
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 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 analysis programs, and there isnt
another program in the market like it. Scia
Engineer is the only program I found that
integrates fast and efficient modeling, lets me
script my own calculations, and easily reuse
and share 3D models. For us, Scia Engineer
was a logical choice.

Read the AECbytes Article

www.nemetschek-scia.com/review

Scia Engineer is a new breed of

integrated structural design software
that goes beyond analysis to help
firms excel in todays collaborative
3D workflows.
Discover fast, efficient modeling and
intelligent FEM analysis. Recycle
and leverage models created by
others into analysis. And, centralize
your design tasks with static and
advanced nonlinear and dynamic
analysis, plus multi-material design
in ONE program.
Request your FREE Trial.

Daniel Monaghan is the U.S. Managing Director

of Nemetschek Scia, developers of leading software
products for AEC software industry. He can be
reached at dmonaghan@scia-online.com

(877) 808-7242

www.nemetschek-scia.com

SPECIAL SECTION
Engineering Software

Engineering R&D Manager. Today, we offer a full line of structural products that help customers design and build safer and strong
homes and buildings to resist high winds, hurricanes and seismic
forces. We also continue to focus on technology by providing
free software, web and mobile apps, online calculators and other
resources to help structural engineers design and model projects
using our products.
The company has announced a new software program for coldformed steel design that automates product selection and helps
navigate the complicated design provisions of AISI, while offering
more robust design tools for users, according to McEntee. The
new program has an upgraded user interface that makes input faster
and more intuitive. CFS Designer software is the new version of
LGBEAMER, a software program that has been one of the most
widely-used CFS member design tools in the industry. The new
streamlined software gives structural engineers the ability to design
CFS beam-column members according to AISI specifications, and
to analyze complex beam loading and span conditions.
McEntee adds: With our new Literature Library mobile app, its
easier than ever for engineers to take Simpson Strong-Tie product
information on the go. With the Literature Library app on iPhone,
iPad and Android devices, SEs can now access and download all
catalogs, fliers and technical bulletins to a mobile device, bookmark
the pages they use most, create a customized library on their device,
and view downloaded documents without Wi-Fi.
In addition, the Simpson Strong-Tie Strong Frame moment frame
selector software is designed to help engineers select an ordinary or
special moment frame for their projects given geometry and loading.
McEntee says that only minimum input geometries are required for the
software to select an appropriate frame for the available space. Based
on input geometry, the Strong Frame selector software will narrow
down the available stock frames to a handful of possible solutions.
If opening dimensions are outside stock frame sizes, designers can
enter the specific opening dimensions and the Strong Frame selector
will provide possible customized solutions.
We also have updated the Holdown Selector web app so it is available in U.S. and Canadian versions. The Holdown Selector web app
is a quick and easy tool that selects the most cost-effective holdown
connector based on the type of installation, demand load and the
wood species of the post, McEntee says.
Although not a software company, Ram Jack (www.ramjack.com)
offers many products and tools for engineers, including software.
Ram Jack is a helical and hydraulically-driven steel manufacturer and
distributer, says Darin Willis, Director of Engineering for the Ada,
Oklahoma-based company. Ram Jack has an international network
of franchises throughout the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and South
America. We offer a wide arsenal of brackets and pilings that are
available for almost every situation.
In addition to its free, web-based helical design software, Foundation
Solution, Ram Jet also offers:
An engineering department staffed with structural and
geotechnical engineers who are available to assist with pile
designs, provide calculations, shop drawings or answer any
technical questions.
STRUCTURE magazine

An engineering portal on Ram Jacks website that provides

product shop drawings of their most common brackets and
piles, standard specifications and general notes for helical and
hydraulically-driven piles. It also has procedures for designing
helical piles in accordance with the International Building
Code, ICC ESR report. Engineers can contact the engineering
department directly for any additional assistance.
Free Lunch and Learn presentations in most locations. The
presentations cover the theory and application of helical piles.
Most state engineering boards accept continuing education
credits based on the technical presentations.
To further guarantee quality control and assurance to its
clients, Ram Jacks manufacturing and distribution arms have
both received certification for ISO 9000 compliance.
Even though helical piles have been used for more than 175 years,
most engineers were not educated on how to design them during
their college curriculum, Willis says. The last 25 years has seen
exponential growth in the use of helical piles and tieback anchors. The
ICC adopted the acceptance criteria for helical piles in June 2007,
and included helical piles in the 2009 and 2012 IBC. The Lunch and
Learns technical information provided on the engineering portal,
the design software and the engineering support, are in place to help
engineers understand the design theory, capacities and applications
of this valuable tool. (See ad on page 50.)
StructurePoint, LLC (www.structurepoint.org) in Chicago, Illinois,
was formerly the Engineering Software Group of the Portland Cement
Association, and is a dedicated team of engineering professionals committed to excellence, continuous improvement, and service, according
to Marketing Director Heather Johnson. We provide civil and structural engineers with the software and technical resources they need
for designing concrete buildings and structures. StructurePoint is a
convenient single point of access to the vast resources and knowledge
base of the entire cement and concrete industry including library
services, training, R&D, publications, building codes, specialty engineering services, concrete material and testing, concrete repair, codes
and standards consulting.
StructurePoints primary focus is concrete structures. We are watching closely every code change and amendment relevant to concrete
design. We are also behind the scenes looking for important upcoming
changes to make concrete design simpler, faster, and more accurate.
We do it once and well, so that every engineer knows that at least his
concrete design is optimal, economical, safe and code compliant,
Johnson says. In spColumn v4.81, StructurePoint has further refined
slender column design provisions to meet stringent new requirements
of ACI-318.
Business has been improving, says Johnson. Companies of all sizes
and geographies have been increasingly more upbeat about business
opportunities, and cement shipments have been growing steadily
indicating more construction spending. Among our users, geotechnical engineers have been exceptionally active responding to exploding
opportunities in oil, gas and petrochemical projects. These opportunities continue to drive additional demand of our spMats and spBeam
program for foundations in industrial facilities and infrastructure
construction. (See ad on page 51.)
continued on page 50

48

August 2014

Get there quicker

with Simpson Strong-Tie CFS Designer software

When designing cold-formed steel structures, you want a software program that is easy to
navigate, versatile, and saves time by automating product selection and complicated design
provisions of AISI. The new streamlined CFS Designer software by Simpson Strong-Tie
does all of that and more. By shifting between design tools, you can model beams up to
three spans and automate the design of wall openings, shearwalls, floor joists and roof
rafters. All models are saved in a single file and output is saved as a PDF.
To test drive CFS Designer, call your local representative at 800-999-5099 or visit
www.strongtie.com/CFSDesigner to learn more.
2014 Simpson

Strong-Tie Co. Inc. CFSDESIGN14

SPECIAL SECTION
Engineering Software

The Canadian Wood Council (CWC) (www.woodworks-software.com)

is the national association representing Canadian manufacturers of
wood products used in construction. CWCs main priority is to ensure
that building professionals such as engineers, architects, and other
design professionals have the needed information to specify and use
wood products in a safe, secure, and code-compliant manner, according to Jose Lalonde, Marketing & Sales Coordinator. One way
we do this is through our wood engineering software, WoodWorks.
Separate Canadian and U.S. versions of WoodWorks software are
available. For the U.S. version compatible with the IBC, NDS,
SDPWS, and ASCE7 CWC works closely with the American Wood
Council (AWC) to ensure consistency in technical interpretations,
says Lalonde.
In the United States, the latest version of the software is US Design
Office 10 (SR2a), released in February, 2014. This version conforms
to the 2012 IBC, the 2012 NDS, and the 2010 ASCE-7.
Also, new features added to the February release of the Shearwalls
program are:
Worst-case design of shear walls considering wind and seismic
loads. Envelopes the worst case distribution (rigid and flexible
diaphragm), providing the designer with an immediate assessment
of whether the walls meet all the desired design criteria.

Reduced processing time. The software was capable of doing

increasingly complex calculations. For very complex buildings
the run time was as long as 10 minutes. It has been reduced to
20 seconds.
In Canada, a new release (Cdn Design Office 9) is scheduled for
August. Says Lalonde: This version will include improvements made
in the US DO 10, including allowing pdf and bitmaps to be used
as templates for modeling the building in the Shearwalls program,
highlighting walls that are over capacity, and grouping user-defined
walls together to ensure a consistent design. Additionally, an expanded
list of Canadian cities will allow designers to select any of the over
600 cities listed in the NBC 2010 Design Data, which automatically populates most of the wind and seismic data needed, and, at
the push of a button, determine the lateral loads on the structure.
(See ad on page 53.)
According to Stuart Broome, Business Manager, Engineering at
Tekla (www.tekla.com), the Kennesaw, Georgia company is focused
on building and construction. Its customers are in the architectural,
engineering and construction (AEC) markets and include structural
engineers, contractors, fabricators and steel detailers. The company
was established in 1966, and today it has customers in 100 countries,
offices in 15 countries, and a global partner network. In 2011, Tekla
continued on page 52

ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

EnginEEr DEsign softwarE: founDation solutions

Create Profiles

Simulate soil profile

Anchors with varying diameter and
helix configurations
Vertical/battered/tie-back pile design
Custom pile design

Mobile-friendly

Web-based software
Use anywhere, anytime
Laptop, iPad, iPhone, tablets

www.ramjack.com/software
888-332-9909
STRUCTURE magazine

50

August 2014

Share & Report

PDF Output for submittals

Share projects with other
registered users

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_7-13

SPECIAL SECTION
Engineering Software

became part of Trimble Buildings Group and then, in 2013, Trimble

acquired CSC which is now incorporated into Tekla, he says.
Launched in 2004, Tekla Structures is the preferred tool of construction professionals around the world to model, detail, fabricate and
build many of the worlds buildings, bridges, and sports complexes.
The software is designed to work seamlessly with Tekla BIMsight, a
free online tool and portal for construction project collaboration,
Broome says. The most recent version, released in March, brings even
more detailed information and flexibility to modeling while reducing the need for manual data transfer. Information now flows more
efficiently from design, purchasing and production to the shop floor.
Tekla also provides more links to architectural and design solutions
to remove the technical and compatibility barriers that compromise
workflow between project teams and subcontractors using different
types of applications. For more information and to download Tekla
Structures 20 go to www.tekla.com/tekla-structures-20.
In June 2014, Tekla released Tedds 2014, a new version of its
calculation production suite which automates the design and documentation of structural components. A major new development
to Tedds 2014 is the inclusion of the Tedds Project Manager,
Broome notes. Project Manager allows users to create a project
of related Tedds documents that can easily be managed directly
within Tedds. Teams using Tedds are able to work even more

SOFTWARE GUIDE

efficiently by using Project Manager to streamline their workflows

and administration, and create dynamic reports directly from the
Project Manager.
Fastrak, another offering, is a steel building design tool. It is a physical
object-based modeling solution which automates the requirements of
AISC360 and ASCE7, according to Broome. He says that the main
reasons why clients use Fastrak are:
The ability to model and automate the design of composite
floors and complex roof structures/trusses in one model and in
one interface
The ability to model and automatically design gravity and
lateral systems in one model and in one interface
The ability to synchronize a design model with a Revit model
and pass information in both directions, as many times as
required, in a manageable way.
Broome concludes: Our solutions contribute to the essential processes
of todays information-intensive construction industry. Ultimately, it
comes down to collaboration and sharing of information. We continually add new features to help our clients work efficiently. BIM
is increasingly becoming common practice and its vital
that we offer our clients a cutting-edge BIM solution so
that they can increase their productivity, win more work
and be more profitable. (See ad on page 56.)

BIM, Bridges, Building Components, Business/Productivity, CAD, Concrete,

Found./Retain. Walls, Gen./Packages/Suites, Light Guage Steel, Masonry, Steel, Wood

ADAPT Corporation

Applied Science International, LLC

Phone: 650-306-2400
Email: info@adaptsoft.com
Web: www.adaptsoft.com
Product: ADAPT-PT RC Strip Design
Description: The most popular software for
design of post-tensioned slabs and beams now
includes a Reinforced Concrete design option.
This new capability lets engineers use the strip
design software they are already used to on all their
concrete projects, saving time and the hassle of
switching between software.

Phone: 919-645-4090
Email: tdigirolamo@appliedscienceint.com
Web: www.appliedscienceint.com
Product: Extreme Loading for Structures
Description: An advanced non-linear structural
analysis software tool designed specifically for
structural engineers. Easily study static and dynamic
loads such as those generated by blast, seismic events,
impact, progressive collapse, and wind.

Product: ADAPT-Builder with Column Design

Description: An integrated analysis and design
software for concrete buildings that now includes code
check and design capabilities for columns. Use it to
efficiently analyze and design your complete concrete
building from foundation to roof slab all in one
model post-tensioned or mild reinforced. Seamlessly
integrates with Revit Structure.
Product: ADAPT-ABI 4D Construction Phase Analysis
Description: 4D construction phase analysis of
concrete bridge or building structures. Models
construction phases including temporary structures,
closure strips, pre- and post-tensioning. Reports
forces, creep, shrinkage and deflections using nonlinear material behavior. Great tool for calculating
long-term effects, camber, super-positioning, and
investigation of construction methods.

Product: SteelSmart System (SSS)

Description: Available as a complete suite, SSS will
streamline production through the design and detailing
of members, connections, and fasteners. Available design
modules include: Curtain Wall, Load Bearing Wall,
X-Brace Shear Wall, Floor Framing, Roof Framing, Roof
Truss, and Moment-Resisting Short Wall.

Bentley Systems
Phone: 610-458-5000
Email: katherine.flesh@bentley.com
Web: www.bentley.com
Product: ProConcrete
Description: Advanced 3D CAD program for
modeling, detailing, scheduling of reinforced insitu/
precast and post-tensioned concrete structures. Offers
simple and easy-to-use tools for advanced 3D modeling
of reinforced concrete structures, producing automated
design and detail drawings and rebar schedules. Enables
engineers to reduce documentation production time.

STRUCTURE magazine

52

August 2014

Product: LEAP Bridge Steel

Description: An integrated, 3D Steel bridge design
and rating program. It provides comprehensive
layout, geometric modeling, design, analysis, and
load-rating for small to medium steel bridges. This
intuitive software complements Bentleys LEAP
Bridge Enterprise for concrete design with Bridge
Information Modeling (BrIM) for steel bridge design.
Product: STAAD Foundation Advanced
Description: Comprehensive foundation design
program which offers the ability to model complex
or simple footings, including those specific to Plant
facilities: octagonal footings supporting vertical vessels,
strap beam foundations supporting horizontal vessels,
ring foundations supporting tank structures, and
drilled or driven pier foundations.

CADRE Analytic
Phone: 425-392-4309
Email: cadresales@cadreanalytic.com
Web: www.cadreanalytic.com
Product: CADRE Pro 6
Description: Finite element structural analysis
application for Windows. Solves beam and/or plate type
structures for loads, stress, displacement, and vibration
modes. Advanced features for stability, buckling,
dynamic analysis and shock. Complete seismic analyses
to comply with current codes. Special provisions for
unusual structural types such as geodesic domes.

continued on page 54

Design wood structures effectively,

economically and with ease!

Design Office

SIZER
Gravity Design

SHEARWALLS
Lateral Design

CONNECTIONS
Fasteners

O86

Engineering design in wood

2x4

DATABASE
EDITOR

PDF

Adobe

WOOD
STANDARDS

(US version)

PDF

Adobe

WOOD
STANDARD
(CDN version)

Download a Free Demo at woodworks-software.com

AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL

US Design Office 10
NDS 2012, IBC 2012 and ASCE 07-10 compliant

www.woodworks-software.com

Canadian Design Office 9

CSA O86-09 compliant

800-844-1275

SOFTWARE GUIDE

BIM, Bridges, Building Components, Business/Productivity, CAD, Concrete,

Found./Retain. Walls, Gen./Packages/Suites, Light Guage Steel, Masonry, Steel, Wood

Computers & Structures, Inc.

Enercalc, Inc.

Phone: 510-649-2200
Email: info@csiamerica.com
Web: www.csiamerica.com
Product: SAP2000, CSiBridge, ETABS and SAFE
Description: Computers & Structures, Inc. develops
leading structural and earthquake engineering software
used in more than 160 countries worldwide. From
simple building structures to complex long-span
bridges, CSI products do it all with a balance of
practicality and sophistication.

Phone: 800-424-2252
Email: info@enercalc.com
Web: www.enercalc.com
Product: Structural Engineering Library
Description: A proven solution to all the typical, repetitive
and daily design tasks performed by structural engineers.
By carefully combining building code provisions, proven
analysis techniques, and standard materials into simple
and elegant software, you can quickly design, analyze, or
optimize all your daily design tasks.

Phone: 303-939-9700
Email: info@masonrysociety.org
Web: www.masonrysociety.org
Product: Masonry Codes and Guides
Description: The 2013 edition of the code and
minimum specification is now available. A major update
from the 2011 edition both in technical requirements
and in layout. This edition will be referenced by the
2015 ICB for the design and construction of structural
masonry, veneer, and glass unit masonry.

Concrete Masonry Association (CMACN)

FabTrol Systems, Inc.

National Concrete Masonry Association

Phone: 916-722-1700
Email: info@cmacn.org
Web: www.cmacn.org
Product: CMD12
Description: Structural design of reinforced concrete
and clay hollow unit masonry elements. For design of
masonry elements in accordance with provisions of
Ch. 21 1997 UBC, 2001 2013 CBC or 2003
2012 IBC and 1999 2011 Bldg. Code Requirements
for Masonry Structures (TMS 402/ACI 530/ASCE 5).

Phone: 541-485-4719
Email: info@fabtrol.com
Web: www.fabtrol.com
Product: FabTrol Pro
Description: Steel Fabrication Management Software

Phone: 703-713-1900
Email: dgraber@ncma.org
Web: www.ncma.org
Product: Direct Design Software
Description: Using the IBC and IRC-referenced
standard Direct Design Handbook for Masonry
Structures (TMS 403-13), this software package allows
users to generate final structural designs for whole
concrete masonry buildings in minutes.

Decon USA
Phone: 707-996-5954
Email: frank@deconusa.com
Web: www.deconusa.com
Product: Jordahl Anchor Channels
Description: Software allows a user friendly and
safe calculation for anchoring in concrete with JTA
anchor channels. Features a technical and economical
optimization of the design for each individual
connection. 3D graphics are easy to use and allow a
fast and clear input of all data.
Product: Studrails
Description: A free design software for Studrails
called STDESIGN 3.1. The software can be
downloaded from our website and complies to
ACI 318, ACI 421.1 and CSA A23.3. PC based
and excellent for efficient and verifiable output on
punching shear reinforcement.

Design Data
Phone: 402-441-4000
Email: marnett@sds2.com
Web: www.sds2connect.com
Product: SDS/2 Connect
Description: Enables users of Revit Structure for BIM
to intelligently design steel connections and produce
detailed documentation on those connections. SDS/2
Connect is the only product that enables structural
engineers to design and communicate connections
based on their Revit Structure design model as part of
the fabrication process.

Devco Software, Inc.

Phone: 541-426-5713
Email: rob@devcosoftware.com
Web: www.devcosoftware.com
Product: LGBEAMER v8.0
Description: Analyze and design cold-formed cee,
channel and zee sections. Uniform, concentrated, partial
span and axial loads. Single and multi-member designs.
2007 NASPEC, including the 2010 Supplement (2013
IBC) compliant. Pro-Tools include shearwalls, framed
openings, X-braces, joists and rafters.

ENERCALC

Hilti, Inc.
Phone: 800-879-8000
Email: us-sales@hilti.com
Web: www.us.hilti.com
Product: PROFIS Anchor and PROFIS DF
Description: PROFIS Anchor performs anchor design
for cast-in-place and Hilti post-installed anchors
using ACI 318, Appendix D provisions. PROFIS DF
Diaphragm optimizes design of steel deck roof and
floor diaphragms using the SDI Diaphragm Design
Manual, 3rd Edition provisions.

IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816
Email: sales@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
Product: VisualAnalysis
Description: Engineers have enjoyed solving problems
with our easy-to-use, flexible, general analysis tool.
With 20-years of customer-tuning, you will wonder
why you struggled with anything else.

Integrity Software, Inc.

Phone: 512-372-8991
Email: sales@softwaremetering.com
Web: www.softwaremetering.com
Product: SOFTRACK
Description: Provides Calendar Hour control for all your
Bentley applications and helps you reduce or eliminate
quarterly trust licensing overage billings by Bentley.

Losch Software Ltd

Phone: 323-592-3299
Email: LoschInfo@gmail.com
Web: www.LoschSoft.com
Product: LECWall
Description: Concrete column and sandwich wall
design and analysis. Includes handling design,
prestressed and mild reinforcing.

MadSoftware, Inc.
Phone: 720-362-2470
Email: info@madsoftware.net
Web: www.madsoftware.net
Product: AxisVM
Description: Advanced Visual Modeling for most
engineered structures. Linear, Non-Linear, Buckling,
Vibration, Seismic, Dynamic analysis.

STRUCTURE magazine

54

August 2014

The Masonry Society

Product: Structural Masonry Design Software Version 6.1

Description: Now updated to include the 2012
International Building Code and 2011 MSJC.
Includes new larger allowable stresses per code.
Designs walls, columns, lintels and much more.
Product: SRW Design Software SRWall
Description: Superior segmental retaining wall (SRW)
designs produce superior results. Stay on the cutting
edge of SRW design with the latest industry standard
design tools. 30-day free trial download.

Nemetschek Scia
Phone: 877-808-7242
Email: info@scia-online.com
Web: www.nemetschek-scia.com
Product: Scia Design Forms
Description: Engineers can easily script custom
calculations and output professional reports showing
the exact formulas used to derive a check. Checks
can be run as stand-alone, or linked to Scia Engineer.
Imagine being able to write checks linked your FEA
software. Download the FREE trial.
Product: Nemetschek Scia
Description: Request a FREE tryout and plug
structural analysis and design into todays 3D
workflows. Tackle larger projects with advanced nonlinear and dynamic analysis. Design to multiple codes
and script your own custom checks. Plug into BIM
with links to Revit, Tekla, and others.

Powers Fasteners
Phone: 985-807-6666
Email: jack.zenor@sbdinc.com
Web: www.powers.com
Product: Powers Design Assist (PDA)
Description: Enables users to input technical data
into a dynamic model environment; to specify
anchors. PDA-360 is a FREE online version of our
popular anchor design software. Powerful calculations
with fast, detailed results. Works with any popular
internet browser or mobile device.

BIM, Bridges, Building Components, Business/Productivity, CAD, Concrete,

Found./Retain. Walls, Gen./Packages/Suites, Light Guage Steel, Masonry, Steel, Wood

SOFTWARE GUIDE

RISA Technologies

Standards Design Group, Inc.

Struware, LLC

Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risa.com
Web: www.risa.com
Product: RISA-3D, RISAFloor and RISAFoundation
Description: Developing cutting-edge structural design
software for over 25 years, RISA software products are
used around the world for buildings, stadiums, bridges
and everything in between. RISA-3D, RISAFloor,
and RISAFoundation allow you to work with steel,
concrete, timber, masonry, aluminum and cold-formed
steel in a single, seamlessly integrated model.

Phone: 800-366-5585
Email: info@standardsdesign.com
Web: www.standardsdesign.com
Product: Wind Loads on Structures 4
Description: Performs computations in ASCE 7-10
and ASCE 7-98, computes wind loads by analytical
method rather than the simplified method, provides
basic wind speeds from a built-in version of the wind
speed, allows the user to enter wind speed. WLS4 has
numerous specialty calculators.

Phone: 904-302-6724
Email: email@struware.com
Web: www.struware.com
Product: Steel Floor Vibration Analysis
Description: Analyzes floor systems in accordance
with AISC Design Guide 11 and can compare up to
4 systems side by side. Demos at website.

S-FRAME Software
Phone: 203-421-4800
Email: info@s-frame.com
Web: www.s-frame.com
Product: S-FRAME R11
Description: S-FRAME Analysis, an industry
standard for over 30 years, is a powerful, efficient 4D
structural analysis and design environment with fully
integrated steel, concrete and foundation design and
optimization tools. Use S-FRAME to perform linear
or advanced non-linear analysis on buildings and
industrial structures. Includes advanced BIM and
CAD links.
Product: S-FOUNDATION
Description: Design, analyze and detail
foundations with S-FOUNDATION, a complete
foundation management solution. A stand-alone
application, or utilize S-FRAME Analysis powerful
2-way integration links for a detailed soil-structure
interaction study. Automatically manages the
meshed foundation model and includes powerful
Revit and Tekla BIM links.
Product: Structural Office R11
Description: Model, analyze and design robust
structures regardless of geometric complexity,
material type, loading conditions, nonlinear effects,
or design-codes. Integrated steel, concrete, and
foundation design solutions have efficient data
sharing and include powerful two-way Revit and
Tekla BIM links and comprehensive DXF file
import capabilities.

Simpson Strong-Tie
Phone: 925-560-9000
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
Product: Simpson Strong-Tie CFS Designer Software
Description: Software for cold-formed steel designers
automates product selection and helps navigate the
complicated design provisions of AISI, while offering
more robust design tools. The program has an
upgraded user interface that makes input faster and
more intuitive. CFS Designer is the new version of
LGBEAMER software.
Product: Simpson Strong-Tie Joist Hanger Selector
Web App
Description: This web app makes it easier than ever to
select the most cost-effective hanger for your projects
based on the type of installation, sizes and loads. The
clean, visual interface enables users to quickly select
the members and configuration for their desired
connection, and print the results.

Product: Window Glass Design 5

Description: Performs all required calculations to
design window glass according to ASTM E 1300-09,
ASTM E 1300 02/03/04, ASTM E 1300-98/00 and
ASTM E 1300-94. GANA endorses WGD5 as best
tool available in designing window glass to resist wind
and long-term loadings.

Strand7 Pty Ltd

Phone: 252-504-2282
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Web: www.strand7.com
Product: Strand7
Description: Advanced, general purpose, FEA
system used worldwide for a wide range of
structural analysis applications. Strand7 can be
used as a standalone system, or with Windows
applications such as CAD software. It comprises
preprocessing, solvers (linear and nonlinear, static
and dynamic) and postprocessing.

Structural Engineers Inc.

FLOORVIBE

Phone: 540-731-3330
Email: tmmurray@floorvibe.com
Web: www.floorvibe.com
Product: FloorVibe v2.20
Description: Proposed floor designs can be analyzed
to determine if they meet the AISC Design Guide
11 and the SJI Technical Digest No. 52nd Ed. using
FloorVibe v2.20. Floor framing can be hot-rolled,
joists, or built-up sections. Expert advice provided for
all required input and results.

StructurePoint
Phone: 847-966-4357
Email: info@structurepoint.org
Web: www.StructurePoint.org
Product: spWall and spColumn
Description: spWall For analysis design and
investigation of reinforced concrete, precast, ICF, tilt-up,
retaining and architectural walls. spColumn design
and investigation of rectangular, round, and irregular
concrete columns including slenderness effects.
Product: spSlab and spMats
Description: spSlab For analysis, design, and
investigation of elevated reinforced concrete beams,
joist, one-way, two-way and slab band systems.
spMats For analysis, design and investigation of
concrete foundations, mats, combined footings, pile caps,
slabs on grade, underground and buried structures.

Product: Tilt-up Walls and CMU Walls

Description: Tilt-up analyzes wall strips, CMU analyzes
solid walls for out of plane loading, but both will also
analyze panel legs next to openings by automatically
calculating loads to the wall leg from vertical and
horizontal loads at the opening. Demos at website.
Product: Struware Code Search
Description: Provides all pertinent wind, seismic, snow,
live and dead loads for your building in just minutes.
Simplifies ASCE 7 & IBC (and codes based on these)
by catching the buts, ifs, insteads, footnotes and hidden
items that most people miss. Demos at website.

Tekla Inc.
Phone: 770-426-5105
Email: info.us@tekla.com
Web: www.tekla.com
Product: Fastrak
Description: Dedicated software to automate the design
and drafting of steel buildings. Design simple and complex
buildings to US codes and then export models directly to
BIM compatible software, such as Tekla Structures.
Product: Tedds
Description: Perform 2D frame analysis, access
a large range of automated structural and civil
calculations to US codes and speed up your daily
structural calculations.

USP Structural Connectors

Phone: 800-328-5934
Email: uspcustomerservice@mii.com
Web: www.uspconnectors.com
Product: USP Specifier
Description: Simplifies access to information on over
3,000 structural connectors. Looking up connector
capacities, viewing code evaluation reports and even
mapping from competitor products to USP products are a
snap with just a couple of clicks. Download the FREE USP
Specifier software at the website.

WoodWorks Software
Phone: 800-844-1275
Email: sales@woodworks-software.com
Web: www.woodworks-software.com
Product: WoodWorks Design Office 10
Description: Conforms to IBC 2012, ASCE7-10,
NDS 2012, SDPWS 2008; SHEARWALLS: designs
perforated and segmented shearwalls; generates loads;
rigid and flexible diaphragm distribution methods.
SIZER: designs beams, columns, studs, joists up to 6
spans; automatic load patterning. CONNECTIONS:
Wood to: wood, steel or concrete.

Not listed? Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org and submit your information for upcoming guides!
Listings are provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE magazine is not responsible for errors.

STRUCTURE magazine

55

August 2014

Automate your daily structural

calculations & change your world.
Use a broad library of calculations or write your own, create high
quality, transparent documentation and even analyze frames.
You can:
Use a broad library of calculations
Write your own calculations
Work within Microsoft Word
Analyze frames
Produce transparent output
Archive documents electronically

You will:
Save time & increase profit
Reduce calculation errors
Improve consistency
Reduce overheads
Enhance QA processes

Download Tedds
Get your free trial at
cscworld.com/TryTedds

Thousands of engineers choose Tedds software

I have been using Tedds for nearly 12 years, the
calculations are logical, concise and easy to follow.
Tedds is the best friend an engineer could have.
R. Dean Morris, President, CEO
Morris Engineering, Inc.

Evolutionary software. Revolutionary service.

877.TEKLA.65
Formerly

www.cscworld.com

Structural
ForenSicS
investigating structures
and their components

Figure 1. View showing the widespread damage that occurred though this suburban neighborhood following the
Waldo Canyon fire.

l Paso County, Colorado is located

approximately 70 miles south of
Denver, has a land area of 2,127 square
miles, and had a 2012 population of
approximately 645,000 (representing 12 percent
of the population of Colorado). Although the
majority of the El Paso County population is
concentrated in Colorado Springs and along the
Interstate 25 corridor, densely-populated areas
also exist at the east edge of the Pike National
Forest where the Rocky Mountain Foothills meet
the Front Range. With only a few exceptions, all
of the structures built within El Paso County are
within the jurisdiction of the Pikes Peak Regional
Building Department.
On Saturday, June 23, 2012, a fire ignited in
Waldo Canyon inside the Pike National Forest,
approximately four miles northwest of Colorado
Springs. The fire was given the namesake of its
origin canyon, and burned eastward engulfing
approximately 18,250 acres of land and destroying 346 homes. Two fatalities were reported. The
wildfire was fully contained by July 10, 2012. At
last report, the insurance claims for the wildfire
exceeded $450 million.
The Black Forest community in El Paso County
is known for wide-spread moderately-dense
Ponderosa Pine trees. The Black Forest area is
located along the north edge of El Paso County,
northeast of Colorado Springs. Structures built in
the Black Forest community were mostly single
family homes situated on - to 4-acre lots. On
Tuesday, June 11, 2013, a fire started near the
east edge of the Black Forest community and
began to burn eastward. The Black Forest fire
burned approximately 15,500 acres, destroyed
511 homes, and damaged 28 other structures.
Two fatalities were reported. The Black Forest
fire was fully contained by June 20, 2013. At
last report, the insurance claims for the wildfire
exceeded $295 million.

In response to the Waldo Canyon fire, the Pikes

Peak Regional Building Department developed
four scenarios to assist
those who lost or experienced damage to their
home. The four scenarios
were as follows:
1) Use of existing
foundation, same
house: If Regional
Building has the original plans, the only
document required will be a letter from
a licensed engineer stating that existing
foundation is acceptable for rebuild. RBD
will issue, at a minimum fee, a demolition
permit for removal of fire debris. This
permit is required to monitor removal
activity and be sure fall protection is
installed around the open foundation
as required by code (2011 PPRBC).
The single family dwelling shell can be
constructed according to the plans on file
with the issuance of a new remodel permit
(434) The interior finish portion of
the house may not be required to meet
all current structural or design criteria
of the 2009 IRC, but will be required to
meet all life/safety requirements and other
design provisions that benefit the owner
such as, but not limited to, State Electrical
Code, smoke and CO detectors, energy
conservation, etc.
2) Non-use of existing foundation, same house:
If Regional Building has the original
plans, the documentation required will be
a letter from a licensed engineer stating
that foundation is not safe for rebuild and
submittal of a new foundation plan for
review/approval. RBD will issue a wrecking permit at a minimum fee for total
removal of foundation and all fire debris.
continued on next page

STRUCTURE magazine

Engineering Evaluation
of Fire Damage to
Concrete Foundations

57

By Peter Marxhausen, M.S., P.E.

Peter Marxhausen, M.S., P.E.,

is a Senior Staff Forensic
Structural Engineer with
Higgins & Associates, Inc. in
Morrison, Colorado. He is also
an adjunct faculty member with
the University of Colorado Denver
Civil Engineering Department.
Peter may be reached at
Peter@HigginsAssoc.com.

Figures 2 and 3. Views showing how heat-damaged concrete exhibits low strength and crumbles easily when struck four to six times with a hammer. The rebar is
exposed, and the fractures are through the paste, not the aggregate. Without conducting any further testing, this foundation is considered not suitable to be re-used
in reconstruction of the structure.

This permit is required to monitor

removal activity and to be sure the
foundation excavation is backfilled
or protected according to code (2011
PPRBC) The construction of the
foundation must comply with all
applicable provisions of the 2009
IRC. Inspections may be made by the
engineer of record. The remaining
portion of the structure located above
the foundation may be constructed as
outlined in # 1 above.
3) Building new home (different from
original) at existing location:
Process will be the same as any new
single family dwelling plan/permit
submittal currently in place One
set of plans, including engineered
foundation, site plan, all construction
docs and duct design components to
comply with 2009 IRC.
4) Repair of existing structure due to
fire damage:
Process will be the same as any remodel
for an existing residential structure.
Scenarios 1 and 2 above required a licensed
engineer to evaluate the remaining foundation to confirm it could be reused or to
determine it was damaged to an extent that
required replacement. Scenario 3, construction of an entirely new and different home,
required the involvement of a licensed engineer to develop the new foundation plans,
since El Paso County is an area known to
contain expansive soils. Lastly, Scenario
4 typically required the involvement of a
licensed engineer to evaluate the extent of
the fire damage to the structure, and to
develop reconstruction plans that could
be submitted to the building department
for the normal permitting/structural repair
process. The guidelines for evaluation
and repair of structures developed by the
Pikes Peak Regional Building Department

following the Black Forest fire were similar

to those outlined above.
Structural engineers are frequently hired after
disasters to evaluate the damage. As it pertains
to both the Waldo Canyon and Black Forest
wildfire events, insurance companies, owners,
and contractors sought help from the Colorado
engineering community to evaluate numerous structures to determine the extent of the
damage. Specifically, most of the assigned tasks
were to evaluate the remaining portions of the
masonry and concrete foundations to determine whether the foundations could be reused.
Over a decade ago, the author of this article
would typically obtain concrete cores of a
damaged foundation, then submit these
samples to a third party testing agency to
conduct a chemical analysis, compressive
strength tests, and a microscopic/petrographic
analysis. Testing like that would often take
four to six weeks and could cost $3,500 to
$6,000, depending upon ease of site access
and the number of cores to be extracted and
evaluated. The results of the laboratory examinations were beneficial; however, after years
of evaluating damaged concrete and CMU,
the author was able to develop methods for
quickly and economically evaluating concrete
slabs and foundations for fire/heat damage.
The rapid methods for evaluation were useful
following the Waldo Canyon and Black Forest
Fires, and helped property owners achieve
faster resolution with less expense.

Evaluation
The four methods used to rapidly evaluate a
concrete or concrete masonry unit (CMU)
foundation for heat damage included the
following:
Visual
A visual assessment is conducted to review
the foundation for patterns of scorch marks,

STRUCTURE magazine

58

August 2014

heat exposure, cracks, a change in color,

surface spalls, and/or leaning/tilting of the
walls. Tilting and leaning may not be due
to heat damage, but can occur from the
loss of diaphragm support after a structure
is consumed by a fire. Wall tilts/leans, as
well as cracks, may have pre-existed the fire
event or may have been induced by the fire.
Regardless of cause, cracks and leaning walls
should be considered by the structural engineer in determining whether a foundation
is reusable for construction.
Typically, normal concrete is not significantly altered or damaged below a
temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit;
however, rapid heating of the concrete can
cause pore water to rapidly boil, which can
cause surface spalls. Surface spalls can also
result from sudden cooling/contraction
after being sprayed by a fire fighters hose.
Spalled areas should be carefully examined
to determine whether they are a sign of
widespread heat damage or an isolated
occurrence that could be addressed with a
targeted repair patch.
The color of the concrete paste should also
be reviewed since a color change may indicate exposure to temperatures of greater than
550 degrees Fahrenheit. Concrete exposed to
temperatures greater than approximately 570
degrees often turns a shade of pink, associated
with chemical changes of the iron-containing compounds in the aggregates and paste
matrix. At much higher temperatures, which
are not commonly encountered during typical
structure fires, the concrete can turn back to a
light gray and then eventually to a yellowishbrown color. Concrete that has turned pink
is damaged and should be replaced.
Smoke stains and scorch marks serve as a
good indication of areas that were exposed to
high heat when comparing to areas exposed
to less heat, indicating further evaluation by
methods 2 and 4 outlined below.

Audible/Sound Changes
A sounding hammer, typically a framing
hammer with a hardened steel handle, can be
used at various exposed surfaces to strike the
surface and listen for subtle sounds in how the
hammer rings. In general, healthy, undamaged
concrete will cause a hammer to have a highfrequency ringing sound when struck. Concrete
that has a consistent dull/thud or soft noise can
indicate damaged or poor-quality concrete.
Fracture Mechanics
Healthy, undamaged concrete will typically
fracture in a plane through the aggregate. In
heat-damaged concrete, the paste matrix is often
much weaker than the aggregates; therefore, the
fracture plane will break around the aggregate
pieces. In order to facilitate an evaluation of the
fracture mechanics, the edge of the concrete can
be struck with a framing hammer. Undamaged
concrete will typically be very dicult to break,
which may be an indication there is no damage.
By comparison, heat-damaged concrete will
crumble away with a few rigorous hits. Once
broken, an experienced engineer can get a feel
for the quality of the concrete and gain access to
a fracture face for closer examination. Severely
damaged concrete will unreservedly fall apart
with a few arduous blows of a modest-sized
hammer, often exposing the rebar and a paste
matrix that has a chalky consistency.
A review of the distress in Figures 2 and 3 shows
the effect of four to six hammer strikes on an area
of heat-damaged concrete. Healthy, undamaged
concrete would have likely required the better
part of a day to accomplish the same damage
using the same hammer.
Relative Concrete Strength
A Schmidt hammer, also known as a rebound
hammer or a Swiss hammer, is a calibrated
device that is used to measure the elastic
properties or surface strength of the concrete.
Although the results of the Schmidt hammer
can be used to determine an approximate
concrete compressive strength through use of
empirical tables, the original as-built design
compressive strength is often not known and
therefore is of minimal benefit.
As with nearly all of the aforementioned
evaluation methods, especially the Schmidt

hammer evaluation, more meaningful data is

obtained by a comparison of test results from
at least four areas of the foundation. One way
to do this is to conduct a Schmidt hammer
test below grade at an excavated surface (where
it was protected from heat by the soil) or at
a lower inside foundation corner to obtain
a baseline value for areas that were exposed
to minimal/less heat. If areas of the foundation that were obviously exposed to high heat
exhibit a 20 percent or more decrease in concrete strength compared to areas that were
not exposed to heat, those results should be
reported to the client and considered in the
analysis of whether to reuse the foundation.
The homes consumed in the Colorado wildfire
events typically exhibited a concrete compressive strength of less than 2000 psi and a 30 to
50 percent reduction in strength compared to
areas generally protected from exposure to heat.
In the event 50 percent or more of the foundation system exhibits damage, the entire
foundation is typically removed and replaced.
However, on occasion, an owner may want to
preserve as much of the foundation as possible.
This scenario may present itself in the case of
historical buildings or an owner with minimal
insurance coverage. In that event, additional
evaluation, which would likely include laboratory analysis and/or non-destructive location
of the embedded rebar, may be necessary to
determine if the structure is safe to support the
anticipated loads and what repairs are needed
to fortify deficient areas. It is beyond the scope
of this article to discuss those types of repairs.

Conclusion
Ultimately, each client involved with the
wildfire events was seeking clarification
and information as to whether their foundation was undamaged, could be repaired,
or required replacement. Since the Waldo
Canyon and Black Forest wildfires were historical firsts in Colorado in terms of damage
magnitude, minimal guidance was available from the local building department.
However, a pattern quickly emerged that,
where the structures had burned without
any effort to extinguish the fire or control
the temperatures, the sustained exposure to
high heat was ultimately deleterious to the

Figure 4. View showing the characteristic pink hue

of heat-damaged concrete. The signature pink color
is a strong indicator the concrete is severely damage
and cannot be re-used for reconstruction.

concrete and masonry, requiring complete

foundation replacement.
It was this authors experience that photographs
taken before and after striking the concrete
foundation with a hammer provided the most
benefit to clients who had severely damaged
foundations. Photographs showing the concrete
could be dislodged to expose the rebar with
two to six hits with a framing hammer quickly
convinced homeowners who may have wanted
to preserve/reuse their foundation to choose
otherwise. Additional documentation, including
the visual assessment, Schmidt hammer tests,
and sounding hammer reports, helped augment
and convey the extent of the damage. Using the
aforementioned methods, engineering documentation regarding the extent of foundation
damage was provided to the clients involved in
less than a week.
It should be noted that structure fires are
typically extinguished by firefighting professionals before the concrete is heated to
an extent that it becomes damaged. Where
structure fires are rapidly extinguished, the
aforementioned evaluation methods can help
determine whether a foundation is safe to
be reused in the repair of a structure. These
evaluation tests for heat damage to concrete
can help determine a go or no go rapid
evaluation for fire-damaged foundations.
Specifically, it can quickly categorize the
concrete as positively undamaged, positively
damaged, or questionable requiring a further detailed analysis. Test results at buildings
where these methods yield mixed, inconclusive, or borderline results should be further
evaluated by laboratory analysis.

2014
Annual
Trade
Show
in
Print
The definitive buyers guide for the practicing structural engineer

!
t
u
O
s
s
i
Dont M

Get your submissions in soon for this years issue! Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
STRUCTURE magazine

59

August 2014

Education issuEs

core requirements and lifelong learning for structural engineers

Awakening Young Minds to Structural Engineering

By Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB and Jennifer dos Santos, Associate A.I.A., MCPPO

he process of awakening young

minds to the beauty and excitement of structural engineering is
not as complicated as one might
think. What are the necessary ingredients?
A classroom of young minds.
A cooperating school.
An engineer willing to speak to
young minds.
A classroom assistant (perhaps a parent
of one of the children).
Graphs, easily downloaded from the
web, of interesting projects.
Paper, foam board (cardboard), glue,
toothpicks, gum drops, etc.
One to 1 hours of time in the
classroom (which will be quickly
filled), an hour or two of preparation
time the evening before, and a
cooperating individual to help
prepare student gift bags filled with
materials to construct a bridge.
Young children will find almost anything
entertaining as long as there is activity.
The key is to make that activity pertinent
to their environment and tie it in some
fashion to science and engineering. The following example, we believe, achieves both
of those objectives. In this program, the
teacher had paved the way for the presentation by having the students undertake
basic research into elements of bridge construction. The classroom example was an
unnamed child walking over a brook on a
board or a log. A log supported on the bank
(buttress) of the brook becomes a bridge.
One cant be more descriptive for a young
mind than that. However, the simple bridge
allowed for an opportunity to extend basic
concepts through sketches and photographs
to real-world situations.

no need to have a professional drawing. The

kids wouldnt understand the detail in any
case. The paper in this case, 8 x 11 inches,
is used simply to illustrate the principle of
stiffness created by folding the paper. That
same piece of paper can be used to illustrate
how changing the shape of materials can
also change what they are able to do. In
this example, a sheet of paper was simply
thrown. Without surprise, it went nowhere
but down. The students were then, with
their own piece of paper, asked to fold it to
resemble that childhood paper plane that
you certainly made years ago. Much to the
authors surprise, much of the class had not
experienced making a simple paper plane.
The paper plane, when thrown, achieved

In the Classroom
In the case of our classroom example,
the real-world case experience was the
Leonard-Zakim Bridge in Boston. For the
classroom experience, it was convenient
to have a whiteboard or an easel for quick
sketches with magic markers. Remember,
you are speaking to an audience where
quick sketches are as good in their minds
as the ones they makethere is absolutely
STRUCTURE magazine

60

August 2014

a much greater distance than the plain

sheet of paper. The study was extended a
little further; with a few more folds, and
some staples in the nose of the plane to
change the aerodynamic characteristics. The
students saw how minor design changes,
using the same piece of paper, could really
improve the flight of their 777. A note of
caution, best to save this example to the
end of the classyou can speculate as to
why. That piece of paper appears later in
a hand-sketch symbolically on the white
board to illustrate how structural engineers
participate in the airplane industry. By the
time they are ready for that description,
they will have received a brief discussion
about trusses and how trusses work.
With the white board handy, the basic
elements of bridge construction (piers,
buttress, cables, tension and compression
members, etc.) can be illustrated. Prepare
ahead with simple combinations of popsicle-sticks, glue joints, or popsicle-sticks
with pin joints to illustrate the elements
of truss construction. Use the white board
to quickly describe a variety of bridges:
truss, girder, arch, cable, etc. Children
become bored easily when looking at too
much placed on a board in front of them;
therefore, intersperse your white board
activity with photographs and/or some of
the examples you have made to illustrate
concepts. We found a simple combination of toothpicks and small Styrofoam

61

August 2014

Jennifer L. dos Santos, Associate A.I.A.,

MCPPO, is an Assistant Project Manager
at CBI Consulting Inc. in Boston,
Massachusetts. Ms. dos Santos can be reached
at jdossantos@cbiconsultinginc.com.

RCHITECTS
LA

ate
or e
ab ienc
l
l
co per p
ex velo
de end
att rn
lea are
sh eet
m n
joi

PPORTUNITY

We can help you get a head start, get ahead,

get recognized, and give back.
No matter what stage of your career,
SNAME has opportunities for you.

The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers F www.sname.org

ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine

Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB, is the

Founding Principal of CBI Consulting Inc.
He also is a member of STRUCTUREs
Editorial Board. Mr. Barnes can be reached
at cbarnes@cbiconsultinginc.com.

RINE ENG
MA
I

Part of the back story in a successful presentation is the involvement of the school
and the parents. Somebody needs to put that
package together to make it appear attractive to a school. Remember, no grade-school
teacher or superintendent of a school that
I can remember will have much awareness
of structural engineering, and most of them
wont have the faintest idea of what a structural engineer does.
Also it is helpful if the children have some
prior interaction with the concepts that will be
presented. In this case, the teachers had prepared learning packages for the students which
contained vocabulary words, objectives, and
descriptions of the projects that the students
would be executing. The vocabulary primer
included words such as pier, abutment, span,
suspension, and included simple definitions.
The students were also assigned a bridge to
research on third-grade appropriate websites
(Wikipedia was not an allowable resource for
this project). The bridges included the local
Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge and the
famous Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge in Japan. Upon
completion of their research, the students had
to create an informational brochure regarding their bridge, including such information
as the Designer of the bridge, the duration of
the construction, the type of bridge (they had
to select from cable, span, suspension or arch),
the location, the year built and the question
that proved to be a bit tricky (at least for the
authors child) was to explain why this type of
bridge was selected.
Another project that the students executed
was with an assigned partner where they were
given materials in class (popsicle sticks, foam
board, tooth picks, glue, etc.) and had to

ETY OF NAV
A
CI
O

The Back Story

engineer and construct a bridge that was able

to span a certain distance and withstand the
weight of 3 cups of steel bolts. It also had to
allow cars to pass independently, without the
assistance of the students. This project was
especially enjoyable to most of the students.
In addition to the in-class bridge education,
the students also really enjoyed the class presentation. It offered them a broader exposure
to structural engineering and showed them
a number of exciting things that engineers
might work on, such as airplanes (which all
children love!) and some interesting structures
other than bridges!
There may be students in those very class
rooms that will remember this introduction
to engineering in a few years when it is time
for them to select a college major!

THE
ERS
S
NE

bridge sample on the book buttresses for

illustration purposes.

&

balls quite useful. In one case, toothpicks

and Styrofoam balls were pushed together
to form a string in front of the student.
A similar example using Styrofoam balls
and toothpicks, inserted in quick- setting glue, was used to illustrate tension
characteristics and cable analogy. Popsiclestick glue joints, prepared ahead of time,
or with the use of quick-setting glue in
class, can illustrate the difference between
rigid connections and pin connections.
Clearly, some of these concepts will be lost
because the children will not understand
the application; however, they will be able
to visualize how joints work.
In our case, the teacher required the students to write a report on their observations
of the presentation, and to describe items
of interest and what they had learned. Most
of the students were intrigued by the concept that a -inch piece of foam board
would not support a stapler (the stapler was
described as loading on the brook bridge),
versus two layers of foam board where
there was greater capacity, yet the stapler
still touched the water. Using glue, turning those two pieces of simple layers into
composite construction, the foam board
could then be a functional bridge supporting the stapler, amazing the children. I used
the foam board, the stapler, and two books
symbolizing two buttresses over our imaginary river; this illustrates that the simplest
of materials can be utilized to great benefit
in a presentation of this sort.
If you are in a program of long duration
and have sufficient time to make your
toothpick and gum-drop truss bridge, go
to it in the classroom environment. If you
dont believe you will have enough time,
prepare in advance little gift bags of the
truss with a hand sketch of what it will look
like when completed for the students to
take home. Put your preassembled gumdrop

Professional issues

issues affecting the structural engineering profession

Deferred Submittals
Part 2: When is FinalFinal?
By Dean D. Brown, S.E.

n Part 1 of this series, the importance of

proper routing review of a deferred submittal was highlighted. Pre-engineered
wood trusses were used as a case study
and, while this topic is obviously an issue
directly affecting the Engineer of Record
(EOR), it impacts the Building Official and
their ability to properly enforce the building code. We, as building designers, typically
assume building officials properly understand
their respective responsibilities and that their
adopted policies are compatible with the
engineered system. That is not always the
case and this issue has puzzled the author for
many years as he has dealt with a multitude
of Building Officials.
As a rule, we make explicit statements,
sometimes in the general notes or on the
building detail sheets that deferred submittals are to be reviewed by the EOR before
construction proceeds. In spite of these
instructions, often times the designer is not
afforded an opportunity to review Truss
Design Drawings and is forced to adjust
assumptions made during the initial design.
One can suppose contractors get busy and
forget to follow protocols. One can also
suppose many Building Officials think an
EORs involvement in the design ends once
the stamped set of construction documents
has been submitted for permit. This can be
a difficult issue to enforce, as most designers have no direct contractual link to the
contractor or the truss designer.
To satisfy his own curiosity, the author conducted a brief simple written survey of five
questions with chief Building Officials across
a relatively small state (which shall remain
anonymous and to which will be referred to as
the Survey State). The survey considered all
of the main city and county jurisdictions, and
the state was one in which the author was not
licensed. Also, pre-engineered wood trusses
are commonly used throughout the Survey
State and would be an engineered system
with which Building Officials had experience.
The main goal of the survey was to determine any common state-wide consensus (call
it standard-of-care) on review procedures
among Building Officials.
Below, the responses are summarized along
with the authors commentary.

Question 1: Are Deferred Submittals

required to be listed on contract documents
and/or on the permit application?
Responses to Question 1
Yes, Deferred Submissions are to be
listed on the contract documents and
the building permit.
Typically our city does not allow
Deferred Submittals. Deferred
Submittals are to be provided at the
time of building permit application.
Deferred Submittals are not allowed.
Commentary if deferred submittals are not
allowed, are pre-engineered wood trusses not
being used? This engineered system is commonly
used on residential and commercial projects.
How can deferred submittals be completed at
the time of building permit application?
Question 2: Does the (EOR), when stamping plans, typically provide any notation
adjacent to the stamp that the design is
Preliminary (or comparable notation)
indicating that the design needs to be later
checked by the EOR?
Responses to Question 2
When the building permit is
issued, all plan documents must be
construction ready.
Nono notation is provided
indicating that the information is
Preliminary. Any revisions to plans
would require resubmittal of changes.
Yes, a note is provided that submittal
design is for Design Purpose Only.
Commentary Construction ready implies that
the design is final. For Design Purpose Only infers
that the submitted design is an interim design.
Question 3: Are Final Deferred Submittals
provided at the time of building permit
application?
Responses to Question 3
Deferred Submittals are not allowed.
Submittals are to be provided at the
time of building permit application.
A preliminary deferred submittal
is to be submitted upon a building
permit application. Many
manufacturers will not provide P.E.
stamp on the Deferred Submittal
design until the PRODUCT has
been paid for.

STRUCTURE magazine

62

August 2014

No, the Deferred Submittal documents

are provided at the time of inspection.
Deferred Submittals are never
submitted upon building permit
application. They are listed as
a Deferred Submittal. Framing
inspections are not provided until all
the Deferred Submittal documents are
received, reviewed, and approved.
Proposed Deferred Submittal packages
are required to be submitted for
plan review, to verify loads are being
addressed. Inspections of the structure are
made from stamped Deferred Submittal
Package. There are occasional deviations
from the Preliminary vs. Final.
Commentary Regarding the 3rd bullet point,
trusses are often purchased after the building
permit has been issued and are not finalized
until a purchase order has been received from the
contractor. Anything submitted prior to this time
would be considered preliminary or proposed.
The last bullet point does verify that there can be
deviations between that of the original design
to the final design.
Question 4: How does the EOR provide
indication that they have provided (independent) Responsible Charge review of the
Deferred Submittal documents?
Responses to Question 4
EOR typically provide generic
details not stamped except for larger
commercial projects, bracing and
erection details are stamped.
EOR are responsible to provide
correct details upon submission for
building permit application and will
often use Truss Plate Institute truss
industry bracing details.
The building department does
not require independent analysis
of Deferred Submittal design (i.e.,
permanent bracing), but the EOR is
asked to make Responsible Charge
review where requirements are above
the building code minimums.
The city generally has the structural
inspector briefly review the truss
engineering and then the inspector
compares it to the structural engineers
stamped drawings. In cases where the

truss engineering doesnt appear to be

compatible or if something doesnt
seem correct, the inspector would
notify the plan reviewer and the design
professional in responsible charge
would be contacted.
Commentary The building official in the last
comment implies that the EORs review role is
completed upon building permit application.
In other words, its up to the building officials
discretion to decide when to involve the EOR,
contrary to IBC 107.3.4.2.
Question 5: For projects containing
Deferred Submittal submission, does
the EOR typically make amendment (or
changes) once they have reviewed the Truss
Submittal Package?
Responses to Question 5
No.
There are a few instances where the
EOR makes changes to the original
building design (when using a
preliminary truss design). The EOR
does review changes to the design
before submittal to building official.
The EOR is required to re-review the
original design with respect to load
bearing. Issues identified during field
inspection are brought to the attention
of the registered design professional.
Commentary How is it that in some jurisdictions there are no revisions to the Structural
Design Drawings and then in others, there are?
Disparities in these responses were alarming, given that these individuals are tasked
with enforcing the building code. A Building
Officials simple directive is to enforce the
code, provide interpretations as to the intent
of code, and to adopt policies as to the codes
application. They are not authorized to override the design intent as rendered by the EOR.
(2009 IBC, Section 104.1)
For one city surveyed (4 th question, last
bullet point), the author subsequently
informed the building department of their
deficient practice and was initially met
with push-back (i.e., no agreement with
the conclusions). The mayor was then contacted to apprise him of the situation and
he responded with, Based on a review of
the Cityadopted building code and our
current practices, we have asked all of our
building plan reviewers and inspectors to
now require that a letter be stamped by the
engineer in responsible charge indicating
that the deferred submittals from truss
manufacturers and others are in general
conformance to the design of the building before any Certificate of Occupancy
is issued.

It is obvious that there is no state-wide

consensus among Building Officials
regarding the use and review of deferred
submittals. Most of these submittals have a
direct impact on the Lateral Force Resisting
System of a building and are therefore part
of the Life/Safety mandate of the IBC and
the states Rules of Professional Practice.
This affects the practice of professional engineers (i.e., does not the practice of Building
Officials at least on this issueimpact
the professional engineer in responsible
charge duties?). Perhaps, if there has been
any ambiguity on roles and responsibilities
with engineers, it has been, in part, because
some Building Officials do not fully understand their role.
Standard-of-Care (for Professional Engineers)
in the Survey State is defined as, Each
Licensee and Certificate Holder shall perform
in accordance with the standard of care for
the profession and is under duty to the party
for whom the service is to be performed to
exercise such care, skill and diligence as others
in that profession ordinarily exercise under
like circumstances (emphasis added). Given
that practices differ from building department to building department, is standard of
care confined to local regional practices (i.e.,
city-to-city or county-to-county)? Obviously
the statute is defined for state-wide practices,
but in reality standards of practice can vary
more locally.
When it also states as others in that profession, is that what others in that state
are currently practicing or what they should
be practicing by building code and truss
industry standards?
Given the conflict that occurs among
Building Officials, this was brought to the
attention of the respective Survey States
Board of Professional Engineers. Their brief
response alarmed the author even further,
stating The Board is under no obligation
to inform a building official of any conflict.
This is so because the building official, in
and of itself, does not practice engineering.
The processes, practices, or methodology
that the building official employs regarding
plan approval for metal or wood trusses or
any other matter has nothing to do with the
practice of engineering by engineers. If there
are discrepancies in plan approvals, those
discrepancies are the policy of the building
official. Further, there was no information
that exists suggesting ... that the health,
safety or welfare was a risk due to a systematic failure of the review process. They
went on to elaborate that they did not see
any deficiencies with current state statutes
or that of building officials requirements

STRUCTURE magazine

63

August 2014

for professional engineers (i.e., the status

quo properly defines an engineers role and
responsibility). Ironically, this states regulations reads, in part, All Licensees shall at
all times recognize their primary obligation
is to protect the safety, health and welfare
of the public in the performance of their
professional duties.
If and when a city contracts with a
Professional Engineer for peer review services
(involving deferred documents), the State
Board informed the author that the engineer
is under no obligation to remedy the city
(client) plans review process or practices. If
there are discrepancies of some kind in the
plans review and approval processes, those
discrepancies are the policy of the city and
building officials and not the responsibility
of the peer review engineer.
Does not the proper practice of building
officials impact that of the professional engineer? Are not the two roles tied together? If
building officials are not properly enforcing
the review of deferred submittals, does that
not reflect on the engineering community
at large and a professional engineers responsible charge and primary obligation?
In this one case, a city mayor (who is a
non-industry individual) clearly understood
the issue with his own building department
and acted to align policy with practice. The
State Board chose to kick the can down the
road and Building Officials couldnt see the
existing problem.
As engineering professionals, we cant afford
to design within a bubble any longer. In this
age of integration, there needs to be faster and
more efficient alignment between all stakeholders. State Boards regulating Professional
Engineers need to work with Building
Officials on a state-wide basis. There needs
to be an examination as to conflicts between
state statutes and building code language.
Each states structural engineering association
would do well to lead this effort and thereby
serve their own interests.
In Part 3 of this series, the author will discuss
a specific conflict using the Survey State
as an example.
Dean D. Brown, S.E., is a Professional
Structural Engineer in the state of Utah.
He works as a senior structural engineer
for Lauren Engineers & Constructors
in Dallas, TX. He can be reached at
browndean57@yahoo.com.

INBOX

letters to the editor

Are Sustainable Structures Compactible with Common Sense?

March 2014

he March 2014 Structural Forum column baffled me.

The author has not documented the basis of his assertion
that sustainable buildings are only one percent better
than standard buildings, nor did he explain why he
ignored the energy used to run buildings even though, of the
total energy used to construct and maintain a building over its
lifetime, operation typically accounts for about half. We are left
with the somewhat self-congratulatory argument that anything an
engineer touches is better than prior designs because of increased
structural efficiencies; or perhaps that what some call sustainable
design really is not sustainable.
Its been a couple of years since the last semi-credible climate skeptic examined the evidence and said that not only was he convinced,
but things are worse than originally thought. While public agencies
are preparing for rising sea levels, more frequent droughts, etc.,
maybe we should examine the definition of common sense as well
as sustainable. Instead of designing an efficient new bridge to
widen a highway, we could replace the highway with a mass transit
system; instead of state-of-the-art and efficient McMansions, we
could design multi-family housing with equally efficient structures,
preferably using truly renewable materials.
We have enormous challenges ahead of us. LEED wont meet them
in time; that does not mean we should abandon the goal of sustainability, but rather that we should reset our entire outlook on what
we should build, and how.
Thor Matteson, S.E.
Berkeley, CA
Response from the Author
My admittedly outrageous statement that current sustainable
structures are little different from normal structures is based on the
following assumptions:
It is essential that engineers lead the way in reducing
impact on the environment and depletion of non-renewable
resources. See Building for a Sustainable Future: An Engineers
Guide, published in February 2014 by the Institution of
Structural Engineers.
My comments were limited to what engineers can do once
the decision has been made to construct something; i.e., their
normal job.
The energy used to operate buildings is not part of structural
design; also, the end of a structures life and potential for
recycling are not within the engineers control.
Structural engineering design codes, augmented by value
engineering, generally result in near-minimum-weight and
-cost structures.
For a typical large building, say 50,000 square feet, the
choice is between steel and concrete frame, with similar floor
structures. Stripped to structure only foundations, cores,
columns, beams, floor slabs there is virtually no difference,
in terms of cost, weight and embodied energy, between steel
and concrete options; rather, the differences are smaller than
STRUCTURE magazine

those that arise out

of project-specific
and commercial
circumstances the
precise sources of
construction materials,
their transport to
site, required speed
of construction,
preferences and
experience of
contractors, etc.
Many studies have
demonstrated this.
The outcome of
whole-life embodied energy calculations depends entirely on
the assumed life of the structure, which is generally arbitrary;
this always lies in the assumptions given in the small print of
such calculations.
Bill Addis, Ph.D., MCIOB
Closure
Thanks to Mr. Addis for clarifying this, and for his other contributions
toward sustainable design. His first point, that engineers should lead
the way in reducing environmental impacts, suggests that we need to
shift our approach to his other five points by influencing the following:
Deciding what we construct e.g., suburbs, exurbs, and
freeways vs. well-planned, high-density housing areas with no
need for private automobiles.
Using materials that result in lower operating energy e.g.,
steel-framed houses with poor thermal performance vs.
wood-framed.
Measuring on a per need basis, not a per square-foot basis e.g.,
the couple who asked me to design a 5,000-square-foot retirement
home, glowing about how energy-efficient it was, should have
been guided toward a much smaller home or apartment.
Thinking beyond the structural core e.g., can the structure
be adapted to future uses, or can components be easily reused
or recycled?
Designing for true resource efficiency, not just to meet artificial
goals subject to redefinition for the convenience of the owner
or design team.
Every building material sector tells you how theirs is the most sustainable to use. The truth is, unless some 7 billion other people can
build just the same way you are, and never reduce the supply of raw
materials, your building is not sustainable. The last time we practiced
truly sustainable construction was before we started mining coal. We
dont need to regress, but we definitely need to change course swiftly,
while we still can.
Thor Matteson, S.E.
Berkeley, CA

64

August 2014

letters to the editor

Vertical Turbine in an
Urban Environment
February 2014

I just came across this article in

STRUCTURE magazine. Drum turbines do have some of the best turbine
coefficients (Ct). They do produce
more efficient power then horizontal turbines in urban areas. They will
capture up to 95% of air mass going
through, while horizontal turbines at
best will capture 40% of air mass going through. But there are a few
down sides, such as: vertical assembly has weight issues, the entire assembly sits on one gear box which carries both the weight and rotation of
the turbine. And secondly, wind flows both on the force and drag side of
the turbines; blades have to be aerodynamically shaped to capture wind
on the one half and reduce drag on the other side as blades are rotating
into the wind. Bahari Energy, LLC, has developed a new technology
which overcomes all the issues with both vertical and horizontal. It is
called the Wind Tower technology. This is a game changer technology
in capturing wind energy for the urban environment.

Design Deficiencies in
Edge Barrier Walls in
Parking Structure
April 2014
Thank you for your excellent article in
STRUCTURE magazine on edge barrier walls in parking structures. We need
more of these type practical articles this
is especially important for young structural
engineers. In Figure 1, the #4 standard
hook is not developed in a six inch wall
reference CRSI Reinforcing Bars: Anchorages
and Splices. In the past twenty years or so,
I have investigated parking structure problems and found most serious structural
issues to be related to connections. Thanks
again and good luck.
Larry G. Mrazek, P.E., S.E.
Chesterfield, MO

Regards,
Habib Bahari
Rockville, MD
ADVERTISEMENTFor Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine

65

August 2014

INBOX

desig is the core

Stctral
of our business. IES allows
us to accomplish that in a
quick, productive manner.

Intuitive Software for

Structural Engineers
IES VisualAnalysis
Frame and finite element analysis.
Simple. Productive. Versatile.
Accurate results. Excellent value.

IES, Inc.

800.707.0816
info@iesweb.com

www.iesweb.com

award winners and outstanding projects

Spotlight

Recognizing Outstanding Structural Engineers

he Structural Engineering Institute

(SEI) proudly recognized the following recipients at the Structures
Congress 2014 in Boston,
Massachusetts on April 3, 2014:

Structural Engineering
Institute Awards
2014 Chapter of the Year Award
The 2014 SEI Chapter of the Year Award was
given to the SEI Philadelphia Chapter. The
Philadelphia SEI Chapter has been very active
in a variety of activities including technical
presentations, conferences, tours, student outreach events, and networking opportunities.
Gene Wilhoite Innovations in
Transmission Line Engineering Award
The Gene Wilhoite Award honors an individual
who has made significant contributions to the
advancement of the art and science of transmission line engineering. The 2014 Gene Wilhoite
Award was given to Michael Miller, P.E., P.Eng,
M.ASCE. Mr. Miller has more than 25 years of
experience in the design, analysis, and testing of
high-voltage transmission structures. Mr. Miller
is the current chair of the ASCE/SEI Electrical
Transmission Structures Committee.
Dennis L. Tewksbury Award
The Tewksbury award recognizes an SEI
member who has advanced the interests of SEI.
The 2014 award was presented to Sam Rihani,
P.E., F.SEI, F.ASCE. During his 36-year professional career, Mr. Rihani has specialized
in the structural analysis and design of steel
framing systems and buildings. Mr. Rihani
has been an active member of ASCE since
1975, serving on the Executive Committee of
the Structural Engineering Institutes Business
and Professional Activities Division, was a
member of the ASCE Technical Region Board
of Governors, and served as President of SEI
from 2011 through 2013.
Walter P. Moore, Jr. Award
This award is presented for significant contributions to the development of codes and standards.
The 2014 Walter P. Moore, Jr. Award was given
to Ronald Hamburger, S.E., SECB, F.SEI. Mr.
Hamburger has nearly 40 years of experience in
design, failure investigation, research and building code and standards development. He has
also given of his time to serve on many SEAOC,
AWS, and NCSEA committees.

SEI Presidents Award

The SEI Presidents Award recognizes exemplary contributions
to the success of SEI. The 2014
Presidents Award was given to Stan
R. Caldwell, P.E., SECB, F.AEI,
F.SEI, F.ASCE. Mr. Caldwells
Award winners (left to right): Mike Miller, Todd Helwig,
experience includes the structural Maria Pia Repetto, Sherif El-Tawil, Sam Rihani, Herbert
design and management of more Mang, Don Dusenberry, Stan Caldwell, Taka Kimura, Ron
than 800 projects over his 40 year Hamburger, Lou Geschwindner, Chia-Ming Uang, Satish
career. He has been very active in Nagarajaiah, Jennifer Goupil.
professional organizations including ASCE. Mr. Caldwell was a member of the in the September-October 2012 issue of the
SEI Board of Governors, participated in bet- Journal of Bridge Engineering.
tering the Structural Engineering Certification
Nathan M. Newmark Medal
Board, helped form the Structural Engineering
The Nathan M. Newmark Award is presented
Licensure Coalition, and helped in the creation
jointly by the Engineering Mechanics Institute
of the SEI Futures Fund.
and Structural Engineering Institute for
outstanding contributions in structural engiAmerican Society of Civil
neering and mechanics. The 2014 medal was
Engineering Structural Awards awarded to Herbert A. Mang, Ph.D., F.ASCE.
A 40 year ASCE member, Dr. Mang has made
Shortridge Hardesty Award
outstanding research contributions in the area
The Shortridge Hardesty Award may be given of nonlinear continuum and computational
annually to individuals who have contributed mechanics that clarified the cause of collapse
substantially in applying fundamental results of of important concrete structures and quantiresearch in the field of structural stability. The fied the influence of bending on the initial
2014 award was given to Todd Helwig, Ph.D., post-buckling behavior of metallic structures.
P.E., M.ASCE. Dr. Helwig is currently in his
Raymond C. Reese Research Prize
20th year of teaching and conducting research in
The Raymond C. Reese Research Prize is
the design and behavior of steel structures with
awarded for a paper published by ASCE that
an emphasis in structural stability and bracing.
presents structural engineering research that
Ernest E. Howard Award
can be applied to design. The 2014 prize was
The Ernest E. Howard Award recognizes an presented to Maria Pia Repetto, Ph.D., and
ASCE member who has made contributions to Giovanni Solari, Ph.D., P.E., F.EMI, M.ASCE,
the advancement of structural engineering. The for their paper titled Closed-Form Prediction
2014 award was given to Louis Geschwindner, of the Alongwind-Induced Fatigue of
Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE. Dr. Geschwindner was Structures, published in the September 2012
a faculty member at Penn State for more than issue of the Journal of Structural Engineering.
40 years. He has published books on structural
George Winter Award
analysis and structural steel design, and is active
Candidates for the George Winter award
in writing and presenting continuing education
must be highly accomplished civil engineers
programs for the American Institute of Steel
who are also proficient in the arts or have
Construction (AISC).
made social contributions to the community.
Moisseiff Award
Armen Der Kiureghian, Ph.D, M.ASCE, was
The Moisseiff Award recognizes a paper con- presented with the 2014 award in recognition
tributing to structural design, including applied of his contributions to structural engineering,
mechanics, as well as the theoretical analysis or painting, and humanitarian work. Dr. Der
construction improvement of structures. The Kiureghians research deals with development
2014 award was presented to Hyoung-Bo Sim, and application of probabilistic methods to
Ph.D., and Chia-Ming Uang, for the paper solve civil engineering problems. Dr. Der
titled Stress Analyses and Parametric Study on Kiureghian was fundamental in the creation
Full-Scale Fatigue Tests of Rib-to-Deck Welded of The American University of Armenia
Joints in Steel Orthotropic Decks, published (AUA) and is an accomplished painter.

STRUCTURE magazine

67

August 2014

GINEERS

ASS
O NS

STRUCTU

OCIATI

RAL

EN

COUNCI L

NCSEA News

News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

NATIONAL

State NCSEA SEER Programs Assist with Disaster Evaluations

All too often after a disaster, affected communities are left on their
own to struggle with assessing damage and determining whether
buildings can be safely reoccupied. When evaluations are not performed in a rapid fashion by properly qualified individuals, residents
can and most likely will reoccupy potentially unsafe buildings.
The key to adequately evaluating the extent of damage to a community and keeping residents from occupying unsafe structures
is to ensure that sufficient numbers of qualified 2nd responders
exist to rapidly and appropriately perform building damage
evaluations. In an effort to help, NCSEAs State SEER programs
are taking the lead on compiling lists of engineers trained and
qualified to provide post-disaster structure condition evaluations.

Background

For the last 25 years, engineers and a hand full of architects

have been serving as Structures Specialists (1st responders) on
FEMA and State Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) teams.
Structures Specialists are a select group of highly trained first
responders working with FEMA and State US&R teams spread
throughout the US.
More recently, in the wake of numerous widespread natural
disasters, two organizations have begun training 2nd responders to work with communities dealing with disasters. These 2nd
responders are design professionals and code officials trained
to perform post-disaster structure condition evaluations to
National Incident Management System (NIMS) standards.
The goal of NCSEAs State SEER programs is to locate and
compile lists of these 2nd responder engineers so that they can
be made available to Emergency Operations Managers, Building
Officials and community leaders dealing with disasters.

Training Programs

The International Code Council (ICC) and the California Office

of Emergency Services (CalOES) have developed recognized
2nd responder training programs. Based in part on ATCs 20 &
45 manuals, these training programs also include concepts of
operations and operating in disaster environments.
The ATC 20, titled: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of
Buildings is a widely accepted standard for post earthquake
safety review and tagging of structures. The ATC 20 was utilized
in the wake of the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge
California earthquakes.
The ATC 45, titled: Safety Evaluation of Buildings after
Windstorms and Floods was developed for the purpose of evaluating damage to buildings resulting from hurricanes, tornadoes
and floods. This manual was developed in part based on the
success of the ATC 20 and in response to the hurricanes of the
1990s, which included Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Fran,
and Hurricane Iniki.
STRUCTURE magazine

68

Currently, these documents serve as the basis for ICCs Disaster

Response Inspector (DRI) program and CalOESs Evaluator and
Coordinator training programs. NCSEAs Structural Engineers
Emergency Response (SEER) plan is also based in part on
these manuals.

Credentialing Efforts

While comprehensive, the ICC and CalOES programs are only

one of the criteria that exist to participate as a 2nd responder.
A credentialing process is being developed at a national level
through NIMS whereby properly qualified, trained and experienced volunteers can become certified. Having adopted this
national credentialing model, The Florida Structural Engineers
Associations SEER programs have developed a summary of the
qualifications required of 2nd responding professionals. The basic
affiliation and training requirements of the Florida program
can be found on the NCSEA website under both the SEER
Committee page and under Resources/Emergency Response.
To further expand the number of qualified 2nd responders, the
NCSEA SEER committee is working with other stakeholders
(ASCE, AIA, APWA, ICC, CalOES and FEMA) on a publicsector-driven certification program to validate and database
the qualifications of individuals who wish to comply with
the FEMA/National Incident Management System (NIMS)
Resource Typing for Structure Condition Evaluators. This
Resource Typing is essentially a performance specification
for assets (personnel and equipment) that may be requested
by a municipality following a disaster. The specific Resource
Type that this Certification will address is posted at www.
fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1918-25045-1327/
structureconditionevaluator.pdf

Getting Involved

To participate you need to be rostered, and to become rostered

you need to be trained. To obtain training you can contact: ICC
at www.iccsafe.org/Education/Courses/Pages/default.aspx,
CalOES at www.calema.ca.gov/trainingandexercises/pages/
training.aspx or FEMA at https://training.fema.gov/IS/
NIMS.aspx. NCSEA also provides this training in the spring
and fall as a full day of webinars. Following completion of your
training, please register at the NCSEA SEER database homepage
www.ncsea-seer.com/ in order to receive information regarding upcoming deployment opportunities and training updates.
For more information on becoming rostered as a resource
to Emergency Operations Managers, Building Officials and
community leaders, please contact your States NCSEA SEER
program coordinator.
William C. Bracken, P.E., S.I., President of Bracken
Engineering, Florida, is licensed in 33 states as a professional
engineer, is a Special Inspector in Florida, serves as Vice-Chair
on Floridas Board of Professional Engineers and serves as a
member of NCSEAs Structural Engineers Emergency Response Committee.
He is also certified as a FEMA/USACE StS2, an ICC DR Inspector and
a CalOES Evaluator and Coordinator.
Scott G. Nacheman, MSc.Eng., AIA, is a Vice President in the
Chicago office of J.S. Held. He is Chair of NCSEAs Structural
Engineers Emergency Response Committee as well as a Structures
Specialist with FEMA Urban Search and Rescue, State of
Illinois US&R and MABAS Technical Rescue. He is certified as a FEMA/
USACE StS2 and CalOES Evaluator and Trainer.

August 2014

8:00 - 5:00
8 a.m. - 12 p.m.
5:30 - 6:30 p.m.
6:30 - 8:30 p.m.

Committee Meetings
NCSEA Board of Directors meeting
Young Engineer Reception
SECB Reception

Friday, September 19

Visit www.ncsea.com for more details!

Register & reserve your hotel room today!

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

8:00 - 10:00
Member Organization Reports
8:00 - 10:00
Vendor Product Presentations
10:30 - 12:00 Student to Teacher Gaining

Competency after the University, a panel

discussion led by the NCSEA Young Member
Thursday, September 18

Group Support Committee
8:00 a.m.
Welcome & Introduction
1:00
Trade Show closes
8:15 9:45
Keynote: Prepare Your Practice Why
1:00 - 1:45
The Most Common Errors in Wind

Your Strategic Plan is Doomed to Fail,

Design & How to Avoid Them, Emily

Kelly Riggs, President, Vmax Performance Group
Guglielmo, S.E., Associate, Martin/Martin
9:45 - 10:45
Prepare for the Future - Where Codes
1:45 - 2:30
The Most Common Errors in Seismic

& Standards are Heading, NCSEA

Design & How to Avoid Them, Tom

Code Advisory Committee

Heausler, P.E., S.E., Heausler Structural
11:00 - 12:00 Prepare for the Unthinkable

Engineers, member of ASCE 7 Seismic

Designing Buildings for Tornadoes,

Provisions Committee

Bill Coulbourne, P.E., Director of Wind &
3:00 - 4:00
Practical HSS Design with the Latest

Flood Hazard Mitigation, Applied

Codes & Standards, Kim Olson, P.E.,

Technology Council

Technical Advisor, Steel Tube Institute and
1:00 - 2:15
A. ACI 562 Building Code for Repair

Structural Engineer, FORSE Consulting

of Existing Concrete Structures,
4:00 - 5:00
Practical Steel Connection Software
Concurrent
Keith Kesner, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., Senior Associate,
Design Using 2010 AISC Standard,
Sessions:
WDP & Associates, Chair of ACI 562

Steve Ashton, P.E., SECB, Principal,

B. Wind Engineering Beyond the Code,
Ashton Engineering & Detailing, SDS/2

Roy Denoon, Ph.D., CPP Wind Engineering

Engineering Representative for Design Data
Consultants
6:00 - 7:00
Awards Reception (formal attire encouraged)
3:00 - 4:00
A. 2012 National Design Specification
7:00 - 10:00
NCSEA Banquet & Awards Presentation,

for Wood Construction Overview,

featuring the NCSEA Excellence in

Michelle Kam-Biron, P.E., S.E., SECB,

Structural Engineering Awards and the

M.ASCE, Director of Education, American
NCSEA Special Awards
Concurrent
Wood Council
Saturday, September 20
Sessions:
B. Three Diverse Adaptive Reuse/
8:00 - 12:00
NCSEA Annual Business Meeting
Renovations, Bill Bast, P.E., S.E., SECB,
12:30 - 2:00
NCSEA Board of Directors Meeting

Principal, Thornton Tomasetti
4:00 - 5:00
A. AISI Standard & Tech Notes,

Vince Sagan, Chairman, P.E., Cold-Formed
NCSEA Webinars
Concurrent
Steel Engineers Institute
Sessions:
B. High Roller Observation Wheel,
August 19, 2014

Jason Krolicki, ARUP San Francisco
Parking Garage Repairs: Identification, Evaluation, the
6:30 - 8:30
Welcome Reception on Trade Show floor
Process, and the Repair
David Flax, Euclid Chemical Co.

NCSEA News

Wednesday, September 17

August 26, 2014

Principles of Ground Movement Design
James Hussin, P.E., Director, Hayward Baker, Inc.
October 2, 2014
The AISC Direct Analysis Method
Dr. Leroy Emkin, Ph.D., P.E.
Logos, credits, time, etc.

GINEERS

STRUCTURE magazine

69

July 2014

O NS

NATIONAL

OCIATI

RAL

EN

ASS

NCSEA offers three options for NCSEA webinar registration: Ala Carte,
Flex-Plan, and Yearly Subscription. Visit www.ncsea.com for more
information or call 312.649.4600.

STRUCTU

Platinum Sponsors:

COUNCI L

Electrical Transmission & Substation Structures Conference 2015

Structural Columns

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Call for Abstracts Closes September 10, 2014

The conference will provide a forum for transmission and substation engineers to exchange ideas, concepts, and philosophies,
while providing new engineers with the opportunity to learn
more about the art and science specific to transmission lines and
structures, substation structures, and foundation engineering.
The Conference Steering Committee is currently accepting
abstracts of papers to be presented in technical sessions, with
case studies strongly encouraged. A poster session format may
also be provided.
Visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/SEI for more information and to submit your proposal. All proposals are due
September 10, 2014.

ASCE-171 ETS2015 CONFERENCE WEB/EMAIL BANNERS

E
T
&
S
C

ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
& SUBSTATION STRUCTURES
CONFERENCE 2015

B
S

180x150px B

Branson, Missouri
September 27- October 1

ELE
TRA
&S
STR
CO

Bran
Sep

Grid Modernization Technical

Challenges & Innovative Solutions

150x130px B

625x352px (Institute Homepage Slideshow)

Update to Design and

Construction of Frost-Protected
Shallow Foundations Standards

ELECTRICAL T
& SUBSTATIO
CONFERENCE

ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
& SUBSTATION STRUCTURES
CONFERENCE 2015
Branson, Missouri

| September 27- October 1

Branson, Missouri

Grid Modernization T

300x75px Banner M

Grid Modernization Technical Challenges & Innovative Solutions

400x100px ASCE Weekly News Banner

ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
& SUBSTATION STRUCTURES
CONFERENCE 2015
Branson, Missouri

ELECTRICAL TRA
STRUCTUR

Branson, Mis

300x75px Banner M

| September 27- October 1

Grid Modernization Technical Challenges & Innovative Solutions

ASCE is seeking members to update existing SEI/ASCE

Standard 32-01, Design and Construction of Frost-Protected
Shallow Foundations. The intent of the standard is to address the
design and construction of frost-protected shallow foundations
in areas subject to seasonal ground freezing.
This Standard includes foundation insulation requirements
to protect heated and unheated buildings from frost heave
presented in easy-to-follow steps with reference to design tables,
climate maps, and other necessary data to furnish a complete
frost-protection design. The intended outcomes of the application of this standard include improved construction efficiency
over conventional practices, increased energy efficiency, minimized site disturbance, and enhanced frost protection.
Interested parties may submit an application at www.asce.org/
codes-standards/applicationform/ to join this new committee
by August 23, 2014. For more information, please contact James
Neckel at jneckel@asce.org, Codes and Standards Coordinator.

600x100px Email Banner

SELC Website Launched

The Structural Engineering Licensure Coalition has launched
a new website covering all aspects of the initiative. Featured
on the site are case studies and presentations that make the
argument for licensure. In addition, there is a calendar of
events, relevant news articles, and the status of SE licensure by
state. Visit the website at www.selicensure.org/ to learn more.

2014 Ammann Fellowship Winners and Call for Nominations

In 2014 the SEI Technical Activities Division Executive
Committee awarded five O.H. Ammann Research Fellowships
in Structural Engineering. SEI continues to receive an increasing number of high-quality applications each year. This years
winners are:
Mahdi Arezoumandi, Missouri University of Science
and Technology
Donna Chen, University of Calgary
Julie Fogarty, University of Michigan
Adam Richard Phillips, Virginia Tech
Ravi Kiran Yellavajjala, University of Notre Dame
See the SEI website at www.asce.org/SEI for more information
about the winners and their research.
STRUCTURE magazine

70

The O. H. Ammann Research Fellowship in Structural

Engineering is awarded annually to a member or members of
ASCE or SEI for the purpose of encouraging the creation of
new knowledge in the field of structural design and construction. All members or applicants for membership are eligible.
Applicants will submit a description of their research, an essay
about why they chose to become a structural engineer, and their
academic transcripts.
This fellowship award is at least $5,000 and can be up to
$10,000. The deadline for 2015 Ammann applications is
November 1, 2014.
For more information and to fill out the online application
visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/SEI.
August 2014

The SEI Professional Activities Committee (PAC) is currently

seeking membership applicants for this important national committee. The PAC works on initiatives, policies and tasks focusing
on structural licensing, regulation, and professional development.
If you are interested in communicating with professionals throughout engineering and related fields, or working behind the scenes
in developing supporting documentation, visit the SEI website at
www.asce.org/sei/join-business-and-professional-activities/
to apply.

The ASCE Committee on Cold-Formed Members is co-organizing the 2014 International Student Competition on Cold-Formed
Steel Design. The competition promotes higher education in
cold-formed steel structural design and encourages students to
use creative thinking skills to solve engineering problems. Please
encourage full time students (high school through graduate
degrees) to participate. Submissions are due by September 30,
2014 and the top prize is $600. See the competition website at
http://cfscompetition.unt.edu for more information.

Call for 2015 SEI/ASCE Award Nominations

Nominations are being sought for the 2015 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, 2014 with most deadlines falling
on November 1, 2014.
Visit the ASCE Awards and Honors page at www.asce.org/leadership-and-management/awards/ for more information
and nomination procedures. See the Spotlight on page [67] to read about the 2014 honorees.

Second ATC-SEI Conference

Improving the Seismic Performance of
Existing Buildings and Other Structures
December 10-12, 2015
Hyatt Regency San Francisco
Call for abstracts and session proposals will open in Fall of 2014.

Geotechnical & Structural

Engineering Congress 2016
February 14-17, 2016
Phoenix, AZ
Special Joint Event: The 2016 congress will feature a total of
15 concurrent tracks: 5 tracks will be on traditional GI topics,
5 tracks on traditional SEI topics, and 5 tracks on joint topics.
In addition, we will be offering interactive poster presentations
within these tracks. Call for abstracts and session proposals
will open on October 15, 2014.

First International Conference

on Sustainable Infrastructure Call for Speakers on Technical
Join ASCE for the inaugural International Conference on
Sustainable Infrastructure 2014 in Long Beach, California
November 6-8, 2014. The full conference program includes
short courses, special events with riveting keynote speakers, and a technical tour. It promises to be an event you will
not want to miss. Visit the conference website to learn more
http://content.asce.org/conferences/icsi2014/.

Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our publications at
www.asce.org/SEI. Click on Publications on our menu, and
select Errata. If you have any errata that you would like to
submit, please email it to Paul Sgambati at psgambati@asce.org.

STRUCTURE magazine

Topics for SEI Local Group Events

Share your technical knowledge and expertise with local SEI
Chapters, Graduate Student Chapters, and Structural Technical
Groups. The SEI Speaker Bureau Committee is looking for
experienced structural engineering professionals (consulting or
academic) to give presentations on technical topics to SEI local
groups. The Committee is seeking to expand its resource list of
qualified speakers willing to give technical presentations on a
voluntary basis, and make the list available to SEI local groups
via their SEI e-room. If you would like to be included on the
Speaker Bureau resource list, please complete the online form
at www.asce.org/speakers-bureau/.
Potential speakers are welcome to approach their local
SEI Chapter/Technical Group directly to give a technical
presentation. Any solicitation for personal or business gain
is strictly discouraged.

71

August 2014

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Save the Dates

Structural Columns

Professional Activities Committee Student Competition on ColdCall for New Members

Formed Steel Design

CASE in Point

The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers

CASE Contracts Now Available!

CASE #14B Standard Form for Request For
Information (RFI)

CASE #16 An Agreement Between Client and

Structural Engineer for a Structural Condition Assessment

The purpose of this document is to provide the design team

with a standard Request for Information (RFI) form that can
be included in the bid documents and used by all contractors
and subcontractors on the project.

The purpose of this Document is to provide a sample Agreement

for structural engineers to use when providing a structural condition assessment directly to a client. Examples are earthquake
evaluation, seismic retrofitting, fire or wind damage, changes
in occupancy or historic preservation.

CASE #15 Commentary on AIA Document A201

General Conditions of the Contract for Construction,
1997 Edition

You can purchase all CASE products

at www.booksforengineers.com.

The purpose of this Commentary is to point out sections and

paragraphs of AIA document A-201 which, in the opinion
of CASE, merit special attention, or which other reviewers
have found to contain pitfalls. (See also CASE Contract
Document 6.)

Follow ACEC Coalitions on

Twitter @ACECCoalitions.

Member Firm CEOs to Forecast 2015 at

ACEC Fall Conference in Hawaii, October 2225
Three leading Member Firm CEOs will provide their forecasts
of the 2015 business environment for engineering firms during
the ACEC Fall Conference in Waikoloa, Hawaii, October 22-25.
On the panel will be Jon Carlson, CEO, Braun Intertec Corp.,
Minneapolis; William Siegel, president/CEO, Kleinfelder, San
Diego; and Donald Stone, CEO, Dewberry, Fairfax, Va.
Also speaking at the Conference will be Business Stategist Erik
Wahl, Political Analyst Charlie Cook, FERC Commissioner
Tony Clark and a panel on Opportunities in Booming Energy
Markets featuring Larson Engineerings Steve Bakken, Pennoni
Associates CEO Tony Bartolomeo, and Freese and Nichols
Principal Kendall King.
The Conference also features more than three dozen bottomline-focused educational sessions; CEO roundtables; exclusive

CFO and CIO tracks; the CASE Convocation; and numerous

ACEC coalition, council, and forum events.
For more information and to register, http://conf.acec.org/.

WANTED

Engineers to Lead, Direct, and Get Involved with CASE Committees!

If youre looking for ways to expand and strengthen your business skillset, look no further than serving on one (or more!)
CASE Committees. Join us to sharpen your leadership skills
promote your talent and expertise to help guide CASE
programs, services, and publications.
We have two committees ready for your service:
Contracts Committee: Responsible for developing and
maintaining contracts to assist practicing engineers with
risk management.
Toolkit Committee: Develops and maintains documents
such as business practices manuals and policies for
engineers under CASEs Ten Foundations for Risk
Management.

STRUCTURE magazine

72

Expectations and Requirements

To apply, you should
be a current member of the Council of American
Structural Engineers (CASE)
be able to attend the groups two face-to-face meetings
per year: August, February (hotel, travel reimbursable)
be available to engage with the working group via email
and conference call
have some specific experience and/or expertise to
contribute to the group
Please submit the following information to htalbert@acec.org
Letter of interest
Brief bio (no more than 2 paragraphs)
Thank you for your interest in contributing to your professional association!
August 2014

CASE in Point

ACEC Business Insights

20 th Senior Executives Institute
Class Now Open for Registration
For 20 years, ACEC has offered the premier executive leadership
course designed specifically for the A/E/C community the
ACEC Senior Executives Institute (SEI). SEI is an intensive
18-month program taught by recognized experts and instructors from The Brookings Institution, national universities and
business consulting organizations. The classes meet for five
separate four or five-day sessions.
The next class, SEI Class 20, is now open for registration and
will begin in September, 2014.
For more information, contact Dee McKenna, Deputy
Director, ACEC Business Resources & Education Department,
at dmckenna@acec.org or 202-347-7474.

October 22-25 ACEC is holding its Fall Conference at the Waikoloa Hilton Village, Hawaii. CASE will be holding a convocation on Thursday, October 23rd. Sessions include:
Addressing Hidden Risks in Todays Design Contracts Brian Stewart, Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart; James Schwartz, Beazley;
Rob Hughes, Ames & Gough
The Five Commandments of A&E Risk Dan Buelow, Willis A/E
Learning from the Past, Ready for the Future: Managing the Emerging and Enduring Risks of Professional Practice Karen Erger, Lockton

Upcoming ACEC Online Seminars September

Seize the Day! Strategies for
Email Success

Tuesday, September 2, 2014; 1:30pm to 3:00pm Eastern

The Average person can spend up to 40% of their eight hour
work day sending and receiving up to 200 messages a day!
Some reports say people at work check their email and average
of 35 times an hour!
Its no wonder that many of us always feel behind on projects
and struggle to finish our work in a typical work day! Wouldnt
you like to have some of that time back in your day? Everyone
can benefit from learning to control and manage email to
improve productivity.
This lively, interactive presentation provides strategies and
solutions to boost productivity and efficiency with your email
system and practices. Youll walk away with tips you can use
the same day as the training. Participants will:
Learn how to minimize email overload
Improve your inbox management skills
Develop more realistic response times
Learn tips and trick to utilize email more efficiently
and effectively
Learn productive email etiquette strategies
You can register for these and other
ACEC online seminars at
www.acec.org/acecmainsite/education/webinars.

STRUCTURE magazine

Find the Lost Dollars: 6 Steps to

Increase Profits in Architecture and
Engineering Firms

Wednesday, September 3, 2014; 1:30pm to 3:00pm Eastern

Learn to get the most from people, processes and technology
to gain a competitive edge and increase your firms profitability.
This session will provide valuable best practices and advice that
will show you how to improve your firms performance and
prepare the firms future leaders to successfully take the reins.

Legal Issues Unique to Design-Build

Wednesday, September 10, 2014; 1:30pm to 3:00pm Eastern

Everyone knows that design-build and EPC projects are different
from traditional construction, but very few people can identify
and understand the differences. In this program, nationally
noted design-build expert, Mark Friedlander, will identify and
describe the business and legal issues that make design-build
and EPC projects unique. In simple language, with no legalese,
he will explain how the standard of care, change orders and
warranties are different in design-build and EPC jobs, and
will describe how the legal and business relationships among
the parties change when the Engineer and Contractor form a
design-build team. As part of the presentation, he will teach the
participants how to prepare and negotiate design-build teaming
agreements with contractors, and provide a checklist of issues
that need to be discussed and resolved.

73

August 2014

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

CASE Convocation at the ACEC Fall Conference

Structural Forum

opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers

Certification as a Bridge to Structural Licensure

By Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E., SECB

s an engineer, I believe that our

highest obligation is to provide
for the public welfare. Most
jurisdictions and many professional societies express this obligation in their
laws, rules or bylaws. In keeping with this,
the NCSEA Structural Licensure Committee
believes that the public would be better protected by establishing structural licensure in all
jurisdictions legislation requiring a licensed
Structural Engineer to be in responsible charge
for the design of significant structures.
It will probably take several years of diligent
work to achieve this goal, particularly when
faced with opposition and ambivalence. In
a previous article (Opposition to Structural
Licensure, STRUCTURE, January 2014),
I explored some reasons for such resistance.
In the interim, prior to achieving our goal,
should we be content with the status quo? No.
We have the option to take affirmative action
through professional certification.
Certification is a process used by many
professions to recognize proficiency within a
specific field. Medical doctors might be the
most familiar profession that extensively uses
certification. Generally, states license doctors
to practice medicine without designating a
particular area of practice. The American
Board of Medical Specialties certifies doctors in one or more of 37 specialties and 132
subspecialties. Since its inception in 1933, it
has become the accepted standard for doctors
to demonstrate their capabilities. Project managers and program managers may choose to
seek one of six different certifications available
through the Project Management Institute.
For environmental engineers, the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers and
Scientists offers nine different engineering
certifications, and the American Society of
Civil Engineers offers certification in three
areas: water resources; coastal, port and ocean
engineering; and geotechnical engineering.
These are all instances where practitioners
have taken it upon themselves to establish,
administer and promote professional certification for the benefit of their clients and
profession. Along these lines, structural engineers have two options available: the NCEES
MLSE designation and SECB certification.

Members of the National Council of

Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
(NCEES) are from the licensing boards of
the 50 states plus the District of Columbia,
Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.
NCEES develops, administers and scores engineering and surveying licensing examinations.
Its unique membership gives it the status to
make recommendations to the jurisdictions,
and it publishes model laws and rules for their
consideration. Additionally, its Standard for
Licensure as a Model Law Structural Engineer
provides structural engineers with the option,
for their records, to indicate compliance
with the standard. Although the Model Law
Structural Engineer (MLSE) designation does
not actually grant licensure in any jurisdiction, it may speed the process since many of
its requirements parallel state requirements.
Additionally, MLSE designation is likely to
aid in obtaining a structural license in jurisdictions that choose to adopt one in the future.
Briefly, to obtain the MLSE designation, a
candidate must:
Hold an active NCEES Record;
Obtain a degree from an EAC/ABETaccredited program including at least
18 semester hours of structural analysis
and design, at least nine of which are in
structural design;
Pass the NCEES FE exam;
Pass 16 hours of qualifying structural
engineering licensure exams;
o NCEES 16-hour Structural exam
o NCEES Structural II and another
NCEES Structural exam (prior to
January 1, 2011)
o A 16-hour, state-written exam (prior
to January 1, 2004)
o NCEES Structural II and an eighthour, state-written exam
Complete four years of structural
engineering work; and
Maintain a record free of disciplinary action.
More information about the MLSE designation is available at www.NCEES.org.
In 2003, NCSEA established the independent Structural Engineering Certification Board
(SECB) to provide the public with a means
to identify qualified structural engineers based
on a common national standard. Similar to

certification bodies in other professions, SECB

does not grant licenses to practice structural
engineering. However, it does promote a
common standard that carries more weight as
the ranks of SECB-certified engineers grow.
Similar to licensure, certification is based on
education and examination, with experience also
taken into account. An abridged summary of the
SECB certification requirements is as follows:
Successful completion of one or more
specific exam combinations totaling 16
hours or more; and
Attainment of a B.S. degree in an
engineering discipline with no less than
36 semester hours in six of nine subjects
significant to structural engineering.
As with many professional licenses, maintaining SECB certification requires continuing
professional development though education
or other professional activities; 15 hours are
required annually. A more complete discussion of the requirements is available at
www.secertboard.org.
Although structural licensure is not yet established in many jurisdictions, certification is
an avenue for us to demonstrate our commitment to protecting the public. By obtaining,
displaying and discussing these certifications,
we can raise the profile of our profession and
work towards the goal of structural licensure.
Special Opportunity
For a limited time, normal SECB exam
requirements are waived for NCSEA and
SEI members who are licensed professional
engineers practicing structural engineering. The license must have been awarded
on or before July 1, 2005 and must have
remained valid continuously through the
time of application. In addition, the application fee is reduced from $350 to $200.
Timothy M. Gilbert, P.E., S.E., SECB
(TGilbert.PE@gmail.com), is a Project
Specialist with TimkenSteel in Canton,
Ohio. He is also a member of the NCSEA
Structural Licensure Committee, and a
Director and the Licensure Committee
chair for the Structural Engineers
Association of Ohio (SEAoO).
A similar article was published in the
SEAoO Newsletter (January, 2014).
Content reprinted with permission.

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

74

August 2014