STRUCTURE A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

August 2011 Steel

Special Section
Engineering Software
 Version 2.0
Now Includes
Adhesive Anchoring

The newly updated Powers Design Assist

(PDA V2.0) anchor design interface puts technical
data into a dynamic real-time environment to
better help you visualize, consider and specify
anchors in todays changing engineering climate.
PDAs simple but unique dashboard allows for
anchor design in just minutes using 5 easy steps.
The user has the ability to create and modify
a 3D model of the project combined with
real-time calculation results in accordance
with ACI 318 Appendix D. The software offers
several choices of post-installed mechanical
and adhesive anchors as well as cast-in-place POWERFUL NEW
INTERFACE FOR
anchor solutions. Supporting approvals, listings, REAL-TIME SOLUTIONS
datasheets, etc. are easily accessed in the
software library and can be attached to
detailed project results.

POWERS OFFERS
THE MOST CODE
LISTED PRODUCTS

PDA Improved and modernized dashboard features include:

Design of adhesive anchors in addition to mechanical anchors and
cast-in-place anchors (CIP)
3 new adhesive anchor systems and 3 new mechanical anchors now
included, with additional systems to come
User can design using 3 versions of ACI 318 Appendix D:
2008, 2005 or 2002 versions
New library function allows user to access all
UPDATED needed documents without leaving PDA
FREE PDA
SOFTWARE!
REGISTER TODAY AT:
www.powersdesignassist.com Powers
AND RECEIVE A FREE GYM BAG New 2011
A/E Manual
Coming Soon!
Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com
2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300
Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
 28
FEATURES
The Japan Tohuku Tsunami
CONTENTS August 2011
By Gary Chock, S.E.
On March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake
generated a tsunami of unprecedented height and spatial
extent along the coast of the main island of Honshu. The COLUMNS
ASCE Tsunami Reconnaissance Team visited the Tohoku
7 Editorial
coast in mid-April. This article presents some of the Teams
NCSEA Conference
observations relevant to structural engineers. By James Malley, S.E.
8 Codes and Standards
30 Engineering an Icon Part 2 Structural Implications of Energy
By Patrick McCafferty, P.E., Daniel Brodkin, P.E., Codes for Steel Framing
David Farnsworth, P.E. and David Scott, P.E. By Mark Nowak and
This is the second of two articles discussing the structural Jay Crandell, P.E.
engineering design of the Marina Bay Sands Integrated 13 Outside the Box
Resort. Part of a bold new development initiative within Cold-Formed Steel Bridge
Singapores Marina Bay district, the resort encompasses Trusses Provide Material
nearly 10 million square feet of mixed-use development and Handling Solution
features three 55-story luxury hotel towers. By Sowri Rajan, P.E.
and Troy Lutgens
16 Structural Specifications
39 Engineering Software The Lost Specifications Section
Special By Larry Kahaner By Renee Doktorczyk, AIA
Section Software companies are making sure that they remain 18 Just the FAQs
competitive as the economy improves and projects again Changing Masonry Standards
take shape. Competition is keen, as end user firms are Part 2
consolidating and many structural engineers have started 20 Technology
firms after being let go by larger companies during the Structural Engineer-to-Steel
downturn. Businesses are doing their best to accommodate Fabricator Model Sharing
customers software needs. By Thomas A. Faraone, P.E.
24 Historic Structures
DEPARTMENTS Lattice Configurations
By David Guise
34 Quality Assurance Corner 51 Spotlight
ASTM A615 Grade 75 Saving Millions While Preserving
Reinforcing Steel
By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E.
a Vital Local and National Asset
By Raymond Pugliesi
IN EVERY ISSUE
36 InSights and Michael Allen 6 Advertiser Index
Architectural Coatings for 58 Structural Forum
47 Resource Guide
Structural Concrete Missing from the Checklist on the
By Michael Winge Safety of Nuclear Structures (Software)
By Mohammed Ettouney, Ph.D. 52 NCSEA News

STRUCTURE

ON THE COVER 54 SEI Structural Columns

The Deception Pass Bridge near Anacortes, WA. This 900-foot long,
Special Section: Engineering Software 56 CASE in Point
three-span bridge was built in 1936 and spans the Deception Pass
waterway between Whidbey and Fidalgo Islands. The truss members
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

are constructed using built-up sections, with combinations of chan-

nels and plates fastened together with rivets. Like many other bridges
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement
August 2011 Steel in the US, this bridge recently underwent a survey to study the con- in STRUCTURE magazine does not constitute
dition of the existing connections. Photo by Greg Schindler, KPFF endorsement by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or
Consulting Engineers. Please see the Historic Structures column, in the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and
advertisers retain sole responsibility for the content
this issue, for an article on the development of the American metal lattice truss bridge. of their submissions.

STRUCTURE magazine 5 August 2011

 Advertiser index PleAse suPPort these Advertisers
AceCad Software ................................... 44 CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 26 Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2
AZZ Galvanizing .................................. 33 Design Data .......................................... 38 RISA Technologies ................................ 59
Bentley Systems, Inc. ............................. 41 Devco.................................................... 42 S-Frame Software, LLC ........................... 4
Canadian Wood Council ....................... 45 Fyfe Co. LLC ........................................ 35 SidePlate Systems, Inc. .......................... 37
Cold-Formed Steel Engineers Institute .. 14 GT STRUDL........................................ 46 Simpson Strong-Tie......................... 11, 27
Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 60 The IAPMO Group............................... 21 StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. ......................... 3
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 40 StructurePoint ....................................... 43
Irvine Institute of Technology.................. 6 Struware, Inc. ........................................ 32
IRVINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ITW TrusSteel Division......................... 17 Valmont Tubing .................................... 19
C.V. Chelapati, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
PE/SE License Seminars Webcast Nationwide/Worldwide KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 10
Guaranteed Pass or 1 year of free archives
NCEES ................................................. 12
Advertising Account MAnAger
NCEES, SE Vertical, SE Lateral 16 hour
Also PE (Civil), PEME, PEEE (Power), PEEE (Computer), PEEE (Electr), PE (Env), Nemetschek Scia ................................... 49
P (949) 585-9137 Surveying (FS, PS), PMP, Contracts and Legal, CA Seismic
and CA Survey
New Millennium Building Systems ....... 23
F (949) 585-9126 www.irvine-institute.org
Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
editorial Board Eastern Sales
847-854-1666
Western Sales
951-587-2982
Chair sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
ertisement.indd 1 Jon A. Schmidt,
5/10/2011 P.E.,
2:33:39SECB
PM
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org editoriAL stAFF
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB Brian W. Miller Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA Davis, CA execdir@ncsea.com

Richard Hess, S.E., SECB Mike C. Mota, Ph.D., P.E. Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA CRSI, Williamstown, NJ publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E. Evans Mountzouris, P.E. Associate Editor Nikki Alger
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Roger A. LaBoube, Ph.D., P.E. Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E. Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
CCFSS, Rolla, MO KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Brian J. Leshko, P.E. Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. Web Developer William Radig
HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
John A. Mercer, P.E. John Buddy Showalter, P.E.
Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
STRUCTURE (Volume 18, Number 8). ISSN 1536-4283.
Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the

Save the Date

National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription
rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $90/yr Canada;
$125/yr foreign. 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

NCSEAs 2012 Winter Institute

Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of the publisher.

February 11-12 at the Hotel Monteleone in New Orleans, LA National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations
Tour: www.ncsea.com
Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) and the Lake Borgne Surge Barrier

Lectures: C3 Ink, Publishers

A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering and Pile Load Test Program for the Inner Harbor, 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
Design of Gate Structures, ASCE7-10 Wind Loading and Design, Hurricane and P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Tornado Shelter Design, Retaining Wall Design Soil Improvement Methods in
Soft and Challenging Soils, and More Dont miss it! Visit STRUCTURE magazine
magazine on-line at
Visit STRUCTURE
Visit STRUCTURE online
magazine on-line at at
www.structuremag.org
www.structuremag.org
www.structuremag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 6 August 2011

editorial NCSEA
new trends, newConference
techniques and current industry issues
Learning From the Past and Changing for the Future
By James Malley, S.E., President, NCSEA

S
ince its inception 18 years ago, NCSEA has held an annual
conference in September or October. This years annual confer-
ence will be held October 20-22, in Oklahoma City, OK. The
conference organizing committee has developed an interesting
program and theme title Leadership in Structural Engineering, drawing
speakers and panelists from NCSEAs past presidents. We hope you
are encouraged to attend and hear the knowledge and experience that
these stellar structural engineering leaders will be sharing. Please go to
www.ncsea.com/AnnualConferences/2011/2011Conference.aspx
for more information.
In addition to its continuing education programming, NCSEAs
Annual Conference serves as the primary mechanism for the structural
engineer members of its Member Organizations (MOs) to:
Share information on the activities of their MOs
Learn about NCSEAs activities and opportunities for
getting involved
Discuss issues of interest to the structural
engineering profession
Provide feedback and ideas to the NCSEA Board
Recognize and honor the exceptional structural engineering
projects of peers and outstanding contributions by leaders of
our profession activities; and the conference location was rotated by region (East,
Each MO sends a Delegate and, often, its Alternate Delegate, who Midwest, and West). This approach served NCSEA well for the past
not only attend the committee meetings, forums, and program, several years but, now, it seems to be time for NCSEA to take confer-
but who also participate in the business meeting and workshops on ence planning in-house and let MOs and MO members participate
Saturday. Even if you come to the conference on your own, you are to the extent they would like to, without taking up too much of any
guaranteed interaction with a truly national contingent of structural single MOs valuable time and volunteer resources. The changes to
engineers. In addition, a sizable trade show of vendors related to the NCSEAs conferences, beginning in 2012, can be summarized as:
structural engineering profession will take place during the Thursday Conferences will be located in cities with relatively affordable
and Friday programming; and, for the last time, the NCSEA Annual airfares and easy access to major airports. The next three
Conference will hold an offsite event, this year at the Oklahoma City conferences, now listed on NCSEAs website, will be in St.
Museum of Art. Finally, on Saturday night, there will be the Awards Louis, Atlanta, and New Orleans.
Banquet, the grand finale of the conference. NCSEAs Excellence The Annual Awards Banquet will be moved from Saturday
in Structural Engineering project awards will be presented, as well night to Friday night, so that more conference attendees will
as the individual Cornforth, be available to participate without losing an entire weekend to
Delahay and Service awards (visit the conference.
www.ncsea.com for information The conference agenda will be reconfigured to end early

on these awards, nominations, Saturday afternoon, allowing for travel home on

structure

and lists of past recipients). Saturday evening.

The Friday night offsite event Two full days of Diamond-Reviewed continuing education will
a member benefit

will be the last offsite event at be offered at every conference.

NCSEAs conferences because,
in the course of developing its
Strategic Plan for 2011-2015,
NCSEA elected to make certain
changes to its program for future
conferences. Traditionally, local
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING MOs hosted the conference and
INSTITUTE worked closely with NCSEA staff
in planning the program and
We believe that these changes will carry on the tradition of past
conferences and, at the same time, free up MOs while continuing
to increase the value and strengthen the content of future NCSEA
conferences. The first conference to follow this new format will occur
in St. Louis from October 3-6, 2012. If you have suggestions or ideas
for ways to improve the conference, or would like to volunteer for
the NCSEA Annual Conference Advisory Committee, please contact
NCSEA Executive Director Jeanne Vogelzang at execdir@ncsea.com.
But, prior to that, join us in Oklahoma City this October!

STRUCTURE magazine 7 August 2011

Codes and
standards
updates and discussions
related to codes and standards
Structural Implications of
Energy Codes for Steel Framing
By Mark Nowak and
Jay Crandell, P.E.
Mark Nowak is President of
the Steel Framing Alliance in
Washington, DC. SFA is a trade
group representing steel producers,
manufacturers, suppliers, and
contractors. He can be reached at
mnowak@steelframing.org.
Jay Crandell, P.E. is the proprietor
of ARES Consulting of West River,
Maryland. He can be reached at
jcrandell@aresconsulting.biz.
C
omponent or single system design
is often the way most cold-formed
steel (CFS) and other buildings are
approached the structural engineer
uses the AISI specifications and/or other stan-
dards and develops the structural system, while
the mechanical engineer goes through a similar
process for the HVAC system. The same process
goes on for the energy related components of the
building envelope (insulation, doors, windows), as
well as the plumbing, lighting, and other systems.
Seldom is there overlap or communication across
the various disciplines except at times of conflict.
However, the rapid acceleration of stricter energy
code requirements in the past year has brought
about a new urgency for engineers to become
more than just designers of the buildings load
bearing frame.
For many structural engineers, the International
Energy Conservation Code (IECC) or the ASHRAE
Figure 1: Foam insulation over a building frame using
90.1 standard for commercial building energy effi-
steel hat channels over the foam to attach the cladding.
ciency may never
cross their mind
and Canada (Figure 2). More typical in most
as something that
impacts the struc-
parts of the United States will be a thickness
that provides an R-value of R-7.5. Note that
tural design of a
building. Yet these
R-value is a measure of thermal resistance of the
insulation. An R-7.5 would require 1 inches
two documents
of extruded polystyrene foam or about 2 inches
will have a major
of expanded polystyrene.
impact on building design in nearly all states over
The placement of foam insulation on exterior
the next year. Although all buildings are impacted,
walls raises several new challenges and coordi-
CFS designers will especially need to be cognizant
nation issues for the design team. The primary
of the way they design buildings with regard to
issues of interest to the building designer and
energy codes. They might even have an opportunity
structural designer are how the foam interacts
to expand the services they provide.
with the lateral resistance of the building and
the attachments of exterior cladding over the
Why Are Energy Codes foam insulation.
The engineer may be presented with additional
Suddenly Important? scope to design the attachment of siding or other
This is a frequently asked question, and rightfully cladding systems. In addition, there may be a need
so given the relative unimportance of energy codes to make sure the application of foam insulation is
to the structural engineer in the past. Perhaps you appropriately coordinated with normal structural
have seen the acronym ARRA on construc- design responsibilities related to the lateral force
tion highway signs, proclaiming improvements resisting system of the building and axial load
brought to you under the American Recovery requirements of individual wall studs. Typical
and Reinvestment Act. Within its thousands of foam sheathing does not provide an adequate
pages is a section that ties acceptance of ARRA means of buckling or racking support to wall
funds to the adoption of the IECC. In exchange framing. Before these issues are addressed, more
for federal funds, States pledged to adopt the discussion on the opportunities that the energy
2009 IECC and to upgrade to the 2012 edition code presents may be helpful.
when it is available.
The 2012 IECC contains insulation require-
ments that significantly expand the use and
New Business Opportunity?
thickness of continuous insulation on the exte- With new requirements, there are often new
rior walls of CFS and other buildings (Figure opportunities and that is certainly the case with
1). Continuous insulation is generally provided the recent energy code improvements. The main
in addition to cavity insulation. The amount of opportunity is for someone to step up and take
continuous insulation, typically a foam plastic on the design of the building envelope and even
board product, depends on the climate zone the HVAC system, perhaps in cooperation with
but generally runs from an inch in the southern a mechanical engineer. Currently, there is no
zones to several inches in the northern states incentive for someone to fill this role. The result
8 August 2011
is the energy code provisions are often never
addressed at the detailed level necessary to
make sure they are optimized or, at a mini-
mum, compatible with the structural design
and cladding systems. Perhaps the best way
to show the benefits to the CFS industry (and
the engineer) is through an example show-
ing how an expanded role for the engineer
might work.
First, consider that a cold-formed steel prod-
uct manufacturer retains the engineer to assist
on a design at the bid stage. The engineer can
go about their business as usual and design an
efficient structural system. The cold-formed
steel product manufacturer, if not familiar
with the energy code provisions, would move
forward with the design only to find out later
(perhaps from the architect or general con-
tractor) that they have no approved way to
attach the 1 inches of foam required by
the energy code to the outside of the CFS
walls. Someone has to think of this before
hand, yet the incentive to do so may not come
naturally to any of the parties involved. This is
where the individual engineer or engineering
firm has an opportunity to expand his or her
scope into the thermal envelope design, thus
providing a comprehensive design solution.
It sounds easy enough to just incorporate
some foam insulation into the design, right?
In theory, yes, but if you want a design that
is cost effective, other energy-code-compliant
options also should be considered. Structural
engineers are familiar with performance based
design concepts whereby calculations are done
to confirm that structural resistance exceeds
the required load demand. Fortunately, for
the engineer willing to expand services into
the energy system, there is a performance
option in the IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 that
provides a means to design alternative solu-
tions to prescriptive insulation requirements.
In other words, with some relatively inexpen-
sive software and a few hours of training, an
engineer could develop a building energy
design that traded off the foam insulation, or
reduced its thickness as a means of address-
ing matters related to cladding attachment,
wall thickness limitations, or integration with
other wall system components such as brac-
ing. This performance path is permissible as
long as the total energy use in the building
is less than a standard or reference design
in the code or standard. However, energy
code trade-offs must themselves be evalu-
ated for cost-effectiveness and performance
implications. For example, trade-offs of foam
insulation should consider whether or not the
foam insulation is able to provide additional
beneficial functions, such as serving as the
weather resistive barrier.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 2: Climate zone map with CI overlay for commercial buildings.
Unfortunately, there is not much incentive
for an architect to take on the effort of run-
ning simulation software when it is relatively
easy to just assume the minimum prescrip-
tive insulation requirements from the energy
code. The cold-formed steel product manu-
facturer, on the other hand, has significant
incentive to work the energy analysis into
the structural design. The engineer appears
to be one of the participants well situated to
take on this task for the cold-formed steel
product manufacturer.
Suppose the specifications for a project do
require foam and wont permit trade-offs, or
the simulations cant produce enough energy
saving elsewhere to eliminate the foam or
if the use of foam insulation is indeed the
best solution for code compliance not an
unexpected outcome in a place like Chicago
where the insulation is much more critical
to energy savings than in a more temperate
climate. In these cases, the engineer will need
to address at least the two issues raised earlier
in this article the placement of the foam
so as to not negatively impact the structural
design and the design of a method to fasten
siding or other cladding through the foam.
Continuous Insulation
Placement and
Cladding Attachment
Continuous insulation by definition may be
placed on the interior or exterior of a wall
assembly. Which placement option to use
usually depends on a number of factors. Some
of the key design considerations and options
include the following:
9 August 2011
1) Continuous Insulation on Interior
or Exterior Face of Wall? Generally, it
is more common to place continuous
insulation on the exterior side of an
exterior building wall. This eliminates
interference with gypsum or other
finishes, issues with electrical boxes,
and does not reduce useable floor
space as would occur with the
insulation on the inside.
2) Continuous Insulation as
Oversheathing or Sheathing? If
structural sheathing is used as wall
bracing, an exterior application of
continuous insulation must be done
as oversheathing. Oversheathing is
simply the placement of continuous
insulation over top of structural
sheathing or gypsum sheathing. In
an oversheathing application, the
structural or gypsum sheathing layer
is considered to provide the primary
resistance to component and
cladding wind pressures and it must
be directly attached to steel framing
in accordance with code. Then,
the foam sheathing layer is simply
installed over the underlying
structural or gypsum sheathing
in accordance with manufacturer
installation instructions. If the
bracing method used does not
require sheathing (e.g., use of steel
strap X-braces), then foam sheathing
can be installed alone as the wall
sheathing. However, the foam
sheathing type and thickness must
be selected to ensure code-compliant
wind pressure resistance is provided
 (refer to FSC Tech Matters on
code-compliant wind pressure
resistance of foam sheathing at
www.foamsheathing.org).
3) Continuous Insulation as a
Weather-resistant Barrier (WRB)?
When approved as a WRB, various
foam sheathing products can serve
as continuous insulation (to meet
energy code) as well as the WRB
behind a cladding material of choice
(to meet building code). In this dual-
purpose case, the foam sheathing is
installed with flashing tape and other
details in accordance with a code
evaluation report and manufacturer
installation instructions. A separate
WRB material, such as building wrap,
becomes unnecessary. Alternatively, a
separate WRB may be applied behind
the foam sheathing (when used as
over-sheathing) or over the foam
sheathing. The WRB must be properly
flashed and drained in accordance
with the building code and the WRB
manufacturer installation instructions.
4) Continuous Insulation Material
Selection. As mentioned, there
are a variety of foam sheathing
materials that can be selected to meet
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
a variety of continuous insulation proprietary and standard fasteners
design options as discussed above. can be used for this purpose based
The most common products are on recent testing sponsored by the
manufactured in accordance with Foam Sheathing Coalition (FSC), the
ASTM C578 or ASTM C1289 and New York State Energy Research and
include expanded polystyrene (EPS), Development Authority (NYSERDA),
extruded polystyrene (XPS), and and the Steel Framing Alliance
polyisocyanurate (Polyiso) foam. Each (www.steelframing.org). The complete
product type has different thermal report on this research is available
properties (which affect thickness from the Steel Framing Alliance at
required), costs, and capabilities. Spray www.steelframing.org. FSC Tech
foam may also be used as continuous Matters (www.foamsheathing.org)
insulation when properly detailed on a provides code-compliant fastening
wall assembly. recommendations for cladding
5) Claddings and their Attachment weights ranging from < 3 psf to 25 psf
over Foam Sheathing. Various types and foam thicknesses ranging from
of claddings can and have been used -inch to 4 inches. Requirements are
successfully over foam sheathing for also provided for attachment of wood
some time. However, many cladding or steel furring such that cladding
products do not include explicit attachments do not need to penetrate
information on installations over the continuous insulation layer.
foam sheathing or limit application to Similar fastener requirements have
certain thickness of foam sheathing. also been adopted into the 2010 New
Cladding attachments must provide York State Energy Code.
the required wind pressure resistance Finally, foam sheathing must be applied to
(attachment to framing behind foam a wall assembly in a way that maintains the
sheathing) and must also cantilever hourly rating of a wall assembly, especially
through the foam sheathing to when exterior fire rating is required. Also,
support the weight of the cladding when building area and height disqualifies
and also furring, if used. Various consideration as Type V construction, a
foam sheathed wall assembly must be
tested for flame spread in accordance
with NFPA 285. These concerns mainly
impact commercial construction; com-
prehensive fire-related material and
testing requirements for foam plastics are
found in Chapter 26 of the International
Building Code.
Conclusions
Independent of your past role in the
design and construction process, suc-
cessful engineers will need to get up to
speed with newer energy codes and stan-
Mercer Luxury Apartments, Mercer Island, WA
dards. Emphasizing only the structural
issues without examining interactions
with other systems is a practice that
needs to be seriously re-examined by all
involved in the design and construction
of energy efficient steel framed buildings.
As we have shown here, the impacts can
be minimized with some upfront prepa-
ration and understanding of the issues.
The online version of this article
contains detailed references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
10 August 2011
 Cracked&
Cracked &
IBC

Uncracked
CONCRETE 2009
ICC-ES
ESR-3037

Strong-Bolt 2
The ONLY 38" wedge anchor
for both 3 14"-thick concrete
and concrete on metal deck.

Sometimes sequels are even better than the original. The new Strong-Bolt 2 wedge anchor features a redesigned
tri-segmented clip made of a special high-strength alloy that enables it to outperform many other cracked-
concrete wedge anchors. The product line includes a 38"-diameter anchor the only code-listed, 38"-diameter wedge
anchor for both 3 14"-thick concrete and concrete on metal deck. As a Category 1 anchor, Strong-Bolt2 offers
increased reliability in the most adverse conditions, including performance in cracked concrete under static and
seismic loading. Available in carbon or type 316 stainless steel, the Strong-Bolt 2 wedge anchor is code listed under
the 2009 IBC requirements for post-installed anchors in cracked and uncracked concrete (ICC-ES ESR-3037).
Continue to look to Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems for all of your cracked concrete anchoring solutions.
For more information, call (800) 999-5099 or visit www.simpsonanchors.com/cc.

IN THE SPECS
ON THE JOB
2011 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. SAS-STB211-R AT YOUR SERVICE
 Keep your professional license
as mobile as you are.

To practice in multiple states, professional

engineers need their licenses to be mobile.

NCEES records are recognized by licensing boards

nationwide. Once established, your records can
quickly and easily be transmitted to any state
board to simplify and expedite your application
for comity licensure.

You dont have time for unnecessary paperwork.

Let NCEES keep track of your record so you can
focus on whats ahead.

ncees.org/records
records@ncees.org
8002503196
 Outside
the BOx
highlighting the out-of-the-
ordinary within the realm of
structural engineering

Figure 1: TrusSteel CFS Truss Bridge over drive-thru bay.

T
o meet the demands of an increase in steel bridges to clear span
business, a major shipping company
was faced with expanding an existing
the 75-foot bays. Jennifer
St. Clair, a Design Engineer Cold-Formed Steel Bridge
complex in Portland, Oregon with a
new state of the art facility and an upgrade to
with MHS who lived near
a plant that fabricated
Trusses Provide Material
their existing package handling facility. The exist-
ing facility had multiple truck bays where their
TrusSteel Cold-Formed
Steel (CFS) trusses, became
Handling Solution
delivery trucks entered, offloaded packages and interested in determining if
then turned around in the building and exited. CFS trusses might be a cost effective alternative By Sowri Rajan, P.E.
The design team was challenged to increase the to structural steel. After doing some research, and Troy Lutgens
capacity in the package handling facility, but MHS contacted the truss fabricator, Tri-State CFS
continue operations during the building expan- Components, Inc. (Tri-State), and set up a meet-
sion. The customer required an increase in the ing to discuss the possibility of using CFS trusses.
number of conveyor lines, without disrupting the When meeting with MHS, Tri-State knew
flow of delivery trucks in and out of the facility. their TrusSteel trusses could span the 75 feet
The only option for the new conveyor lines was (Figure 1), but that was just the initial criteria.
to span the 75-foot drive-through bays. Typical CFS roof or floor trusses have loads Sowri Rajan, P.E. is Chief
Material Handling Systems Inc. (MHS), located applied on their top and bottom chords but Engineer at Alpine Structural
in Louisville, KY, was the contractor outfitting not moving loads. Fortunately, Tri-State had Consultants TrusSteel, A
the new facility, as well as upgrading the existing design software (TrusSteels steelVIEW) that Division of ITW Building
facility. MHS originally planned to use structural could analyze for both bottom chord static Components Group. Sowri may be
reached at srajan@itwbcg.com.
Troy Lutgens is Vice President
of Engineering at Tri-State CFS
C-Stud on top Lateral brace
Components, Inc. Troy may be
chord
reached at tlutgens@tristatecfs.com.

TrusSteel truss Diagonal kicker

(typ.) brace (typ.)

C-Stud brace
Bridging to support (typ.)
conveyor bed

Figure 2: Section view of outrigger brace frame.

STRUCTURE magazine 13
Figure 3: C-stud along top chord with lateral brace
at stud splice.
loads as well as moving loads that would
mimic the movement of packages.
MHS also had several general conveyor
configurations that needed to be met by the
truss design: single wide conveyors, double
wide conveyors, triple wide conveyors, double
stacked conveyors and multiple combina-
tions of some or all of these conveyors. The
single wide conveyor was the easiest and most
straight forward to design and fabricate. It
consisted of two parallel chord flat trusses
separated by approximately 5 feet. Bridging
between the bottom chords of the two trusses
was used to support the 97 mil thick steel
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 4: Double wide conveyor with lateral braces.
plate conveyor bed. The challenge was to brace
the top chord of the trusses.
In a traditional truss application, a struc-
tural deck or other diaphragm system is
used to brace the top chords, but that was
not an option in this case. Alpine Structural
Consultants (ASC) was added to the design
team to develop an efficient bracing method.
The first design concept used lateral brace
members at certain intervals and diagonal
brace members between each lateral brace,
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
14 August 2011
creating a zig-zag configuration when viewed
from above. However, the design team wanted
to minimize the number of brace members
crossing the conveyor to reduce the obstacles
for maintenance workers; therefore, the lat-
eral-diagonal brace concept was abandoned.
ASC then developed an innovative solution
using outrigger brace frames at each lateral
brace location to laterally brace the top chord
of trusses (Figure 2, page 13). The outrigger
brace frame consisted of a diagonal kicker
 Lateral brace
TrusSteel Truss(typ.)
TrusSteel truss chord coped
at each end for attachment
to interior webs and support
upper conveyor.
TrusSteel web to support
lower conveyor.
Figure 5: Section view of double stacked conveyor.
brace and a C-stud lateral brace. Diagonal
kicker braces were designed to transfer the
compression buckling force of the top chord
to the C-stud lateral brace at the level of the
truss bottom chord, which in turn transferred
the force to the conveyor bed.
In addition to the lateral braces, a 97 mil
thick C-section was attached to the top
chord for stiffening and to ensure that a
larger spacing of the lateral braces (Figures
2 and 3) could be achieved. For the single
wide conveyor, this bracing method was
relatively straightforward.
The second design challenge was the
double wide conveyor, which consisted of
two single-wide conveyors running paral-
lel to each other (Figure 4). Triple wide
conveyors consisted of three single wide
conveyors running parallel to each other.
The challenge was to brace the top chord of
the conveyor assemblies, which consisted of
multiple parallel chord trusses, two for each
single wide conveyor. A bracing method
similar to the single wide conveyor was
designed with outrigger brace frames.
The double stacked conveyors condition
was basically two single wide conveyors with
one conveyor positioned on top of the other
TrusSteel chord
TrusSteel fasteners
TrusSteel web insert
centered at splice
Section View
Figure 7: Field splicing of truss chords.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 6: Double stacked conveyor.
(Figures 5 and 6). Taller trusses were designed
for this condition, allowing for the lower con-
veyor bed to be supported by the same type of
bridging members as the typical single wide
conveyor while allowing enough clearance
for the additional level. The two conveyors,
each with 97 mil thick steel beds, added a
significant amount of weight, but the extra
depth of the trusses helped keep the top chord
compression forces manageable. Top chord
bracing was designed in a similar manner as
the other conveyors.
ASC also designed multiple combina-
tions of stacked single, double or triple
wide conveyors. Some of those assemblies
had additional challenges, such as differing
elevations and/or sloped conveyor beds near
the ends of the bridges. The design team
of ASC and Tri-State worked closely with
MHS to develop innovative solutions for
each bridge assembly.
All trusses were assembled at Tri-States
facility in Shepherdsville, KY and shipped
to the customers package facility in Portland,
OR. Due to the lack of space at the package
facility, trusses were shipped in three sec-
tions of approximately 25 feet each. Each
section was labeled left, middle and right
TrusSteel fasteners
TrusSteel chord Side View
15 August 2011
for each conveyor. The 25-feet long truss
sections were set parallel to each other, and
the bottom bridging members were added
first between them. The steel plate conveyor
bed was then installed before adding the top
chord brace and outrigger members. After the
three 25-feet sections were fully assembled,
they were transferred to their relative box line
and connected together to form the complete
75-feet bridge assembly. Field splicing of the
sections was easily accomplished with web
inserts in the chords (Figure 7). The bridge
truss assembly was then lifted onto its end
support frames.
TrusSteel CFS trusses were light in weight
and easy to handle, even after adding the
thicker steel conveyor beds. The versatility of
the CFS trusses allowed the contractor and
owner to successfully expand and upgrade a
major shipping facility in a cost effective and
efficient manner. Troy Lutgens of Tri-State
said: We have designed trusses for small sheds
to large commercial buildings, but this is the
most unique truss job we have ever done.
Everyone had their own area of expertise,
and it all came together perfectly to create the
bridge trusses for the customer using cold-
formed steel trusses.
TrusSteel web insert
centered at splice
Structural
SpecificationS
updates and discussions on
structural specifications
The Lost Specifications Section
Cold-Formed
Metal Framing
By Renee Doktorczyk, AIA, CCS,
CSI, SCIP
Renee Doktorczyk, AIA, CCS,
CSI, SCIP (rdoktorczyk@
architechspec.com), is an
architectural specifier and
the president of ArchiTech
Consulting, Inc. in Mount
Prospect, Illinois.
C
old-formed metal framing often falls
into the no mans land of specifi-
cations writing. Since structural
engineers are not in the habit of
writing section 054000, and most architects
are not really qualified to do so, cold-formed
metal framing specifications are often forgot-
ten or ignored.
For clarity purposes, the cold-formed metal
framing section Scope of Work typically includes
exterior non-load-bearing framing, load-bear-
ing wall framing, floor joist framing, roof rafter
framing, ceiling joist framing, and soffit framing.
Admittedly, many projects do not require much
cold-formed metal framing, but some munici-
palities are now requiring screening of roof top
equipment in their building codes. Consequently,
the inclusion of exterior non-load-bearing
framing is becoming a requirement because
screening structures are commonly composed of
cold-formed metal
framing supporting
metal wall panels.
Why should struc-
tural engineers write
cold-formed metal
framing specifications? Stated simply, the com-
ponents of these framing systems need to be
engineered. Metal wall panel manufacturers
will design only the wall panels to sustain wind
loads and deflection, not the supporting struc-
ture. Wall panel manufacturers design services
stop at the clips, rails, or other system used to
attach the panels to the various substrates. At a
mechanical penthouse screen wall, the substrate
is cold-formed metal framing. The cold-formed
metal framing must be designed to accommodate
the wind loads and deflection, just like the rest
of the building, and the members transfer loads
to the building structure.
Cold-formed metal framing components are also
used in other applications. Many buildings, both
one-story commercial and high-rise, include sof-
fits requiring the services of a structural engineer
to design supporting framing for wind uplift
requirements that vary with the project loca-
tion. False mansard roofs and parapets, although
often framed with wood, can also be framed with
cold-formed metal. Many architects will design
these components with steel when the primary
structure is framed with steel.
One of the most important reasons why the
structural engineers should specify cold-formed
metal framing is because of the additional selec-
tions that need to be made in order to produce
a proper specification. Not many architects have
the specialized knowledge required to select the
grades of steel, the minimum base metal thick-
nesses, or the correct flange widths.
16 August 2011
Structural engineers would ultimately benefit
by taking ownership of the cold-formed steel
framing section right from the beginning of a
project. Reviewing and marking up work done
by the architect or another specifier can require
more time and expense than originating the work
from the start.
Specifying cold-formed metal framing needs
to begin with the basics in order to create clear,
complete, concise, and correct documents.
Coordination items include the following:
1) What version of MasterFormat (or
another guideline) is to be used?
2) Is the project attempting to attain
LEED certification?
3) What is the format for the specifications?
4) Is the terminology consistent between
the specifications and the drawings?
MasterFormat, produced by the Construction
Specifications Institute, is the numbering system
used in the construction industry to organize
specifications, cost estimating documents, prod-
uct data, and even architectural libraries. Most
new project specifications are written to comply
with the 2004 version, though occasionally the
1995 version must be used. An easy way to tell
the difference is the length of the section number:
the 2004 version uses six digits, while the 1995
version used only five.
Many projects try to obtain LEED certification.
In such cases, ask for the working or in-progress
LEED Scorecard prior to editing specifications.
If LEED is even considered at the beginning
of the project, the draft scorecard will exist.
Keep the applicable LEED requirements in the
design development specifications until it is
known for certain that a project will not seek
LEED certification. Once the LEED require-
ments including submittals, recycled materials,
and regional materials, to name a few have
been deleted from a specifications section, it is
inefficient to go back and re-insert those items
should the Owner decide at the last minute to
go for LEED certification after all.
Specifications format is a coordination issue that
is often overlooked. Since structural specifications
are not stand-alone documents, a good way to
become a favored engineer by the architectural
specifier is to request, and then follow, the format
that will be used for the rest of the project manual.
This will include the font, header and footer
requirements, margins, and any watermarks.
Formatting the specifications at the beginning
of a project, similar to using the correct title block,
is simply good practice.
Since structural engineers are in the habit of pro-
ducing both the specifications and the drawings, it
should be relatively easy to ensure consistent ter-
minology. However, if a project is being publically
bid, the use of proprietary product names on
the drawings does not easily allow for other
manufacturers to bid. Changing the term to
its non-proprietary version allows the speci-
fications to determine the manufacturers that
will be allowed to bid. If help is needed for
a correct non-proprietary term, contact the
projects architectural specifier.
Coordination items for cold-formed
metal framing specifications sections
include the following:
1) How many manufacturers really need
to be listed?
2) Is the deflection limit required by the
structure the same as that required by
the final finish material?
3) What are the finish requirements,
galvanized or shop primed?
Take the time to edit the number of manu-
facturers, if there is a preference. Keeping the
number of preferred manufacturers to three
or five will keep the project quality level up.
If ten or more manufacturers are allowed in
the spec, it is not likely that all 10 manufac-
turers have the same quality level for all their
products. If there is no manufacturer prefer-
ence, then delete the entire paragraph. The
end result will be a shorter section and fewer
STRUCTURE magazine
Finding the lost section for cold-formed metal framing and
coordinating with the architect allows the structural engineer
to contribute to overall project quality.
requests for information from contractors
trying to find comparable products from all
of the manufacturers listed.
Deflection limits need to be coordinated
with the architect. Structurally, a project
may be just fine with a horizontal deflection
limit of L/360, but if the cold-formed metal
framing is supporting a rigid rain screen wall
system comprised of brick and mortar, this
may not be stiff enough to prevent cracking of
the finish materials. In theory, by the time the
system is engineered, the final wall material
finish is determined. In reality, value engineer-
ing enters the picture, the entire exterior wall
assembly may re-designed by the architect to
cut costs, and the selected deflection limit
could no longer be appropriate.
Shop priming or galvanizing require-
ments also need to be coordinated with
the architect. Galvanizing may need to be
increased to a heavier coating depending
on the project requirements. For instance,
a natatorium should have a thicker coating
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
17 August 2011
of galvanizing than a classroom. In the case
of architecturally exposed structural steel
(AESS), the shop primers need to be coor-
dinated with the final finish coat. Shop
primers also need to be coordinated with
any fireproofing that might be applied.
Finish requirements for the steel may also
include the expectations for the welds,
which are more stringent for AESS than
for a piece of concealed structural steel.
Finding the lost section for cold-formed
metal framing and coordinating with the
architect allows the structural engineer to
contribute to overall project quality. The
end result will be fewer requests for infor-
mation, fewer change orders related to such
requests, and fewer headaches a benefit
for all.
Look for additional Structural Specifications
columns pertaining to concrete and masonry
in future issues of STRUCTURE.
Just the
FAQs
questions we made up about
... Masonry
Changing Masonry Standards
Part 2: Grouting Options
Answer provided by Diane Throop,
P.E. who is Chair of Masonry
Standards Joint Committee
(MSJC) and Director of
Engineering for the International
Masonry Institute (IMI)
(www.imiweb.org).
Question
Grouting criteria seems to be changing all the time.
Our project has a 14-foot high CMU wall to rein-
force and grout at 48 inches on center. What are
the grouting options available by code? Can the
contractor use self-consolidating grout and is there
any special inspection or testing required?
Answer
Yes, it is great that masonry grouting provisions
continue to evolve, providing new options in
addition to preserving traditional procedures.
The building codes still include criteria that have
been in place for years as well as offering newer
methods resulting from research, new product
introductions, and demonstrated performance.
A brief and general timeline for recent grout place-
ment procedures from the Masonry Standards Joint
Committee (MSJC) Building Code Requirements
and Specification
for Masonry
Structures (TMS
402/ACI 530/
ASCE 5 and
TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6) looks like this:
1999 MSJC Grout lifts limited to
5-foot maximum height regardless of the
permitted pour heights. Cleanouts required
for pours above 5 feet. Conventional grout
is permitted.
2002 MSJC Same as 1999 MSJC with
an additional demonstration panel option
(see below).
2005 MSJC Same as the 2002 MSJC with
the addition of 12-foot 8-inch lifts with
certain criteria (see below). Otherwise, lift
heights are limited to 5 foot maximum.
2008 MSJC Same as the 2005 MSJC
with the addition of self-consolidated
grout criteria.
With that overview, lets consider the options
offered for the specific project mentioned. But,
as always, consult your locally adopted building
code and the MSJC for detailed criteria.
As mentioned above, the options permitted
depend on the edition of the code that is locally
adopted. Assuming that we are working under
the IBC 2009 which references the MSJC 2008,
there are several alternatives available. Answering
the question about whether self-consolidating
grout (SCG) can be used yes, unless specifically
exempted in your locally adopted code so lets
break the choices down by Conventional Grout
and SCG. For this project, we have CMU. There
are almost identical options for reinforced clay
brick walls and autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC)
18 August 2011
masonry, but prestressed masonry walls may have
slightly different requirements.
We will assume a minimum grout space dimen-
sion of 3 x 4 inches so that the IBC and the MSJC
both permit a maximum grout pour height of
24 feet for both fine and coarse grout. If the
grout space is less than this, Table 7 of the MSJC
Specification lists the maximum pour height. We
will also assume that the space between the rein-
forcing bars and any protrusion, such as the face
of masonry, is greater than inch, so either fine
or coarse grout is permitted. (Clear distance for
coarse grout is inch from any face of masonry
unit or formed surface, inch for fine grout).
With these assumptions, all the options listed
below are available and considered equal in the
IBC and MSJC:
Conventional Grout Options
Option 1Grouting without Cleanouts
Build the masonry to a maximum of 5 feet, place
the vertical reinforcing steel, place the grout in
lifts not to exceed 5 feet, consolidate and recon-
solidate the lift. Continue this procedure two
more times to reach the 14-foot wall height.
Option 2Grouting with Cleanouts
Build the wall to the 14-foot wall height, con-
struct cleanouts at the bottom of the wall, remove
any masonry protrusions greater than inch,
place the reinforcement, and after inspection,
close the cleanout.
If the masonry has cured for at least 4 hours,
the grout slump is maintained between 10
and 11 inches, and there are no reinforced
bond beams within the pour height, then
the grout may be placed in lifts up to 12
feet 8 inches, consolidated and reconsoli-
dated. Given the wall height of 14 feet, this
method requires at least 2 lifts
If any of the criteria listed above exists
wall curing time, grout slump, bond beams
in the pour height then, the grout must
be placed in lifts not exceeding 5 feet.
Self-consolidating
Grout (SCG) Options
Option 1Grouting without Cleanouts
Build the masonry to a maximum of 5 feet, place
the vertical reinforcing steel, place the SCG in
lifts not to exceed 5 feet. Continue this procedure
two more times to reach the 14-foot wall height.
Unlike conventional grout, SCG does not require
consolidation or reconsolidation.
 One last note deciding which option to should be included in the project documents;
select may at first seem difficult but the best but if not, then consider trusting the contrac-
option may be to involve the mason con- tor in the selection of the grout placement
tractor in the decision making process. The method and trust the QA provisions to assure
contractor has experience with pricing, field that the wall is constructed properly.
and site conditions, construction sequencing,
and wall bracing requirements that can be dra-
matically impacted by the choice of grouting This article is part of a series on
method. Input from the person who will actu- Masonry Standards provided by the
ally do the work should only improve the end Masonry Society (TMS). Part 1 (Special
result. If there is engineering or design criteria Inspections) ran in the May 2011 issue of
that limit the grout placement options, those STRUCTURE magazine.
Option 2Grouting with Cleanouts
Build the wall to 14 feet, construct a clea-
nout at the bottom of the wall, remove any
masonry protrusions greater than inch,
place the vertical reinforcing steel, and after
inspection, close the cleanout.
If the masonry has cured for at least 4
hours, the SCG may be placed to the
pour height in this case, 14 feet.
No consolidation or reconsolidation
Tubular sections
custom built
is required.
If the wall has not cured for at least
4 hours, then the SCG lift height is
restricted to 5 feet.
to the highest standards.
Demonstration Panel Option Yours.
To be thorough, there is one more option for

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

either conventional grout or SCG dem-
onstration panels. Grout pours and lifts
exceeding those specifically listed in the
MSJC and/or clear spaces smaller than those
listed may be used if the results of a grout
demonstration panel show that the grout
spaces are filled and adequately consolidated.
The procedures used for the construction of SuperStruct tubular sections hold up to the strictest
the demonstration panel are then used as
the minimum acceptable standard for the design standards without holding them back.
grout placement.
Manufactured in a variety of shapes and sizes to
The final part of the question is whether
special inspection or testing is required. Given your specifications
that this wall is reinforced at 48 inches on Large sizes from 12 up to 48 squares and rectangles
center, it is safe to assume it was not designed Lengths up to 55
using the empirical provisions of the MSJC Wall thickness 5/16 to 1
Chapter 5. Therefore, both the MSJC and Excellent column strength and torsional properties
IBC call for some level of inspection and Aesthetically appealing
testing based on whether the facility is identi-
fied as non-essential or essential (per MSJC),
or identified by Occupancy Categories I, II
or III grouped together, versus Occupancy
Category IV (per IBC) However, check the
locally adopted building code, as some over-
write the MSJC and IBC requirements. The 800-825-6668 www.valmont.com Valley, Nebraska
inspection and testing are detailed in Section
1.18 of the MSJC 2008 and in Chapter 17 Contact Kyle DeBuse at Valmont Tubing toll-free at 1-800-825-6668 ext. 3558 or
of the IBC 2009. kld2@valmont.com to learn more on the design possibilities of HSS SuperStruct.

STRUCTURE magazine 19 August 2011

Client/Job#: 8911_ChangesToAd Color(s): Black
Description: SuperStruct Ad Size: Flat 4.5" x 7"

Technology
information and updates on
the impact of technology on
structural engineering
Structural Engineer-to-Steel
Fabricator Model Sharing
What Can We
Really Expect ?
By Thomas A. Faraone, P.E.,
LEED AP
Thomas A. Faraone, P.E., LEED AP
(tfaraone@bankersteel.com), is
Regional Engineering Manager for
the Banker Steel Company. Tom has
an extensive background promoting
the steel industrys successful
implementation of 3-D modeling
and integrated project delivery.
B
y now nearly all of us in the design and
construction industry are on board with
the concept of BIM and how building
information models used in lieu of, or
in conjunction with, 2D paper drawings can
provide measured benefits on a building project.
Leading thinkers and practitioners in our industry
have done a great job in studying the effects of
BIM on the many project stakeholders and on
how it impacts the way they do business. Whether
its cost or risk to a designer, construction schedule
to a builder, how well software applications can
exchange data, or who owns what in the process,
we all seem to be hearing a unified, overarching
message: BIM provides considerable benefits to all
parties on a project and the difficulties associated
with the transition to a BIM based process are
manageable and short-lived.
One area of BIM that requires more attention is:
How useful and usable are the data contained in a
model to a downstream user? What information
should a structural
engineer include in
a design model to
give the downstream
user a benefit? Are
data imported into a
downstream appli-
cation represented
exactly as the upstream creator intended? Is the
structural data in a Tekla Structures model identi-
cal to the data in the Revit Structure model from
which it was imported?
More specifically, on a structural steel building
project, when a structural engineer hands a model
over to a steel fabricator, what can the fabrica-
tor expect in terms of useful, usable information?
Or, as the authors friend and colleague David
Aucoin of Pruitt Eberly Stone Engineers (PESE)
asks: Whats in the arrow? Davids question refers
Offset of native Tekla grid relative to original Revit grid.
20 August 2011
3D view of Revit validation model.
to any one of many typical graphical depictions
of the BIM process that show the relationships of
the stakeholders and with whom they share infor-
mation. This typical graphic of the BIM process
usually has boxes or circles connected to each other
with arrows. The arrows depict the exchange of
information between two stakeholders. What is
in that arrow? What information does the down-
stream user get when he or she receives a building
information model? What due diligence must an
engineer perform to insure more useful and usable
downstream data via model sharing? The answers
to these and similar questions is It depends.
The author had the recent privilege of par-
ticipating in a model sharing study with David
Aucoin, P.E. of PESE and Mike Samilski, P.Eng
of DOWCO Consultants. The study involved
export of a structural design model created in Revit
Structure through the Industry Foundation Classes
(IFC) neutral file format and import of the IFC file
into Tekla Structures. The process and results were
carefully studied. The author also had the recent
opportunity to participate in the bidding of the
structural steel on two projects, one with the use
a RevitStructure model and the other with only
drawings. The experience of both the model shar-
ing study and the bidding comparison was both

HSS members in Tekla model (blue) rotated 8
degrees after conversion from IFC.
fascinating and educational, and it behooves all
design and construction stakeholders to take
the time to learn and understand the reality
of model sharing.
Revit to Tekla Study
The model sharing study was based on a
6,000-square-foot, one-story structure. This
was, in fact, a real project out of PESEs
Atlanta office. The building footprint was
roughly 75 feet by 50 feet and was laid out
in a 5x4 column grid. The design model was
STRUCTURE magazine
created in Revit Structure 2011 by David
Aucoin and his PESE staff.
Prior to the handoff of the Revit model,
approximately one hour was spent by Mr.
Aucoin on quality assurance checking of the
model. This included the use of 3D views,
filters, schedules and other model review-
ing tools to compare the model to the 2D
documents. A PDF set of 2D documents
was provided with the model. The model was
imported into Tekla Structures v16 using the
Tekla IFC Object Converter with file transfer
protocol IFC 2x3. IFC 2x3 is the February
2006, and latest, release of IFC and is sup-
WT members in Tekla model (Blue) rotated 90
ported by nearly all software developers to
degrees after conversion from IFC.
facilitate neutral file exchange. IFC 2x4 has
been published but is not expected to be fully
implemented for another two years. was required to align the native Tekla grid
with the IFC reference model grid. This is
a significant issue because origin offsets may
The Tekla Import continue to be problematic if and when the
The import into Tekla required the set-up model is shared with other applications, either
task of creating the structural grid by hand. back upstream or further downstream.
The structural grid is not included in the IFC The imported IFC reference model was
export from Revit. This took approximately then be converted to a native Tekla model.
20 minutes for the 6,000-square-foot, 5x4 This was done with the Tekla IFC Object
one story grid. After import, it was found that Converter. Once this conversion was
the 0,0,0 origin of the native Tekla grid was done, the native Tekla model was overlain
nowhere near the 0,0,0 origin of the imported on the imported IFC reference model. A
IFC reference model grid. Corrective action detailed comparison of the two models was
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
21 August 2011

Round bars in original Revit model converted to square bars in Tekla model.
performed by Mike Samilski, the Tekla
expert in the group, zooming, panning and
cutting sections, checking for conformances
of alignment, orientation and objects. This
task is significant because it is a manual
process performed by the person using the
software. The success of this relies heavily
on the talent and expertise of the user. This
comparison revealed both import issues and
converter issues.
Import Issues
The IFC reference model comparison to the
native Tekla model revealed several issues
related to the import. These are in addition
to the origin alignment issue described above.
Imported member lengths are cut lengths.
The length of the member is cut back to the
edge of the flange of the supporting beam
or column. This is due to the way the IFC
export is set up in Revit. To get full lengths in
the Tekla model, the Tekla user must extend
each member to the web of the supporting
beam or column. Fortunately, Tekla has an
automated feature that extends cut mem-
bers to the webs of the supporting members.
However automated, the user must manually
run this automated feature.
In the study project, the group found that
one concrete column pedestal was missing.
Although this is of no great concern to the
structural steel portion of the project, it is
nonetheless an import issue. The reason for
this was not explored in the study and could
simply be an issue of the parameters assigned
to that particular item. The group also found
that two diagonal braces were not imported
Table 1: Quantity take-off comparison.
Method Pieces
Hand 136
Revit 123
Tekla 130
STRUCTURE magazine
due to these to items being tagged as part
of the existing building phase of this par-
ticular project.
Tekla IFC Object
Converter Issues
The following three issues were identified after
conversion of the imported IFC reference
model to the native Tekla model:
1) HSS columns were found to be
rotated approximately 8 degrees
about their vertical axis;
2) WT diagonal braces were rotated 90
degrees about their long axis; and
3) Round bars (used as lateral bracing)
were converted to square bars.
These issues were corrected in the Tekla
model by hand. Approximately 40 minutes
were spent performing the model compari-
sons, and checks and corrections.
Structural Steel Quantities
Of great importance to the structural steel
fabricator in any project are the structural
steel quantities. Will model sharing improve
the process of estimating and bidding a
job? To address steel quantities, the study
included a comparison of the quantities in
the Revit design model to the quantities in
the corrected Tekla model to, lastly, a quan-
tity take-off created by hand from the 2D
PDF documents. Thanks to estimator Ryan
Weakely at Banker Steel for his time and
effort in performing the by hand quantity
take-off. Each method produced different
quantities, as shown in Table 1.
Tons Time Spent
28.4 50 min.
27.1 10 min.
30.4 10 min.
22 August 2011
Which method is correct? The group did not
have time to address this in the study. Are the
differences significant? For the small project
used in the study, perhaps it is not. What if
the project was 60,000-square-feet, 300 tons
and 1,300 pieces? What if the project was
600,000-square-feet, 3,000 tons and 13,000
pieces? The relative time spent producing
quantities using the by hand method is likely
to increase significantly as the project size
increases. The additional time spent produc-
ing quantities for the larger projects directly
from Revit or Tekla is likely to be minimal.
What about the differences in quantities? The
difference between 2,700 tons and 3,000 tons
is quite significant. The difference between
12,000 pieces and 13,000 pieces is also quite
significant. These variations in quantities on
larger projects will have a huge impact on the
overall cost of the steel package. Which quan-
tities should the steel fabricator use? Which
numbers are reliable?
Model Sharing and
the Bidding Process
Will a Revit model be helpful during the
bidding process? The following are two cases
at Banker Steel that help answer this.
In CASE 1, the authors company was
recently asked to provide a budget pro-
posal for a medium sized project, about
120,000-square-feet, 5 stories and 1,100 tons.
The building layout was rather complex, with
different levels having different footprints.
The contractor provided 2D drawings via FTP
download and also, to the authors delight,
the engineers Revit model. A quick com-
parison of the Revit model to the supplied
drawings showed some obvious discrepancies.
This proposal was requested at a time when
estimating staff was unavailable due to other
work loads. The author is not an estimator,
and in order to provide our customer a budget
proposal by the due date, a proposal using the
quantities extracted from the Revit model
was prepared. The quantity output from the
Revit model was easily transferred to an Excel
file, which made for a quick estimate and
an easy copy-and-paste completion of the
contractors detailed bid documents. A note
was included in the proposal stating that the
model was used for the proposal despite the
known discrepancies between the model and
the drawings.
In CASE 2, the authors company bid the
structural steel package on a large project
14 stories and several thousand tons. Only
2D drawing documents were provided. silo. Model sharing, as it exists today, perfect. Drawings certainly arent 100%
There were over 80 RFIs submitted by the is usually limited to use for assistance perfect, and we seem to be entirely com-
steel bidders seeking clarification on scope, only or at users own risk. 2D docu- fortable with that. Use a model and see
quantities, finishes and details. About 10 ments still govern. Models are simply what you get. Ask the upstream creator
percent of the RFIs received no response. not given the attention they need to be to clarify or include more information
Who answers these RFIs? They are answered suitable for downstream use. if you need it. This is no different than
by the A/E team. What is the A/E team doing We all have an obligation to learn how the typical RFI.
when these RFIs come across their desk? and why model data can and will be used And if you want finishes on steel, put it in
They are usually working on another project. by downstream users. We have a respon- the model. Dont put stars on the drawings.
Many of these RFIs dealt with AESS and sibility to provide and accept models
exterior steel finishes. One RFI requested with the understanding that model shar- All graphics courtesy of David Aucoin of
a marked-up drawing noting the various ing is a work in progress, an evolving Pruitt Eberly Stone Engineers, and Mike
members with the required finishes. The practice. A model may not be 100% Samilski, The DOWCO Group.
author submitted an RFI requesting a
Revit model that included a parameter
that tagged members with the specific
finishes. The response was a set of draw-
ings with 1- 2- and 3-star marks on the
members where the 3 types of finishes
are required. Did the A/E team put all
the stars in all the right places? Did all
the bidders find all the stars? The author
would much rather sort data in an Excel
file by finish than visually scour dozens
of drawings looking for stars.

Conclusions
To see model sharing become more
useful and more commonplace, we have
to continually address two overarching

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

principles:
1) Data Validation
The data exported from one appli-
cation and imported into another
must be reliable. This applies to
user issues, where modeling tech-
niques and software settings must
be learned and understood as to
how they relate to not only the
users end product, but to down-
stream users of their work. This
also applies where data export and
electronic conversion of data from BIM-based steel joist design is here and now.
one format to another may result in
Gone are the days of generic indications for steel joists. Since its release in September 2010, our
a slight change in the data. Software
users and vendors have a shared Dynamic Joist component has been supporting BIM-based digital collaboration for real-world
responsibility to overcome these projects throughout the US. For a more efficient and thorough design process offering enhanced
issues through continued use, study design possibilities, accelerated timelines, reduced costs, and contributions to the financial
and education by and of all par- success of your projectmake the transition to 3-D steel joist design today.
ties. Users must transfer data and Real-world case studies and
openly look at the result, and report FREE Dynamic Joist download:
issues to software vendors. Software www.newmill.com/now
vendors must openly receive such
issues and respond promptly with
user guidance and tweaks to their
software converters.
2) Modeling for Downstream Use
Most model users today create
New Millennium is your nationwide resource for steel joists, metal decking, and castellated beams
models to use for their own inter- Fallon, Nevada | Juarez, Mexico | Hope, Arkansas | Butler, Indiana | Salem, Virginia | Lake City, Florida
nal purpose, within their own

11-NMBS-15_structureBIM.indd 1 7/11/11 5:52 PM

STRUCTURE magazine 23 August 2011
Historic
structures
significant structures of the past
Lattice Configurations
Development of the
American Metal Lattice
Truss Bridge and the
Hilton Truss
By David Guise
David Guise retired after 40 years
of private practice as principal
of his architectural firm and is
Professor Emeritus at City College
of New York. He can be reached at
davidguise@myfairpoint.net.
The online version of this
article contains detailed
references. Please visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Figure 1: Timber Town Truss under construction. Boston and Maine Railroad. (Merriman
& Jacoby, Roofs and Bridges.)
This two part article examines the mid-to-late nineteenth century development of a uniquely American
lattice truss railroad bridge configuration.
Part 1 traces the origins of the American lattice truss iron bridge beginning with early European designs.
It continues with the morphing of the American wooden lattice girder into an iron truss, documenting
the contributions of the engineers of the New York Central Railroad that led to the
development of the Hilton riveted wrought-iron lattice truss bridge configuration.
Part 2 will examine the engineering logic of a variety of lattice variations, and
tell the story of the maturing of the metal lattice and its dissemination across the
American landscape.
A
merican architect Ithiel Towns all- The 1884 Supplement to the Encyclopaedia
timber lattice truss, first patented Britannica credits John Stuart with obtaining a
in 1820, became a successful, com- patent for a lattice truss in 1824; however, a search
monly used configuration for covered of the British Patent Office documents could not
bridges. The timber lattice is composed of two locate any patent issued to a John Stuart.
oppositely sloped, dense layers of diagonal planks Initially, European (Figure 4) and American
contained between two parallel chords. Although metal lattice trusses were simply iron adapta-
the Americans called it a truss, Europeans generally tions of the timber lattice configuration. Early
referred to it as a lattice or trellis girder (Figure 1). nineteenth century engineers did not have the
Therefore, it was logical that when iron, and ability to analyze a lattice configuration. However,
eventually steel, became economically viable that the diagonals of the timber Town lattice were
the lattice concept would be built of metal. The wide, and spaced close enough together so that the
iron lattice, developed as a modest span railroad resulting structure could rationally be calculated
bridge more than three decades later than Towns as if it were a solid girder.
patent, had much thinner and more widely spaced Just how aware the American engineering com-
diagonals Figure 2). munity was of early British and European use of
The metal lattice truss had an early start in metal lattice trusses is a matter of speculation. In
England. The British Institution of Civil Engineers 1845, Nathan Rider designed a metal lattice truss
credits Sir John MacNeill as, the engineer who that incorporated a series of vertical members.
introduced iron lattice bridges into the United Despite the drawings title, this often cited con-
Kingdom. In 1845, construction was completed figuration was never patented (Figure 5). (Bridge
on his 140 foot span lattice bridge over the Royal literature often refers to all trusses having sets of
Canal at Dublin for the Dublin &
Drogheda Railway. MacNeills best
known lattice bridge was a dramatic
264-foot clear span Boyne viaduct
completed in 1855.
There were several paper proposals
prior to MacNeills bridges, including
a patent obtained by George Smart in
1822 for a lattice configuration that
was never built. Smart called his lattice
a bridge chain (Figure 3). Figure 2: Typical Metal Lattice Railroad Bridge. Over the Coon
River, Lake City, Iowa. (Authors post card collection.)
24 August 2011
crossing diagonals as lattice trusses, whether or
not there are additional verticals. The author
suggests that the term lattice truss might best be
reserved for configurations that do not contain
vertical web members.) Figure 3: Smarts 1822 Lattice Truss Proposal. (British Patent #4,688.)
Patented or not, bridges were built using
Riders combination of a multi-intersecting
Town truss lattice pattern with a series of
closely spaced verticals (Figure 6).
Rider did obtain a patent for a truss;
patent 4,287 issued on November 26, 1845.
However, it was for a Pratt (compression
verticals and tensile diagonals) configuration
in which all the panels contained crossed
diagonals. It is the only patent Issued to
Nathan Rider.
The New York Central Railroad was the
incubator for the American metal lattice truss,
and for the use of wrought-iron for all the Figure 4: Kew Bridge over the Thames. London and South Western Railway (Courtesy of lupen.org.)
members of a truss (rather than a combination
of wrought- iron for tensile members and cast-
iron for compression members) as well as the
birthplace for riveted connections. Howard
Carroll, a Graduate of Dublin University,
apprenticed under MacNeill in Ireland and
is generally credited with introducing the
use of riveted connections for truss construc-
tion in America, as well as designing the first
American all-wrought-iron riveted trusses
while a member of the engineering staff of
the New York Central Railroad. Carrolls first Figure 5: Drawing from Hermann Haupts. General Figure 6: Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago
wrought-iron riveted bridge was a ten span Theory of Bridge Construction, 1863 plate 8. Railway. Riders lattice configuration, wrought-
crossing of the Mohawk River built in 1859. iron truss. Built in 1868 over the Allegheny
As can be seen in the photograph (Figure 7), River near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Courtesy,
the truss configuration is that of a double Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation.)
intersecting Howe (a Howe has vertical ten-
sion members and compression diagonals).
Although no documentation has been found
to substantiate the claim that all of the truss
members are indeed wrought-iron, it is highly
likely since all the joints were riveted.
George Thomson provided a sketch of
Carrolls lattice design for an article in
the ASCE Transactions of 1897. Although
Thomson labeled the sketch a through lat- Figure 7: Carrolls 1859 Bridge over the Mohawk River between Schenectady
tice, it is a quadruple-intersecting Whipple and Scotia, New York. (Courtesy of Schenectady Historical Society. Provided by
truss that creates a lattice pattern over the Katherine Chansky.)
center portion of the span (Figure 8). A
126.5-foot long bridge with this configura-
tion was built in 1861 over Tonawanda Creek,
in Batavia, New York. All the diagonals are
tensile members and all the vertical are com-
pression members. (Harold Carroll, a Colonel
in the Union Army, was killed in action in 1862
at Antietam at the age of 35, sadly shorting his
engineering career.) Figure 8: Thomsons drawing of Carrolls Through Lattice Truss. (ASCE Transactions, 1897.)

STRUCTURE magazine 25 August 2011

 Figure 9: Hiltons Vertical-end Through Truss over the Erie Canal at Canastota, New York in 1864.
(Report of the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State of New York, 1891.)

Figure 10: Diagram of a vertical-end lattice through-truss with a horizontal strut at end. Built over the
Erie Canal in 1872 at Newark, New York. (Report of the Board of Railroad Commissioners of the State
of New York, 1891.)
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

Charles Hilton, initially Carrolls assistant

in the New York Centrals engineering office,
developed a solution that eliminated the ver-
ticals and provided a lattice texture over the
entire span. In the Hilton configuration, one
set of diagonals slope downward towards the
center of the span and are tension members,
and the second set of diagonals are compres-
sion members which slop downward towards
the abutments. The first bridge believed to be
built to Hiltons design is the 129.5-foot long,
1864 crossing of the Erie Canal at Canastota,
New York (Figure 9).
A slightly later variation of Hiltons verti-
cal-end lattice incorporated a mid-height
horizontal member at each end that was
capable of handling tension as well as com-
pression stresses (Figure10).
Ultimately, the sloped-end through-truss
version of the Hilton Lattice became the
most commonly built American lattice con-
figuration; as engineers realized that it saved
material (Figure 11).
Curiously, no American patent appears to
have been issued for a metal lattice truss con-
figuration. (Friedrich Schmemann s 1873 patent
(#171,323) application contained an elevation of
a metal, triple intersecting lattice truss that had
some additional diagonals near its mid-span,
however, the patent claim was for a method of
constructing the chords of a truss with metal tubes,
not for the configuration shown in the patent
application. Figure 12) If an eponymous name
is ever bestowed on the American quadruple-
intersecting metal lattice truss, Hiltons would
be most appropriate.
Figure 11: Thomsons schematic drawing
of a Typical Hilton Lattice Truss. (ASCE
Transactions, 1897.)
Figure 12.
Acknowledgments
John Hooper at the Boston Public Library
provided invaluable help in locating British
documents. Cliff McCarthy, historian at the
Springfield Museum, located the documen-
tation on the 1877 Springfield, MA lattice
truss over the Connecticut River. Katherine
Chansky, librarian at the Schenectady County
Historical Society located the photograph of,
and found information on the 1859 dou-
ble-intersecting Howe truss crossing of the
Mohawk River at Schenectady, NY. James
Stewart help track down numerous lattice
truss photos to help verify their wide spread
use, and along with Dario Gasparini, Saul
Brody and James Cooper made construc-
tive suggestions that helped to improve the
final manuscript. My thanks to Nikki Alger,
Rob Fullmer and Mark Holmberg for their
help in guiding the manuscript through the
editorial process.

STRUCTURE magazine 26 August 2011

 The new
engineered choice.

SCB SSB SCW FCB

Simpson Strong-Tie introduces our slide-clip and fixed-clip connectors for cold-formed steel
curtain-wall construction. Unlike other manufacturers, Simpson Strong-Tie provides a total design
solution, including the load values of the connector and its anchorage to the structure. By offering a
wide selection of connectors that minimize calculations for designers and can accommodate stand-offs
up to 11 ", you now have a choicean engineered choice for your curtain-wall projects.
As with all Simpson Strong-Tie products, our new connectors for steel-stud framing carry our promise
of quality and performance, and are backed by prompt, technical support. Learn more and download our
new literature by visiting www.strongtie.com/cfsclips or by calling (800) 999-5099.

2011 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. CFSCWC11-E

The Japan Tohuku Tsunami of March, 2011
Part I: Preliminary Observations of Effects on Buildings
By Gary Chock, S.E.
J
apan has a long history of experiencing great earthquakes, and it is the
country with the highest frequency of tsunami attack in the world.
On March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake of moment
magnitude 9.0 generated a tsunami of unprecedented height and
spatial extent along the coast of the main island of Honshu. There is
great interest in the United States in studying the effects of the Tohoku
Tsunami due to the analogous threat posed by the Cascadia subduction
zone to the Pacific Northwest, which in 1700 generated a tsunami-
genic earthquake also estimated to be magnitude 9. Inundation of the
Washington, Oregon and Northern California coastlines would occur
within 30 minutes of an earthquake under this scenario.
The author was the team leader of the ASCE Tsunami Reconnaissance
Team that visited the Tohoku coast in mid-April, roughly one month
after the earthquake, and in the course of two weeks was able to
examine nearly all towns and cities with significant damage due to
the tsunami. The ASCE website carried a daily blog of this trip, which
focused on studying tsunami effects to buildings, bridges, and coastal
protective structures within the inundation zone. In this article, we
present some of our observations relevant to structural engineers.
By now, most readers are likely familiar with the scenes of widespread
destruction, stretching up to several miles inland. It is now estimated
from aerial and satellite photography that about 200 square miles
of land was inundated, including several major coastal cities and
numerous ports. As of May 16, 2011, the Japanese government had
estimated that 126,800 buildings (mostly residences) had fully or
partially collapsed, essentially all due to the tsunami; the earthquake
occurred about 100 miles offshore in the northeast Pacific with attenu-
ation of ground shaking to Modified Mercalli Intensities of VII or less
in most of Honshu. The cost of the damage and economic losses has
been estimated at over $309 billion, which would make it the most
expensive natural disaster in history. The list of fatalities and missing
persons now totals about 24,000.
The primary affected area was the Tohoku coastline of the main
island of Honshu. This area can be geographically subdivided into the
Sanriku coast of the three prefectures of Miyagi, Iwate and Aomori,
which has a sawtooth coastline with numerous estuaries and coastal
valleys, and the middle coastline from the city of Sendai in southern
Miyagi leading southward towards Fukushima prefecture, where the
coastline has broader low-lying plains. Along the Sanriku coast, in
most instances the tsunami occurred as a long-period, high-amplitude
surge. Along the coastal plain south of Sendai, the offshore bathymetry
caused the tsunami to break into a series of bores, which were seen
Figure 2: Overturned Steel-Framed Oce Building in Onagawa.
STRUCTURE magazine
Figure 1: Overturned Cold Storage Building in Onagawa.
racing inland on worldwide television networks as live videos taken
from Japanese news helicopters.
Fluid and impact loads, and scouring from tsunami inundation, pose
a significant risk to coastal buildings and infrastructure. The Tohoku
Tsunami presented all loading and effects, including:
Hydrostatic Forces: buoyant forces, additional loads on elevated
floors, unbalanced lateral forces
Hydrodynamic Forces: lateral and uplift pressures of tsunami
bore and surge flow
Debris Damming and Debris Impact Forces: external and
internal debris accumulation and striking
Scour Effects: shear of cyclic inflow and outflow, and transient
liquefaction due to de-pressurization
Any of these effects alone, or in combination with the others, was
observed to be sufficient to cause structural failures of low- to mid-rise
building components of any structural material. Building performance
was not guaranteed simply by generic choice of structural material and
structural system. Lateral strength and individual element resistance
to impact did matter.
In general, collapse of light-frame residential construction occurs
in most cases in areas subject to about a story height or more of
inundation. Along the Tohoku coast, tsunami water height was in
the range of 15 feet to 60+ feet; therefore, complete collapses of
residential light-frame construction occurred in nearly 100% of
all affected areas extending to the edge of the inundation limit. In
commercial and industrial areas, low-rise building collapses occurred
in the approximate range of 75% to 95%. We found building sites
scrubbed down to their foundations, numerous debris piles of large
structural steel, masonry, and concrete building structural elements
Figure 3: Onogawa Reinforced Concrete Building Frame Structure with Shear
Wall Blow-outs.
28 August 2011
Figure 4: Otsuchi Town Three-Story Figure 5: Otsuchi Town Collapsed Three-Story Steel Moment Resisting Figure 6: Ian Robertson of the ASCE
Steel Moment-Resisting Frame with Frame with Debris Load.
15-foot tall Enwrapping Debris Load.
and wood framing, as well as building successes and failures still on
their original sites. Through the following straightforward examples,
tsunami effects on buildings are illustrated.
The harbor town of Onagawa, east of Sendai City, experienced a
tsunami surge of approximately 60 feet that overtopped nearly all
buildings in the area except those on a central hillside. Among the
failed structures, we found more than a half-dozen overturned and
displaced buildings on their side, structurally complete from founda-
tion to roof. These buildings were either floated by hydrostatic forces
and carried away or overturned by hydrodynamic forces of the tsunami
inflow or outflow, or a combination of both effects.
One illustration is a two-story reinforced concrete cold storage
building (Figure 1), which had the refrigerated storage on the ground
floor and the refrigeration equipment on the second floor. Due to this
function, the building consisted of a closed concrete shell except for
doors and a few windows of its administrative room, and ventilation.
The building was lifted by hydrostatic buoyancy off its pile foundation,
which did not have tensile capacity, and carried over a low wall before
being deposited about 50 feet inland from its original location. This
building was approximately 30 feet by 70 feet in plan, and 40 feet tall.
Other overturned concrete and steel buildings were sufficiently open
to relieve hydrostatic uplift, but were still toppled by hydrodynamic
forces of the incoming or returning flow. A four-story structural steel
moment-resisting frame (Figure 2) lost many of its lightweight pre-
cast concrete cladding panels and had numerous window openings.
Nevertheless, the buildings spun-cast precast piles were sheared off
or extracted from the ground, and the office building was displaced
by about 50 feet. Skid gouge marks were found on the pavement
leading back to its original location.
In many communities, buildings experienced wall failure due to
hydrodynamic forces. The simplest cases of this effect were buildings
that had three-sided, enclosed spaces that became pressurized by flow
stagnation. Flexural yielding led to a catenary membrane condition
followed by overall punching shear of the body of the wall. The
reinforced concrete building frame system shown in Figure 3 had
its shear walls blown outward by the flow returning to the ocean,
entering through the door visible on the far side.
Rather than remaining a pristine fluid, tsunamis quickly become
massively laden with debris from failed building components, street
infrastructure, and natural material stripping. Moreover, this debris
load increases with each passing cycle of inflow and outflow. Buildings
have contents that act as internal debris loading elements subject to
hydrodynamic forces when a tsunamis flow enters the structure; such
debris then transmits hydrodynamic load to the structure even when
the exterior enclosure has opened to allow water to flow through.
Even relatively open buildings, or those with breakaway cladding,
can be re-loaded with debris that wraps around structural framing and
STRUCTURE magazine 29
Tsunami Reconnaissance Team
Examines the Results of a Tsunami
Bore-Projectile Car Impact on a
recreates bluff body effective Structural Precast Bearing Wall
projected areas. The three-story Apartment Building in Yuriage, Natori.
steel moment-resisting frame
building shown in Figure 4 with a 15-foot tall debris pile is an illus-
tration. Note the roof decking material bent around the corner. This
building frame in Otsuchi Town was essentially undamaged in a
30-foot inundation height, due to a robust structural design that in
effect did not rely on breakaway cladding. Note evidence of tsunami
inundation at the height of damaged cladding and top floor windows
and balcony soffit.
The three-story steel-moment-resisting frame shown in Figure 5 had
significant debris wrapping. The frame collapsed due to yielding of
the top and bottom of all first story columns, then was transported
by the incoming flow and crushed and compacted sideways against
the three-story reinforced concrete building in the background. Thus,
the steel building frame, itself laden by debris, became a large-scale
debris load on the adjacent structure.
In addition to building components and even whole buildings,
tsunami debris flows include discrete masses such as floating vehicles
(Figure 6), logs and trees, rolling boulders, large and small concrete
fragments, boats and ships, shipping containers, and fuel and oil stor-
age containers. These projectiles can impact building exterior walls
and structural columns. Vertical load-carrying structural elements
without enhanced local protection or redundant alternative load paths
are more susceptible to such impacts and possible partial collapses.
A building foundation may also be undermined by erosion; this
was observed to occur at the corners of some buildings, especially
(but not exclusively) those with larger plan dimensions and solid or
unbreached wall enclosures. Flow accelerating around, between, or
over any bluff body obstructions generates a scouring of the surface
soil; we found cases of scour pockets up to 9 feet deep.
The ASCE Tsunami Reconnaissance Team is now preparing an
extensive report on its observations and findings that will include
numerical analysis of various example case studies. In a future issue of
STRUCTURE magazine, we will give a summary of this report along
with some conclusions leading towards general recommendations that
structural engineers should consider when designing for tsunami effects.
Gary Chock, S.E. (gchock@martinchock.com), is the chair of the
ASCE/SEI 7 Standard Tsunami Loads and Effects Subcommittee, and
a licensed structural engineer in the states of Hawaii and California.
He is the president of Martin & Chock, Inc., a structural engineering
firm located in Honolulu, and serves as the NCSEA delegate from the
Structural Engineers Association of Hawaii.
All graphics courtesy of Gary Chock and ASCE.
August 2011
 Icon
Engineering an

The Marina Bay Sands

Integrated Resort Part 2

By Patrick McCafferty, P.E., Daniel Brodkin, P.E.,

David Farnsworth, P.E. and David Scott, P.E.

Figure 1: The Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort.Courtesy of Timothy Hursley.

T
he Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort, part of a bold the first six months of the design process, an army of diaphragm wall
new development initiative within Singapores Marina and piling equipment had been mobilized and construction of the
Bay district, encompasses nearly 10 million square feet of project was well underway (Figure 2).
mixed-use development and features three 55-story luxury
hotel towers housing 2,560 rooms and topped by the 2.5 acre land-
scaped rooftop SkyPark. The resort also boasts an iconic museum,
ArtScience Museum
two steel and glass pavilions within the Bay itself and accessible by The 161,500-square-foot ArtScience Museum anchors the northern
underwater tunnels, a 1.3 million square foot convention center, two end of the resort promontory extending along Marina Bay. As the
2,000 seat performance theatres, and over 1 million square feet of most geometrically complex building of the development, the museum
casino, retail, and restaurant space (Figure 1). resembles a lotus flower with its ten asymmetric petals radiating from
This is the second of two articles discussing the structural engineer- a central atrium (Figure 3). Gallery floors within each petal encircle
ing design of the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort. The first article the atrium and actively relate to the overall form. Conceived as an
(STRUCTURE June 2011) presented the structural engineering open air gathering space, the roof of the museum accommodates live
behind the Hotel and SkyPark building components; this article will performances and offers commanding views of the neighboring bay.
discuss the engineering design of the other structures throughout the site. A wide opening centered at the low point of the curved roof allows
rainwater into the interior of the central atrium to create a dramatic
waterfall through the heart of the museum. This configuration called
Difficult Soil Conditions for a perimeter screen around the atrium to environmentally enclose
The complex sits upon more than 6 million square feet of reclaimed each gallery while accommodating views across the atrium among
land comprised of deep, soft marine clay deposits, making the the galleries.
excavation extremely difficult. With an average excavated depth of
approximately 65 feet, the 38 acre waterfront development involved
some of the largest marine clay excavation anywhere in Singapore.
The complexity of these earthworks was exacerbated by the need to
construct a 115-foot deep cut-and-cover tunnel within the site and
adjacent to the Benjamin Sheares Bridge, Singapores longest bridge.
To overcome the challenges of the bulk excavation and to mini-
mize shoring in this particularly difficult soil environment, Arup
set about designing:
two 400-foot diameter circular cofferdams within the
podium zones
a 330-foot diameter donut and a twin-cell 250-foot diameter
cofferdam without cross walls within the hotel zone
a 200-foot radius semi-circular cofferdam within the
museum zone
This approach drastically reduced the quantity of steel struts required
to prop the excavation walls, which in turn reduced congestion and Figure 2: The site was quickly engulfed by a sea of cranes in order to achieve
enabled the site work to advance as quickly as possible. Within just the very aggressive construction schedule. Courtesy of Arup.

STRUCTURE magazine 30 August 2011

Figure 3: Resembling an open palm of welcome, the lotus-shaped
ArtScience Museum houses multi-storey gallery space within each Figure 4: Tension and compression rings resist the push-pull action of the cantilevering mega
of its ten radial petals. Courtesy of David S. Robins. trusses which support the elevated galleries of the ArtScience Museum. The hyperbolic diagrid
provides primary lateral stability to the entire system. Courtesy of Patrick S. McCafferty.

Structural System Crystal Pavilions

Cantilevered gallery trusses with 24-inch by 24-inch box section chords Conceived as shards of ice floating within the Bay and physically dis-
were employed to carry the galleries. However, these posed a significant connected from the rest of the development, the two Crystal Pavilion
challenge as their large reactions demanded resolution where they met buildings represent a sleek, angular departure from the otherwise cur-
the atrium, precisely where the architectural form was intended to run vilinear forms of the resort. Both pavilions house high-end retail space
unencumbered. In response, Arup devised a system of tension and and are accessible via underwater tunnels and bridges (Figure 6, page 32).
compression rings encircling a central hyperbolic diagrid of straight Each pavilion is founded within the Bay on a concrete plinth which
20-inch diameter circular hollow steel sections. The gallery trusses are contains occupiable floor space both above and below the surface of
configured to deliver the large horizontal forces from their top chords the water. The folded perimeter surfaces of each structure stabilize
into the 30-inch by 30-inch steel tension ring, built up from 2-inch themselves, avoiding the need for braced frames or cores extending
thick steel plates along the top of the diagrid. Any net horizontal forces to the roof. Individual facets within each pavilion are structured from
on the tension ring, whether caused by wind, earthquake, or unbalanced parallel but inclined 12-inch diameter by 1-inch thick circular hollow
gravity loads, are carried to the ground through the diagrid via shear steel sections that are braced in-plane via 2-inch diameter steel
and overturning action. Forces from the diagonals and the bottom Macalloy bars. The steel struts of a given facet are likewise capable of
chords are carried by a spiraling 35-inch square compression ring built transferring all out-of-plane loads through flexure to the planes perim-
from 2-inch plates and by an inclined colonnade of 71-inch by 30-inch eter. In this way, every facet becomes a stiff diaphragm, each bearing
built-up steel box mega-columns welded from 19/16-inch steel plate. against its neighbor to stabilize and stiffen the entire arrangement.
The compression ring encircles but does not touch the diagrid, thereby continued on next page
protecting the diagrid from the large horizontal thrusts generated along
bottom chords of the gallery trusses (Figure 4).
The diagrid also provides a necessary screen between the galleries
and the atrium, creating a sense of enclosure to each gallery while still
encouraging views among the spaces. In this way, the diagrid serves to
differentiate the interior spaces of the museum while also providing
overall stability to the structure. Such duality of purpose underscores
the overall design principles of the museum.
Arup employed a suite of design and modeling programs including
X-Steel, Rhino, MicroStation Triforma, and Oasys GSA to create
three-dimensional engineering models of all buildings within the
development. Once created, these were then cross-checked against
the architectural models (Figure 5). By utilizing these tools early and
regularly throughout the design process, the team was able to evaluate,
modify, and re-analyze a wide range of design options for the irregular
and complex form of the museum. Once the design was complete, Arup
provided the fabricator with geometrically accurate design models to
facilitate the production of shop drawings. In this way, the architectural
team, the engineering team, and the fabricator were necessarily work- Figure 5: Arup utilized a suite of engineering design and computer
ing from a common geometry. This approach eased coordination and modeling programs to create three-dimensional models of the entire
accelerated the shop drawing review process considerably. complex. Courtesy of Arup.

STRUCTURE magazine 31 August 2011

 Figure 6: One of the two Crystal Pavilions emerges from Marina Bay as an angular counterpoint to the curved form of the ArtScience Museum beyond.
Courtesy of David S. Robins.

Long-span Podium Roofs the western perimeter, while the eastern halves are configured as a series
of concave-down trusses. Three-hinged action of this system also miti-
The three primary podium buildings of the complex extend the west-
gates the accumulation of large internal stresses under imposed building
ern edge of the site along the Bay. Rising as a stepped waveform over
movements, foundation settlements, and thermal loading effects. Where
each building are their long-span roofs that serve as the foreground to
feasible, relatively stiff reinforced concrete shear walls and braced frames
the hotel, which rises from behind. From north to south, these three
were used to resist the large horizontal thrust forces generated along the
buildings comprise the theaters, casino, and convention center. While
edges of each building. Elsewhere, particularly along the western perimeter
each houses a different program with distinct requirements, Arup
of all three buildings, colonnades of precast concrete moment frames are
devised a common structural system for the design of all three roofs.
employed to help resist these thrusts (Figure 7).
The program of each building demanded a different structural grid below
The system of trusses, with depths ranging from 10 to 15 feet and
the eastern and western halves of the roofs, posing a significant design
spans between 200 to 300 feet, was structurally optimized within
challenge. As such, the use of simple straight trusses to span the halls
the geometric constraints of the intended architectural form. The
would have required substantial transfer trusses at either end, precisely
resulting roof tonnage was approximately 20 pounds per square foot.
where transparency was demanded. In response, Arup derived a system
of trusses which spanned only half of the space and employed a central
perpendicular spine truss to support them. This central truss resides
Challenges Met with Excellence
behind the crest of the waves where the architectural form naturally As a building project, the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort is
offers added depth. In an effort to lighten the spine truss, the system was unrivaled in scale, complexity, and speed of execution. The engineer-
conceived as a three-hinged arch with the spine truss as the uppermost ing design of the project was technically challenging in every way and
hinge, drawing load from it towards the supports. In response to the was rife with firsts, not just for Singapore but for the construction
intended architectural form, the western half of each roof is comprised industry as a whole. From its iconic and gravity-defying forms to
of a series of concave-up trusses spanning between the spine truss and its complex soil conditions and unrelenting construction schedule,
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

The easiest to use software for calculating

wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists
($100.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00). Figure 7: View from atop the hotel looking down upon the waveform casino roof and the dual theatre
buildings still under construction at the time of this photo. The ArtScience Museums hyperbolic
Demos at: www.struware.com
diagrid is seen under construction at top right. Courtesy of Arup.

STRUCTURE magazine 32 August 2011

Figure 8: The Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort has become a landmark feature along Singapores glimmering skyline. Courtesy of Timothy Hursley.

everything about this project was demanding. These many challenges Project Team
were met in equal measure by an uncompromising commitment
Structural, Civil, Geotechnical, Faade, Fire, Traffic, Acoustic
to excellence, professionalism, and collaboration among the entire
and Audio Visual, Security and Risk Engineering, and 3D
project team. This approach enabled an owners vision, a design
Building Modeling: Arup
teams ingenuity, and a construction teams skill and dexterity to
Owner: Las Vegas Sands Corporation
coalesce, culminating in the creation of an iconic new landmark
Design Architect: Safdie Architects
for Singapore (Figure 8).
Executive Architect: Aedas Ltd. Pte.
MEP Engineers (Design): R.G. Vanderweil, LLP
Patrick S. McCafferty, P.E. (Patrick.Mccafferty@arup.com), is
MEP Engineers (Production): Parsons Brinckerhoff
the Structural Engineering Practice Leader for Arup in Boston and
Landscape Architect (Design): Peter Walker & Partners
served as Arups US-based Project Manager for the Marina Bay
Landscape Architect (Production): Peridian International, Inc.
Sands Integrated Resort.
Contractors: Bachy Soletanche (Substructure, Foundations)
Daniel Brodkin, P.E. (Daniel.Brodkin@arup.com), is a Principal JFE Engineering Corporation (SkyPark)
for Arup. David Farnsworth, P.E. (David.Farnsworth@arup.com), Ssangyong Engineering & Construction (Hotel)
is an Associate Principal for Arup. David Scott, P.E. VSL Heavy Lifting (SkyPark)
(David.Scott@arup.com), is a Senior Principal for Arup. Yongnam Holdings (Museum, SkyPark)

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

at all AZZ locations

REASON N0. 350,745.

Why galvanize? Consider the rush hour
commuters driving under steel signage who depend on its durability.
Corrosion costs our economy almost $300 billion annually. But the driver
in the red SUV is a stronger reason. Learn more at azzgalvanizing.com.
We Protect More Than Steel.

COLORS JOB#
STRUCTURE magazine
FILE NAME
33 August 2011
4C AZZ-36322 AZZ-36326_7.5x4.75S OK as is
PROOF S I ZE OK with changes
Quality assurance corner meeting and exceeding requirements and expectations

ASTM A615 Grade 75 Reinforcing Steel

When, Why & How to Use It
By Clifford W. Schwinger, P.E.

M
ost deformed reinforcing steel
used in cast-in-place concrete
construction today is ASTM
A615 Grade 60 reinforcing steel.
When the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) first adopted their
Standard for Billet-Steel Reinforcement Bars
in 1911, there were three grades of deformed
bars Structural Steel Grade (specified yield
strength, fy= 33 kips per square inch, ksi),
Intermediate Grade (fy = 40 ksi) and Hard
Grade (fy = 50 ksi). Today ASTM A615 rec-
ognizes four grades of deformed reinforcing
bars, Grade 40, Grade 60, Grade 75 and the
newly added Grade 80.
Just as Grade 40 reinforcing was replaced
overestimate yield strength. Designers speci- Availability of Grade 75
fying Grade 75 steel must specify that the
by Grade 60 steel, and ASTM A992 steel
material has a yield strength no less than 75
Reinforcing Steel
has replaced ASTM A36 steel for the design
ksi as measured by both the ASTM A615 Grade 75 reinforcing steel is manufactured
of structural steel W shape members, it is
and ACI 318 Section 3.5.3.2 procedures. when there is a sufficient demand for it.
the authors opinion that Grade 75 or
Reinforcing steel producers manufacturing Reinforcing steel manufacturers do not ware-
more likely Grade 80 reinforcing steel
ASTM A615 Grade 75 steel may not auto- house large quantities of Grade 75 bars, and
may someday be used exclusively in place of
matically check the yield strength as required the lead time for obtaining it can be as long
Grade 60 steel for larger bar sizes. Until that
by ACI 318 Section 3.5.3.2, unless specifi- as three or four months. Planning by the proj-
happens, designers should consider using
cally required to do so. ect team is essential to insure timely delivery
Grade 75 reinforcing steel when appro-
Shear stirrups, shear friction reinforcing steel of Grade 75 bars. Designers contemplating
priate. This article discusses the reasons,
and torsional reinforcement are limited to using Grade 75 steel should discuss this idea
advantages and conditions for specifying
fy = 60 ksi. Likewise, the yield strength for with the construction manager or the gen-
ASTM A615 Grade 75 steel.
bonded reinforcing steel in unbonded pre- eral contractor early in the design, to insure
stressed concrete members is limited to fy = that the material can be ordered in time so as
Code Issues 60 ksi. The maximum specified yield strength not to delay the project. Most mills require a
of reinforcing steel in special moment frames minimum quantity of each bar size to justify
The American Concrete Institutes ACI
and special structural walls in seismic load its production. Minimum order sizes vary
318-08, Section 3.5.3.1 specifies acceptable
resisting systems is limited to 60 ksi, and the from mill to mill, depending on the sizes
types of deformed reinforcing bars, of which
actual yield strength of the reinforcing steel in of the furnaces in each mill. Furnaces vary
ASTM A615 steel is one. Section 3.5.3.2
those elements must not exceed the specified from 45 tons to 250 tons in capacity. The
notes that when the specified yield strength,
yield strength by more than 18 ksi. furnaces produce steel in heat lots which are
fy, is greater than 60 ksi, the yield strength
cast into billets. The billets are re-heated and
must be taken as the stress corresponding to
rolled into the reinforcing bars. Some mills
a strain of 0.35 percent. The reason for this Why not use Grade 80 will break heat lots into billets for several
requirement is that reinforcing steels with
yield strengths greater than 60 ksi some-
reinforcing steel? different bar sizes.
times exhibit neither a well-defined yield Grade 80 reinforcing steel is new material that
point nor the classic flat-line plastic zone was added to the ASTM A615 Specification Rules-of-Thumb for Specifying
on the stress-strain curve after yield. The in 2009. The availability of Grade 80 steel is
addition of vanadium to increase strength limited. Designers contemplating the use of
Grade 75 Reinforcing Steel
is one of the contributors to this behavior. Grade 80 steel must confirm its availability Specify Grade 75 when there are at
Because of the possibility of this behavior, and cost premium. least 100 tons required for each bar size
ACI 318 imposes the additional requirement If mechanical splice couplers are to be for which Grade 75 will be used.
for computing the yield stress to insure that used, designers must also confirm the avail- Use Grade 75 in columns, shear walls,
the yield strength determined by the ASTM ability of couplers strong enough for use foundations and flexural members for
A615 procedures do not unconservatively with Grade 80 bars. #9 and larger bars.

STRUCTURE magazine 34 August 2011

 When Grade 75 bars are used for
particular bar sizes, all bars of those sizes
on the project should be Grade 75.
Cost Savings
Steel is a commodity. Its price fluctuates. The
mill cost for steel is only a fraction of the
total installed cost. The total installed cost of
reinforcing steel is the sum of the mill cost,
detailing and fabricating costs, shipping cost
and installation cost.
At the time this article was written, the mill
cost of #11 Grade 60 bars was about $800
per ton and the premium for Grade 75 was
about $40 per ton. The total installed cost of
reinforcing steel varies significantly around
the country, but on average it is about $2,000/
ton. The $40/ton premium for Grade 75 bars
adds only 2 percent to the total installed cost.
Although these costs are approximate, they
illustrate the small difference between the
installed costs of Grade 60 and Grade 75
reinforcing steel.
The primary reason to use Grade 75 is that
it has 20 percent more strength than Grade
60, and allows a 20 percent reduction in the
Fyfe Ad-Oct 2010.indd 1
STRUCTURE magazine
amount reinforcing steel required. The slightly
greater cost per ton (2 percent) is more than
offset by the material savings (20 percent),
yielding a net cost savings of about 18 per-
cent. The time and effort it takes designers
to make the switch is negligible compared to
the significant savings realized.
Engineers planning to specify Grade 75 bars
should take the following steps early in design:
Estimate the tonnage of each Grade
75 bar size and confirm that there are
sufficient quantities to justify mill
production of the material.
Discuss the plan to use Grade 75
reinforcing steel with the construction
manager or general contractor so that
they can place the mill order early.
Advantages
The ability to significantly reduce cost
is reason alone to specify Grade 75 rein-
forcing steel. Other advantages include
reduced congestion and, for columns and
shear wall chord reinforcing, the possibility
of fewer column ties due to fewer vertical
bars. From a sustainability perspective,
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
35 August 2011
there are also green benefits (e.g., less steel
used equals fewer carbon emissions) to
using Grade 75, regardless of whether or
not the use of this material qualifies for
Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) points.
Other Considerations
Tension lap splices for Grade 75 bars are
proportionally longer than for Grade 60
reinforcing bars. If mechanical splice cou-
plers are used for tension splices, then those
couplers must be capable of developing
1.25 x Fy of the bars (ACI 318, Section
12.14.3.2). Grade 75 steel cannot be used
in seismic load resisting systems utilizing
special moment frames or special structural
walls (ACI 318, Section 21.1.5.2)
Clifford Schwinger, P.E. is a Vice President
and Quality Assurance Manager at The
Harman Group, Consulting Structural
Engineers. He can be contacted at
cschwinger@harmangroup.com.
12/1/10 10:55 AM
InSIghtS new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Architectural Coatings for Structural Concrete
By Michael Winge
F
or decades, paints were used on above
grade concrete surfaces mainly for
decorative purposes, with little regard
given to their value in protecting the
concrete structure. Often, these exterior paints
were not vapor permeable and would peel off
substrates when a high moisture level was pres-
ent. After the introduction of latex acrylic paints
and coatings in the 1950s, users began to expect
more from exterior paints and took interest in
the overall performance of the coating. Over
time, it became clear that architectural coatings
needed to be multi functional and possess a
variety of attributes to truly protect a concrete
substrate. Today, architectural coatings must be
waterproof, possess a high resistance to wind
driven rain, protect against chloride penetration,
be carbonation resistant, allow water vapor dif-
fusion (breathable), have a high UV resistance
and have aesthetic value. Additionally, a coat-
ing may also need to be elastomeric, possessing
the ability to bridge small moving cracks and
withstand movement resulting from freeze/thaw
cycles. Here is a summary of the primary proper-
ties that should be considered when choosing a
coating for concrete:
Waterproofing
The primary function of a protective coat-
ing is to keep water out of the building or
structure, and create a protective envelope for
the concrete surface. This resistance to water
absorption is a basic, yet critical function of
any architectural coating. Any paint or coating
that absorbs considerable amounts of water will
not protect the concrete and will often peel
from the surface. Since chloride ions only enter
concrete while dissolved in water, waterproof
coatings will generally keep chloride ions out
of the concrete, further protecting the steel
reinforcing. Once chlorides have entered the
concrete, they migrate to the steel, attack the
steel surface and instigate corrosion.
Carbonation Resistance
Carbonation is the natural phenomenon that
occurs in concrete when a loss of pH takes place.
This occurs when atmospheric carbon dioxide
reacts with the moisture inside the concrete
pores and converts high-pH calcium hydroxide
to calcium carbonate, which has a more neutral
pH. At a lower pH level, concretes corrosion
protection ability is reduced (carbonation moves
from the outer surface of the concrete inward,
advancing toward the reinforcing steel).
STRUCTURE magazine
Like other exterior coatings, an anti-car-
bonation coating can still be water vapor
permeable. An anti-carbonation coating forms
a cured polymer network, or fishnet, that
catches the larger carbon dioxide molecules
but allows the smaller water vapor molecules
to pass through.
Water Vapor Transmission
Architectural coatings need to let the concrete
breathe or allow water vapor to pass from
the structure and through the concrete with-
out building up vapor pressure. This helps
protect moisture from building up behind the
coating, which can lead to condensation in
the building or structure and possibly affect
the adhesion of the coating to the concrete.
UV Resistance
Sunlight will degrade most polymer materials
over a period of time. In the case of protective
coatings and paints, it may significantly reduce
the protective performance that was expected.
While it is expected that a good quality archi-
tectural coating perform for at least 10 years,
the life of these coatings is not unlimited and,
after time, their technical benefits will start
to decrease. Ultra Violet light can also cause
fading in the organic pigments used to color
many coatings, especially in dark colors.
Elasticity
Most concrete structures move thermally and
some even dynamically. This may require a
protective coating to have additional elas-
ticity (the ability to elongate and recover)
and crack-bridging properties, particularly
at low temperatures when coatings become
more rigid and cracks become wider. Many
coatings are flexible as a free film, but few are
elastomeric, and fewer still are sufficiently
elastomeric enough to bridge recurring fine
cracks at low temperatures.
Fine cracks, which are often insignificant struc-
turally, are very significant to the long term
durability of reinforcing steel. These fine cracks
can allow water, chlorides, and carbon dioxide
intrusion, which lead to corrosion of the rebar
and subsequently damage the concrete structure.
Aesthetics
One of the most important and fundamental
advantages of architectural coatings is that they
beautify the concrete building or structure to
which they are applied. Coatings can be tinted,
36 August 2011
either by the manufacturer or the local dis-
tributor or paint store, to an almost unlimited
amount of color choices. Most manufactures
offer standard colors that the specifier or end
user can pick from, but many manufacturers
and suppliers also have the ability to match
custom colors and tint small amounts of
material to that color. This makes paints and
coatings a very unique product in concrete pro-
tection, because the look of the product is often
even more important to the customer than the
technical benefits the product provides.
Architectural coatings are also available in
many types of textures, ranging from smooth
to course, which also add to the aesthetics of
the building while helping to hide any imper-
fections in the concrete substrate. Elastomeric
coatings also provide the added benefit of
bridging and hiding small cracks in the con-
crete, as well as providing a uniform look to the
building by coating over elastomeric sealants.
VOC Levels
In the past several years, many states have
enacted regulations aimed at lowering the
levels of VOC (volatile organic compound)
in coatings, thereby protecting air quality.
Most manufacturers have had to reformulate
many products to water based formulations in
order to meet these VOC regulations and still
maintain the products performance. These
lower VOC products can also contribute to
LEED credits in building construction.
Conclusion
Today, architectural concrete coatings are much
more than just paint. They need to be able to
fulfill a variety of functions to not only pro-
tect the steel rebar in concrete from corrosion,
but also add an aesthetic value to the concrete
structure. There are many different types of
products and chemistries on the market that
can be used for this application. Understanding
the benefits and limitations of each type of
product for each specific application is criti-
cal to ensure a successful application to both
protect and beautify concrete.
Michael Winge is a Product Marketing
Manager for sealants, adhesives and
facade coatings at Sika Corporation. He
has been a member of Sealant, Waterproofing
and Restoration (SWR) Institutes since 2004.
Michael may be contacted at
winge.michael@sika-corp.com.
 Smarter models. Diverse solutions.
Software that connects.

SDS/2 software solutions build smarter 3D

models, perfect for collaboration on every BIM project.
SDS/2 preserves vital project information, allowing users to
either maintain a single model from start to finish, or to share 3D
models with other industry-standard tools.

SDS/2 BIM creates industry-standard IFC and CIS/2 models and

interfaces with popular collaborative products, such as
Autodesk Revit Structure and Bentley MicroStation. This
interoperability lends itself to the BIM process, LEAN
construction and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD).
SDS/2 is the foremost solution when it comes
to the steel in any collaborative model.

Learn more about BIM at

sds2.com/BIM.

Copyright 2011 Design Data. All rights reserved. sds2.com/BIM 800.443.0782


As Projects Pick Up, Software Makers Listen
and Respond to Customers Needs
By Larry Kahaner
W
ith signs of an improving economy and increasing
projects, software companies are making sure that
they remain competitive as structural engineers con-
tinue to seek the best value in products and services.
Competition is keen, as end user firms are consolidating and many
structural engineers have started firms after being let go by larger
companies during the downturn. These users not only want more
value for their dollar, but ease of use and the most up-to-date codes.
In addition, many engineers want software that specifically targets
their projects needs.
Software companies are doing their best to accommodate custom-
ers wishes. Design Data (www.sds2.com) in Lincoln, Nebraska,
considers itself a technology company that serves the construction
industry, according to Vice President of Sales, Doug Evans. Our
software solutions, SDS/2, are a unique, discipline-driven family of
software products that provide the construction industry with a more
intelligent way to increase both productivity and profits. Design
Data serves both the commercial and industrial components of the
steel construction industry.
We have re-branded our entire product line, Evans adds. The
SDS/2 software solutions now include nine products that take a proj-
ects potential and transform it into real profit: SDS/2 Detailing, SDS/2
Drafting, SDS/2 Erector, SDS/2 Engineering, SDS/2 Fabricating,
SDS/2 Approval, SDS/2 Modeling, SDS/2 BIM and SDS/2 Viewer.
He notes, These products have been enhanced to provide specific
functionality to meet the needs of a given task within a project. On
a particular project, there may be one structure and there may be one
BIM model; however, the needs and information of each organization
and tasks within that project are different. Our family of products
makes sure that you are using the right tool for the right task.
Evans says that, across the country, almost all of his clients are seeing
increased activity in the past four months. The amount of bidding
STRUCTURE magazine
Special Section
Engineering Software
and projects is rising at a fast pace, and it is increasing as opposed to
what we have seen the last couple of years. That is a very positive sign.
Terry Kubat, Engineer and Developer at Bozeman, Montana-based
IES, Inc. (www.iesweb.com), says that his company creates advantages
over competitors by listening very closely to customers and offering
them special attention. About half of IES customers are structural
engineers in small consulting offices or self employed in the USA.
The rest are scattered across-the-board internationally: large firms,
architects, mechanical engineers, government, educators, and others
All of our products are customer-driven. We provide free technical
support, and free weekly web-meeting training for customers who
use these forums to request improvements. We also regularly survey
our customers and partner with local engineers to get better-quality
feedback regarding the direction of our tools.
Kubat adds: The proof of our quality is that we only need one tech-
nical support person to service the needs of thousands of customers
using nearly a dozen different products and versions.
During 2011, the company is releasing major upgrades to exist-
ing products including ShapeBuilder, VisualFoundation and
VisualAnalysis. They also have introduced two new tools for spe-
cialized analysis: VisualShearWall which helps engineers determine
forces in rigid or flexible shear wall systems, and VisualPlate which
solves plate-bending problems for concrete slabs or metal plates. (See
ad on page 40.)
Marinos Stylianou, CEO of S-Frame Software (www.s-frame.com)
in Guilford, Connecticut, says that his company just released new
versions of S-FRAME, an analysis package; S-STEEL, a steel design
package; and S-CONCRETE, a concrete design package. We also
introduced S-PAD, a steel design program which is a simplified version
of S-STEEL. We developed this specifically with the small consulting
engineer in mind There are more and more people that were laid
off, left to their own devices, and are forming their own consulting
39 August 2011
 Special Section
Engineering Software
companies. Theyre just starting up. We thought wed have a product
with an entry level price of below $1,000 for them. (See ad on page 4.)
At Computers & Structures, Inc. (www.csiberkeley.com), in
Berkeley, California, CEO Ashraf Habibullah notes: The most
exciting development over the past year here at CSI has been the
release of CSiBridge, the first and only product that harnesses all of
the capabilities of SAP2000 and packages them into a sleek interface
designed specifically for bridge engineers. According to Habibullah,
CSiBridge allows engineers to easily define complex bridge geometries,
boundary conditions and load cases. The bridge models are defined
parametrically, using terms that are familiar to bridge engineers such
as layout lines, spans, bearings, abutments, bents, hinges and post-
tensioning. The software creates spine, shell or solid object models that
update automatically as the bridge definition parameters are changed.
CSiBridge also includes a wizard that outlines the steps necessary to
create a bridge model. It is the first package of its kind to integrate
bridge analysis, design and bridge rating, he says.
Adds Habibullah: We knew, with so such heavy infrastructure
rebuilding going on, that engineers needed a tool specifically for bridge
design. We saw the need, and we knew we could fill it quickly with a
sophisticated but straightforward tool that would address the unique
requirements of bridge design. (See ad on page 60.)
IES-Feb-Half-Pg-4C.pdf 1 12/27/2010 2:03:08 PM
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
CM
MY
CY
CMY
STRUCTURE magazine
At Bentley Systems, Incorporated (www.bentley.com), Huw Roberts,
Global Marketing Director Building and Structural, says that one
way Bentley, based in Exton, Pennsylvania, helps to lower costs for
customers is through its Structural Passport product which allows
engineers to use all of the different Bentley structural products, of
which there are dozens, for a fixed, single price. They can use special
foundation software, steel connection software, detailing fabrication
software, whatever, depending on what task is at hand or what project
theyre on or what their workload is, and not have to worry about
buying a full suite of every one of those pieces of software just so they
can use it on the occasions when its necessary. A lot of engineers really
like that sort of subscription model.
Passport provides scales of economy in smaller firms, in particular,
says Roberts. If you think about it, a large engineering firm can absorb
the costs of all the different pieces of software, passing them around
as different people are working on them. A small, four or five person
or single practitioner structural engineering firm cant really afford
that. In a small firm, Passport is a very effective way to get access to
software without a big upfront cost of buying everything.
The company also is proud of their new AECOsim Building Designer.
Roberts describes it as a multi-disciplinary building design applica-
tion that includes structural engineering and structural modeling. It
40 August 2011
Intelligent
Structural Design

With RAM, STAAD and

Model, Analyze, Design, Document Documentation Center, Bentley
offers proven applications for:
and Deliverin an Integrated Workflow l Steel/Steel Composite
l Reinforced Concrete
Having all the applications you need for the tasks at hand, along with the ability
l Wood and Wood Products
to easily synchronize your work with the rest of the project information, helps
you get your job done right, fast and profitably. And when the structural project l Foundation Design
workflow can be integrated, the whole team benefits. l Post-Tensioned Design
l Steel Connections
Bentleys new Passport Subscriptions for structural engineers provide access to l Structural Drawings and Details
the full range of structural software (including upgrades) and training documents
and information that most projects require. These options are available as an all easily coordinated with the
affordable alternative to traditional licensing. Architect and other team members and
their design applications such as
Contact us to learn more. AutoCAD, Revit, MicroStation and more.

www.Bentley.com/Structural
2010 Bentley Systems, Incorporated. Bentley, the B Bentley logo, MicroStation, RAM, and STAAD are either registered or unregistered trademarks
or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated or one of its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries. Other brands and product names are
trademarks of their respective owners.
 Special Section
Engineering Software
works with the companys other structural products like RAM, but
also includes architectural, mechanical, electrical and other disciplines
in the same environment. Its great for structural engineers who
are working in an AE firm or EA firm, because it provides a shared
environment for all the building disciplines. Interference detection
and all those things happen in your design environment. You dont
have to go into other applications.
Rob Madsen, President of Devco Software, Inc.
(www.devcosoftware.com), agrees with others that business is a lot
better. Last year was slow, but this year has been pretty good. I think
the markets just kind of turning around a little bit. It doesnt hurt
that we issued our upgrades, and we had some special promotional
things going on with regards to the upgrades. Were selling a lot of
software to new customers too, not just to our existing customers.
He says that his company, based in Corvalis, Oregon, like others, is
keeping their product offerings compliant. That 2009 IBC thing is
huge because it does make a big impact on metal stud design The
main thing that people need to be getting themselves up to speed with
is distortional buckling. Thats just another thing we have to do now
when were checking the strength of metal studs, and our software
handles that. But even talking with folks who are in the industry, we
dont see lot of people who understand how distortional buckling
works and what the impact of it is on stud design.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
Structurepoint, LLC (www.structurepoint.org) in Chicago, Illinois,
was formerly the Engineering Software Group of the Portland Cement
Association. As a spinoff from the Association, one of its goals is to
promote the use of cement. We publish software dedicated specifi-
cally to reinforced concrete structures and buildings. We focus on
the analysis, design and detailing of these structures, says Marketing
Director, Heather Johnson. Our market is civil and structural engi-
neering, which basically covers buildings, bridges and infrastructures.
Wed like SEs to know about recent changes to the structural build-
ing codes, because we focus a great deal of our time on incorporating
the codes into our software, which saves a lot time for the engineer in
not having to dig into all that detail, she says. Im talking specifically
about ACI 318-11. The end users are appreciative that we are doing
some of the legwork for them so that, when they have a project that
specifies concrete, theyll find the latest and greatest as they utilize
their software programs.
Interestingly, Johnson has noticed a change in customers. Theyre
more thoughtful and sophisticated compared to past years. The
uncertainties of the last two or three years have forced many of our
end users and decision makers to sharpen their thinking and theyre
laser-focused on results, which is very suitable for us in our operation
because we are very specialized. I think with the recession, and pres-
sures from the market and budget and schedules, our customers seem
to appreciate our specificity and focus.
RISA Te c h n o l o g i e s , L LC
(www.risatech.com), of Foothill Ranch,
California, is also listening to their cus-
tomers and responding with new software.
Our newest piece of software is RISA
Connection and, after the NASCC steel
show, weve received really positive feed-
back. We did some seminars at the show
to demonstrate the integration with
our other products, and engineers were
really excited about it. Were looking
forward to another release of that in the
summer, says Amber Freund, Director of
Marketing. One of the things that they
(SEs) were complaining about was a lack
of integration between connection design
software and structural analysis software,
so theyre excited that they can stay within
the same suite of products and that all of
their information is going to be transferred
back and forth. The end forces go directly
into the connection design, rather than
having to export and import. Its just all
one system.
Freund, too, says that customers are
doing much better than last year. Were
seeing kind of a mix. There are a lot of
projects that were put on hold that are
now being fired up again. But, I would
say the industrial sector is probably one of
42 August 2011
 Work quickly.
Work simply.
Work accurately.

StructurePoints Productivity Suite of powerful software tools

for reinforced concrete analysis & design

Finite element analysis & de- Analysis, design

sign of reinforced, precast & investigation of
ICF & tilt-up concrete walls reinforced concrete
beams & one-way
slab systems

Design & investigation Analysis, design

of rectangular, round & investigation of
& irregularly shaped reinforced concrete
concrete column sections beams & slab systems

Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete

foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade

StructurePoints suite of productivity tools are so easy
to learn and simple to use that youll be able to start saving
time and money almost immediately. And when you use
StructurePoint software, youre also taking advantage
of the Portland Cement Associations more than 90 years
of experience, expertise, and technical support in concrete
design and construction.
Visit StructurePoint.org to download your trial
copy of our software products.
For more information on licensing and pricing
options please call 847.966.4357 or e-mail
info@StructurePoint.org.

STR 6-09
Special Section
Engineering Software
the bigger ones. Were also seeing commercial come back, she says.
(See ad on page 59.)
Customers of CSC Inc. (www.cscworld.com) in Chicago are also
seeing upbeat signals, according to Stuart Broome, Vice President.
Our customers are telling us that the climate is still challenging, but
they feel a corner has been turned. They are beginning to see signs of
projects starting up again. They also tell us that, with this challenging
climate, now more than ever is the time to be competitive and current
with technological advancements that may help them stand out.
CSC has been developing software for 35 years. Their Tedds prod-
uct line provides over 120 structural calculations, with the ability to
create and customize calculations. Using Tedds extensive library of
calculations, structural engineers can create a single project docu-
ment with clear and consistent documentation for checking, sharing
and submitting, says Broome. The company also offers Fastrak to
help SEs streamline their steel building projects. Using one model,
structural engineers can analyze, design, document and collaborate.
This one-model approach allows for integrated gravity and lateral
design, as well as design of complex structures with features such as
sloped roofs and trusses.
In June, CSC added masonry wall design to Tedds, including slen-
der load bearing walls with both out-of-plane bending and in-plane
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Engineer, detail, contract, fabricate
and construct...
AceCad Software offers a complete steelwork construction solution, through a suite of specialist products, which
may be used independently or integrated for superior BIM advantages.
Engineer
Site Team
Fabricator Contractor
STRUCTURE magazine
shear. In August, they will add masonry lintel design. Also in August,
Fastrak enhancements will include semi-rigid diaphragm analysis and
design, concrete foundation design, shear wall design with end posts,
and bearing wall modeling.
Our customers are cautiously optimistic, says Dan
Monaghan, Managing Director, North America Nemetschek Scia
(www.scia-online.com), located in Columbia, Maryland. They are
seeing more new jobs in the pipeline, as well as starting to see funding
for projects that were stuck. Other trends for engineering firms include
doing more with less, looking for services to attract new clients, and
seeking an edge over their competitors. Investing in new technology
is one way they are doing all of these things. With the right technol-
ogy, firms can increase productivity, take on new project types, offer
new services and stand out from the competition.
Monaghan sees firms migrate from traditional engineering work-
flows, which he says are often inefficient and disconnected, to more
collaborative model-based workflows that are more integrated and
economical. These firms are looking for new software, like Scia
Engineer, that is tuned to support these new 3D processes.
He says that a unique feature of Scia Engineer is its modeling capa-
bilities. Its a very fast and efficient FEA (Finite Element Analysis)
modeling tool. Freeform Solids Modeling capabilities make it easy
Detailer
Introducing AceCad Softwares evolution
suite, for the structural supply chain.
AceCad Software is a unique software
vendor with solutions for AEC and Plant
Industries; enabling project delivery from
concept, through engineering, detailing,
contracting, fabrication and construction.
evolve with AceCad Software.
www.acecadsoftware.com
44 August 2011
 New Design Office 9
Now IBC 2009 and SDPWS 2008 compliant

Shearwalls:
Shear wall deflection and story drift
Deflection derived stiffness for force distribution
Hold-down design using editable database

Sizer:
Full control over bearing and span lengths
Supporting member bearing design
Full, clear or design spans
Multiple beams and columns in one workspace
Integration with Autodesk Revit (optional)

Complete list of features and Demo at

woodworks-software.com
You can buy more sophisticated wood engineering software, but ...
its expensive, takes considerable time to model your structure, and is usually overkill for what engineers
need for the design of most wood structure projects. WoodWorks Design Office doesnt have the most
advanced graphics or the latest interface style, but its component-based operation is intuitive, quick and
easy to use, inexpensive, and is produced by the same wood experts that contribute to the development
of Canadian and American wood design standards. While our non-profit organizations budget means we
need to continue to focus on only our niche of wood design, we are capitalizing on the stengths of other
software packages like Autodesks Revit Structure to help give you the level of sophistication of fully
modelled structures by creating a bi-directional integration with this leading BIM software. A Revit/Sizer link
is now available as a separate purchase.

Robert Jonkman, P.Eng, Manager, Structural Engineering and WoodWorks Software, Canadian Wood Council

www.woodworks-software.com 800-844-1275
Special Section
Engineering Software
for engineers to work up models in 3D and keep pace with the com-
plex designs coming from architects and contractors. Its Parametric
Object Technology allows firms to automate routine and repetitive
work, says Monaghan. Engineers can use the parametric objects
that ship with Scia Engineer, but the real power is in how easy it is
for firms to create their own custom objects. With our program, you
can quickly work up and test design concepts. Then, when the design
has gelled, develop an accurate structural model in Scia Engineer or
link designs to another modeling program for model coordination
and documentation. (See ad on page 49.)
Going for a niche approach to software is the Canadian Wood
Council (www.cwc.ca), a national non-profit association located
in Ottawa, Ontario, representing manufacturers of Canadian wood
products used in construction. Ours is a fairly low-cost software with
pretty good value. Its just around $800.00 under $1,000 anyway
to purchase our software that has some of the capabilities of more
expensive programs costing $5,000 to $7,000, says Robert Jonkman,
Manager, Structural Engineering. Ninety percent of its customers are
structural engineers. We offer the software free to building officials,
and we offer the software free to professors at universities and colleges
so they can give each student a free copy for a limited time to use
during their course, Jonkman notes. (See ad on page 45.)
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
GT STRUDL
Structural Analysis & Design Software
Your Structural Solution
for
Base Plates to Megastructures
Base Plate
Georgia Tech - CASE Center
Phone: 404-894-2260
Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu
www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu
STRUCTURE magazine
AceCad Software, Inc. (www.acecadsoftware.com), based in Exton,
PA, provides solutions for both AEC and Industrial Plant and Process
markets. Our products enable steelwork project delivery from con-
cept through engineering, detailing, fabrication and construction,
says Munny Panesar, US Regional Manager. Panesar adds, Globally,
various regions and sectors have been more adversely affected by eco-
nomic downturns than others. However, we see that many in the steel
industry are taking the opportunity to invest now in new technolo-
gies that are complementary and adaptive to existing work practices,
ensuring that they benefit from maximum advantages going forward.
In order to meet customer needs, AceCad has made improvements to
their evolution product range, which includes engineering, detailing,
fabrication management and collaboration software titles. A few of
the upgrades include: StruCad evolution (for detailing) now has docu-
ment management, a new integration platform, bi-directional data
transfer with StruWalker, AceCads collaboration software. StruM.I.S
evolution (for fabrication management) has substantial new estimating
functionality, together with enhanced material optimisation and all
new CAM/NC1 viewing and editing tools. The improved integration
of our products, not only with third party software, but also CNC
machinery and across our evolution product suite, brings advanced
46 August 2011
BIM benefits with greater transparency to the supply chain, says
Panesar. (See ad on page 44.)
Also hitting a niche market is crucial for Leroy Emkin, Founder and
Co-Director of the CASE Center in Atlanta (www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu).
The strength of GT STRUDL its Structural Design & Analysis soft-
ware programs for Architectural, Engineering /Construction (AEC),
CAE/CAD, utilities, offshore, industrial, nuclear and civil works has
always been the power and high quality of its computations. He says that
the nuclear industry, in particular, is interested in the software. Theyre
interested based on a need for extreme quality, extreme computational
performance, and very comprehensive user documentation, says Emkin.
The complete set of user documentation for GT STRUDL including
the quality assurance and quality control documents consists of 30
volumes of documentation, over 13,000 pages.
The software is being improved continually, Emkin says. Were
continuing to do developments in the area of non-linear analysis in
order to make the performance of the rigorous direct analysis method,
as described in the 13th edition AISE and the upcoming 14th edition
AISE, feasible for all engineers, whether they be in commercial build-
ings or general civil structure or heavy industry. As more and more
engineers become involved in non-linear analysis and, in particular,
non-linear geometric analysis, we have implemented highly rigorous
non-linear geometric analysis procedures in GT STRUDL. We have
substantially improved the computation performance to such a degree
that, in our opinion, it is now highly feasible and cost-effective for
engineers to perform that kind of analysis. We believe that if one does
not use GT STRUDL, it could be quite a costly process.
At Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems (www.simpsonanchors.com),
in Pleasanton, California, a manufacturer of wood-to-wood and wood-
to-concrete connectors, the company has been doing a lot more
engineering services, assisting engineers with their designs, and also
focusing on new software tools. For a long time, weve had software that
helps customers pick the right joist hanger. Thats kind of simple, says
Paul McEntee, Manager of Engineering, Research and Development.
Now, weve been working a lot more to come up with things to help
engineers do other jobs like their wall bracing design, for example. The
new code has much more complicated design procedures for a lot of
prescriptive residential designs. Weve come up with tools just to help
engineers get their designs done more efficiently.
Their move into more engineering services is well timed. Were
seeing things keep plugging along, says McEntee. Were definitely
seeing more questions on multi-family projects, and our engineering
services design for the multi-family is picking up a lot more. (See
ads on pages 11 and 27.)

A software guide for Structural Engineers SOFTWARE GUIDE

r eta i n i n g wa l l s

pack ag e s / s u i t e s
f o u n dat i o n s /

Not listed? Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org/guides.aspx and submit

pro d u c t i v i t y
co m p o n e n t s

li g ht g au g e
your information for upcoming guides! Listings are provided as a courtesy.
co n c r e t e
business/

gener al/

m a s o n ry
building

STRUCTURE magazine is not responsible for errors.

Proj e c t
B ri d g e s

wood
s t ee l

s t ee l
CAD
BIM

co m pa n y na me Soft ware
ADAPT Corporation ADAPT-ABI X X X
Phone: 650-306-2400
Email: info@adaptsoft.com ADAPT-Builder Floor Pro
Web: www.adaptsoft.com MAT SOG X X X X
Applied Science International, LLC Extreme Loading for Structures X X X X X X X X X X
Phone: 919-645-4090
Email: tdigirolamo@appliedscienceint.com
Web: www.appliedscienceint.com
SteelSmart System X X X X X X
Bentley Systems
Phone: 800-236-8539 ProSteel V8i X X
Email: structural@bentley.com
Web: www.bentley.com
CMC Steel Products
Phone: 972-772-0769 RAM SBeam CMC
Email: marketing@cmc.com SMARTBEAM Ver. 5.0 X
Web: www.cmcsteelproducts.com

Computers & Structures, Inc.

Phone: 510-649-2200 SAP2000, CSiBridge, ETABS, SAFE x x x x x
Email: info@csiberkeley.com
Web: www.csiberkeley.com

STRUCTURE magazine 47 August 2011

SOFTWARE GUIDE A software guide for Structural Engineers

r etai n i n g wal l s

pac k ag es /s ui tes
f oun dati on s /
prod uc ti v i t y
com p on en ts

l i g ht g aug e
con c r ete
b us i n es s /

g en er al /

m as on ry
b ui l d i n g

Proj ec t
B r i d g es

w o od
s teel

s teel
C AD
BIM
co m pa n y na me Soft ware
CSC Fastrak x x
Phone: 877-710-2053
Email: melanie.maclaren@cscworld.com
Web: www.cscworld.com
Tedds x x x x x x
Design Data
Phone: 800-443-0782 SDS/2 BIM and SDS/2 Engineering x x x
Email: info@sds2.com
Web: www.sds2.com
Devco Software, Inc.
Phone: 541-426-5713 LGBEAMER v8 x x
Email: rob@devcosoftware.com
Web: www.devcosoftware.com
Digital Canal
Phone: 800-449-5033
Email: clint@digitalcanal.com
Structural Expert Series x x x x x x x
Web: www.digitalcanal.com
Dimensional Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 281-497-5991 Foundation Design Suite and
Email: Info@DimSoln.com Mat3D x
Web: www.dimsoln.com
ENERCALC, INC.
Phone: 800-424-2252 Structural Engineering Library
Email: info@enercalc.com Version 6 x x x x x x
Web: www.enercalc.com
GT STRUDL
Phone: 404-894-2260 GT STRUDL x x x x x x x x x
Email: casec@ce.gatech.edu
Web: www.gtstrudl.gatech.edu
Hardy Frames, Inc.
Phone: 805-477-0793
Email: dlopp@mii.com
Hardy Frames Shear Wall System x
Web: www.hardyframe.com
Hilti, Inc.
Phone: 800-879-8000 Hilti PROFIS Anchor V2.1,
Email: us-sales@hilti.com
PROFIS DF, and BIM objects x x x x x x x x x
for concrete anchoring
Web: www.us.hilti.com
IES, Inc.
Phone: 800-707-0816 VisualAnalysis x x x x x x x x
Email: sales@iesweb.com
Web: www.iesweb.com
iLevel by Weyerhaeuser
Phone: 888-453-8358
Email: ilevel@weyerhaeuser.com
iLevel Forte 2011 software x
Web: www.iLevel.com
LARSA, Inc.
Phone: 800-LARSA-01
Email: jhorner@larsa4d.com
LARSA 4D x x x
Web: www.Larsa4D.com
Losch Software, Ltd.
Phone: 323-592-3299
Email: edlosch@loscheng.com
LECPres and LECWall x x
Web: www.LoschSoft.com
National Concrete Masonry Association
Phone: 703-713-1900
Email: publications@ncma.org
Structural Masonry Design System x x x
Web: www.ncma.org
Nemetschek Scia
Phone: 877-808-7242 Scia Engineer x x x x x x x x x x x
Email: usa@scia-online.com
Web: www.scia-online.com

continued on page 50
STRUCTURE magazine 48 August 2011
 ADVERTISEMENT
Plugging Analysis and Design
into Your 3D Workflow
Workow
W 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 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 modeling program for coordination and
documentation.
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.
When Modeling Matters,
i dont think we would have been able to do Scia Engineer Delivers
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 non-linear, multi-material
design and multiple codes, ive avoided having
to invest in disparate analysis programs, says
Michael Ajomale, Principal, Design Depictions
Structural Engineering, P.C. Reducing the
number of analysis programs we manage More in tune with the
saves on maintenance costs and makes it engineers workflow
less expensive to train new employees. Most
importantly, it reduces the risks that come with Eye-opening
manually coordinating multiple analysis models.
For occasions when i need to go outside Scia Extremely impressed
Engineer, i appreciate its ability to integrate
my Excel checks and its XML support.
Growing with Technology
Read the AECbytes Article
in addition, the right software makes a firm
more flexible, allowing them to go beyond www.scia-online.com/review
their usual projects, and take on work wherever
they find it. Scia Engineer allows our firm to
confidently compete for bigger building projects
Scia Engineer is a new breed of
as well as go beyond buildings, says Flamer. integrated structural design software
While our expertise is in commercial, we just that goes beyond analysis to help
completed a bridge project and are ready to firms excel in todays collaborative
take on larger, complex structures. A flexible 3D workflows. Discover fast, efficient
tool like Scia Engineer makes all the difference. modeling and simple FEM analysis.
he added: i evaluated the usual list of Recycle and leverage models
structural analysis programs, and there isnt created by others into analysis. And,
another program in the market like it. Scia centralize your design tasks
with static and advanced nonlinear
Engineer is the only program i found that
multi-material design and multiple
integrates fast and efficient modeling, advanced codes in ONE program.
multi-material design, and lets me easily reuse
and share 3D models. For us, Scia Engineer See how we can
was a logical choice. help improve your
For information, visit www.Scia-Online.com 3D workflows.
or call 1.877.808.Scia (7242).
Daniel Monaghan is the U.S. Managing Director (877) 808-7242
of Nemetschek Scia, developers of leading software www.scia-online.com
products for AEC software industry. He can be
reached at dmonaghan@scia-online.com
SOFTWARE GUIDE A software guide for Structural Engineers

r etai n i n g wal l s

pac k ag es /s ui tes
f oun dati on s /
prod uc ti v i t y
com p on en ts

l i g ht g aug e
con c r ete
b us i n es s /

g en er al /

m as on ry
b ui l d i n g

Proj ec t
B r i d g es

w o od
s teel

s teel
C AD
BIM
co m pa n y na me Soft ware

Opti-Mate, Inc.
Phone: 610-530-9031
Email: optimate@enter.net
Bridge Engineering Software x
Web: www.opti-mate.com

Pile Dynamics, Inc.

Phone: 216-831-6131
Email: media@pile.com
GRLWEAP 2010 x
Web: www.pile.com

POSTEN Engineering Systems

Phone: 510-275-4750
Email: sales@postensoft.com
POSTEN Multistory x x x x
Web: www.postensoft.com

Powers Fasteners
Phone: 985-807-6666 Powers Design Assist Software 2.0 x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Email: jzenor@powers.com
Web: www.powers.com

RetainPro Software
Phone: 949-721-4099
Email: info@retainpro.com
Retain Pro 9 x
Web: www.retainpro.com

RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815 RISAFloor x x x x x x x x x
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com

S-FRAME Software Inc.

Phone: 203-421-4800 S-PAD x x x x x
Email: info@s-frame.com
Web: www.s-frame.com

Simpson Strong-Tie
Phone: 925-560-9000 New Software and Web Programs x x x x x x x
Email: web@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com

strand7 Pty Ltd.

Phone: 252-504-2282
Email: anne@beaufort-analysis.com
Strand7 x x x x x x x x
Web: www.strand7.com

STRUCTURE POINT
Phone: 847-966-4357 Concrete Design Software and
spColumn-pcaColumn x x x x
Email: info@structurepoint.org
Web: www.StructurePoint.org

Struware, LLC
Phone: 904-302-6724 Struware Code Search x
Email: email@struware.com
Web: www.struware.com

Tekla, Inc.
Phone: 877-835-5265
Email: info.us@tekla.com
Tekla BIMsight x x x x x x
Web: www.tekla.com/us

WoodWorks Software
Phone: 800-844-1275 WoodWorks Design Ofce x x
Email: sales@woodworks-software.com
Web: www.woodworks-software.com

Zone Four
Phone: 951-245-5140
Email: rlofranco@zonefour.com
Z4 Continuous Tie-Down Solution x
Web: www.zonefour.com

STRUCTURE magazine 50 August 2011


Saving Millions While Preserving a Vital Local and National Asset
By Raymond Pugliesi and Michael Allen
Degenbolb Engineers received an Outstanding Project Award for the UCSF Medical Sciences Buildings
and Moffitt Hospital Separation project in the 2010 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering
awards program (Category Forensic/Renovation/Retrofit/Rehabilitation Structures).
T
he University of California San
Francisco Medical Center faced a
serious challenge when Californias
Senate Bill 1953 mandated that,
by 2008, all hospitals remain life-safe after an
earthquake. As prime consultant, Degenkolb
Engineers employed state-of-the-art analysis
techniques and designed a creative solution
to retrofit this important asset by separating
two 15+ story buildings, the Medical Sciences
Building (MSB) and Moffitt Hospital, and
seismically strengthened the MSB, while
allowing the buildings to remain fully occu-
pied and operational during construction.
Moffitt Hospital and MSB are both compos-
ite steel and shearwall buildings, with Moffitt
also having an extensive pier-spandrel system
along its perimeter. Both buildings were built
in the early 1950s.
From Degenkolbs experience with non-linear
analysis, it was understood that conventional
linear analysis would not accurately capture
the hospitals strength and ductility. They long
suspected that the hospital itself was quite robust
and should not require the strengthening as
well as the major disruption and cost that con-
ventional linear analysis indicated. Therefore,
the owner was provided with two directions to
proceed: a brute force approach of strengthen-
ing the two buildings together using typical
conventional elastic analysis, or proceed with
more in depth analysis using non-linear inves-
tigations to better understand the behavior. The
owner opted for the deeper analysis because it
could minimize disruption to services and risk
to patients, as well as save the hospital millions
in lost operations and construction.
Degenkolb implemented a state-of-the-art
seismic evaluation procedure of the fifteen-
story asymmetric hospital attached to the
fifteen-story L-shaped lab building. Due to its
irregular plan configuration and height, a com-
plex 3-dimensional mathematical model was
developed and validated. In what is believed to
be one of the first applications ever outside of
university research, Degenkolb employed and
further developed a new non-linear static analy-
sis procedure, termed Modal Pushover Analysis
(MPA). Unlike the FEMA 356 Nonlinear
Static Procedure, the MPA procedure explicitly
STRUCTURE magazine
award winners and outstanding projects
considers higher mode effects. In each direction,
two modes were considered in the pushover
analyses. Lateral force patterns for each mode
were determined from the corresponding build-
ing mode shapes, and included not only lateral
forces but also torsional moments. The building
was pushed to the target displacement for each
mode using a site-specific response spectrum.
With the contribution of the structural steel
considered explicitly in the development of
the inelastic flexural and shear properties of
all composite members, plastic hinge rotations
of each structural element for each mode were
combined to evaluate and determine the build-
ings performance.
Through a subsequent 3 year process of further
developing and refining through the OSHPD
review process, a design criteria was finalized to
utilize the procedure and specify acceptance cri-
teria of the structural elements. The analysis was
then completed and reviewed by OSHPD and
a third party plan checker to show the building
satisfies the SPC2 Life-Safety Criteria.
After analyzing the buildings behavior
together and as separate units, it was clear
that both buildings had better seismic behav-
ior separately then attached. In fact, Moffitt
Hospital satisfied the life-safety performance
criteria with no strengthening. In essence, the
connection between the stiff cruciform shaped
Moffitt Hospital to the largely torsionally
irregular L-shaped MSB building was hugely
problematic. MSB was retrofitted primarily by
improving the torsional behavior by strength-
ening and stiffening one end of the building
with shotcrete shear walls, and on other end
weakened by cutting and removing horizontal
coupling spandrel beams. Diaphragm drags
were also provided on select floors to improve
the re-entrant corner conditions.
There were, however, some significant design
hurdles to install the seismic joint in an oper-
ating building(s). Structurally, Degenkolb
re-supported the floor with propped canti-
lever framing in the majority of areas, but five
of the floors had major telecommunication
rooms where the joint would be. All the tele-
communication rooms serving the hospital
were meticulously rerouted while preserving
all data and minimizing disruption.
51 August 2011
Spotlight
University of California, San Francisco MSB/
Moffitt Separation Project.
Additionally, on the fifteenth floor, the seismic
joint was immediately adjacent to the Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Disruptive noise
and vibrations could disturb the critically ill
infants in the unit. Together with acoustical
engineer, Charles Salter Associates, Degenkolb
developed an in-situ test program to determine
the noise and vibration response of the build-
ing to a suite of typical construction activities,
including rotohammering, chipping and saw-
cutting using electric, pneumatic and hydraulic
equipment types. A procedure was developed to
first re-support the floors using details requiring
minimal disturbances, then saw cut all the floors,
and finally, completed the demolition of the
floor slab and construction. This best reduced
the structure-transmitted vibrations from the
operating hospital and, in particular, the NICU.
By using advanced MPA analysis, Degenkolb
was able to capture the inherent strength and
ductility of the building, and was able to avoid
a costly and unnecessary strengthening of the
hospital. Additionally, the project is a great
example of the flexibility and innovation that
performance-based engineering gives to cli-
ents and designers.
Raymond Pugliesi is a Principal
with Degenkolb Engineers. An award-
winning designer, Rays work is marked by
complex structures with an emphasis on
laboratories, performing arts theaters, and
health care facilities. Ray can be reached
at Pugliesi@degenkolb.com.
Michael Allen has been with Degenkolb
since 2001. Michael can be reached at
mallen@degenkolb.com.
 NCSEA Webinar Series on the
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Briefs
August 4, 11, 25, and September 8
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Technical Briefs are published by NIST, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, as aids to the ecient transfer of NEHRP and other research into practice. Topics of the briefs are
selected to address design issues and structural systems that are commonly encountered by practicing structural engineers. The
briefs, intended to help reduce the nations losses from earthquakes, were produced under contract to NIST by the NEHRP
Consultants Joint Venture, a joint venture of the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for
Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE).

August 4, 2011: Seismic Design on Cast-in-Place Concrete Diaphragms, Chords, and Collectors
August 11, 2011: Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames
Jack Moehle is T.Y. and Margaret Lin
Professor of Engineering in the Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department
at the University of California, Berkeley.
From 1991 to 2001, he was Director of the
Earthquake Engineering Research Center at
Berkeley, and in 1996 he became founding
August 24, 2011: Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design
Enabled by advancements in computing
technologies and available test data, nonlin-
ear analyses provide the means for calculating
structural response beyond the elastic range,
including strength and stiness deterioration
associated with inelastic material behavior
and large displacements. This seminar is
intended to provide a summary of the impor-
tant considerations to be addressed, considering the current
capabilities of nonlinear analysis technologies and how they are
being applied in practice. The scope includes both nonlinear
static (pushover) and dynamic (response history) analyses, but
with the emphasis towards the latter.
September 8, 2011: Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames:
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
This guide was written to assist practic-
ing engineers with their understanding and
application of ASCE 7, AISC 341 and AISC
NCSEA News
Director of the multi-university Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, where he served until 2008. His teaching and
research includes topics in structural engineering, earthquake
engineering, and reinforced concrete. He has played a lead role in
the development of building codes and professional engineering
guidelines for the design of new construction and the assessment
and rehabilitation of seismically vulnerable existing construction.
Gregory G. Deierlein, Ph.D., P.E., is a faculty member at
Stanford University where he specializes in the design and behav-
ior of steel and concrete structures, nonlinear structural analysis,
and performance-based design of structures for earthquakes and
other extreme loads. He has design experience with the firm of
Leslie E. Robertson and Associates of New York, where he was
engaged in the structural design of several landmark buildings.
He maintains professional activities as a structural engineering
consultant, design peer reviewer, and participant in national
technical organizations, including the American Institute of
Steel Construction, the Applied Technology Council, and the
American Society of Civil Engineers.
James O. Malley, S.E., is a Senior Principal with Degenkolb
Engineers. He received both his Bachelors and Masters Degrees
from the University of California at Berkeley. Mr. Malley has

358 as they relate to the design of steel Special
Moment Frames (SMF). It emphasizes code
requirements and accepted approaches to
their implementation, with background
information and sketches to illustrate the
requirements. Analysis, behavior, proportioning and detailing
requirements, and constructability issues are addressed. The
webinar will summarize the document, and highlight items of
particular usefulness to SMF designers.
over 27 years of experience in the seismic design, evaluation and
rehabilitation of building structures. He was responsible for the
analytical and testing investigations performed as part of the SAC
Steel Project in response to the Northridge earthquake damage. Mr.
Malley is a member of the AISC Specifications Committee and the
Chair of the AISC Seismic Subcommittee. He was named the 2010
T.R. Higgins Lectureship Award winner for his work on the AISC
Seismic Provisions. He was President of SEAOC in 2003-2004
and is currently the President of the NCSEA Board of Directors.

Each course will award 1.5 hours of continuing education. Note: The times will be 12:00
L

EN
RA

G
TU

IN
UC

pm Pacific, 1:00 pm Mountain, 2:00 pm Central, and 3:00 pm Eastern. Approved in All
EE
R

RS
ST

NCSEA
50 States. Cost: $250 per internet connection per session or $750 for all four sessions on
G

N
IN

TIO

the NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Briefs. Each webinar awards 1.5 hours of continuing
U
IN

CA
NT

education. Several people may attend for one connection fee. There will be a $5 fee for each
CO

ED

Diamond
Reviewed continuing education certificate requested. Approved in all 50 states.

STRUCTURE magazine 52 August 2011

 NCSEA News
NCSEA Nineteenth THURSDAY October 20
Concurrent Sessions
Annual Conference 9:00 5:00 NCSEA Committee Meetings
1:00 2:45 Ethics in Structural Engineering
October 20 -22, 2011 BarryArnold,VicePresidentARWEngineers,Salt
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma LakeCity,UT
3:15 5:00 Speaking to the Media
Oklahoma City is proud to host this years NCSEA Annual
GerryBonds,EmmywinningjournalistandTV
Conference. Held at the Renaissance Convention Center, the
personality,OklahomaCity,OK
preliminary program follows:
1:00 5:00 Six software presentations

FRIDAY October 21
7:00 7:30 Registration & breakfast
7:30 8:00 Breakfast sponsor speaker
8:15 8:30 Roll call & introduction of candidates for
NCSEA Board of Directors
8:30 9:15 Keynote Address: International Design
JamesRCagley,1stPresidentofNCSEA,Cagley
&Associates,Rockville,MD
9:15 10:00 Specialty Engineering
BillBast,17 thPresidentofNCSEA,Thornton
2:30 3:15 Break & exhibitor visits and raffle
3:15 4:00 Business Issues
       Speaker:MarcBarter,7 thPresidentofNCSEA,
Barter&Associates,Mobile,AL
4:00 5:00 Business Issues Panel Discussion
JamesRCagley,1stPresidentofNCSEA,Cagley
&Associates,Rockville,MD
Sanjeev Shah, 10 th President of NCSEA,
Lea+Elliott,Inc.,Miami,FL

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Tomasetti,Chicago,IL
10:00 10:45 Break & exhibitor visits
10:45 11:45 Specialty Engineering Panel Discussion
Craig Barnes, 3rd President of NCSEA, CBI
Consulting,Boston,MA
        EmileTroupe,6 thPresidentofNCSEA,Structural
SteelFabricatorsofNewEngland
        MikeTylk,9 thPresidentofNCSEA,TGRWA,
Chicago,IL
11:45 1:00 Lunch and sponsored speaker (30- 45 minutes)
& exhibitor visits
Concurrent Sessions
1:00 1:45 Renovation Design
Speaker:CraigBarnes,3rdPresidentofNCSEA,
CBIConsulting
1:45 2:30 Renovation Panel Discussion
JohnJoyce,11thPresidentofNCSEA,Engineering
Solutions,OklahomaCity,OK
       BobPaullus,16 thPresidentofNCSEA,Paullus
StructuralConsultants,Memphis,TN
       BillBast,17 thPresidentofNCSEA,Thornton
Tomasetti,Chicago,IL
1:00 1:45 Building Code Process
Speaker:RonHamburger,12 thPresidentofNCSEA,
SimpsonGumpertz&Heger,SanFrancisco,CA
1:45 2:30 Building Code Panel Discussion
GeneCorley,4 thPresidentofNCSEA,CTLGroup,
Skokie,IL
       GregSchindler,8 thPresidentofNCSEA,KPFF
ConsultingEngineers,Seattle,WA
       EdHuston,15 thPresidentofNCSEA,Smith &
Huston,Seattle,WA
3:15 4:00 Forensic Design
Speaker:GeneCorley,4 thPresidentofNCSEA,
CTLGroup,Skokie,IL
4:00 5:00 Forensic Design Panel Discussion
TimSlider,5 thPresidentofNCSEA,Slider &
Associates,Richardson,TX
       Ron Hamburger, 12 th President of NCSEA,
SimpsonGumpertz&Heger,SanFrancisco,CA
       EdHuston,15 thPresidentofNCSEA,Smith &
Huston,Seattle,WA
6.75 Continuing Education Hours
Friday night: Dinner at the Oklahoma City Museum of Art.

Saturday, October 22 Exhibitors

NCSEA committee and business reports, lunch and speaker, American Institute of Steel
followed by discussion and workshops on NCSEAs proposed Construction
position statement on separate licensing. AZZ Galvanizing Services
Saturday night: NCSEA Reception and Awards Banquet, hon- Bekaert Corporation
Bentley Systems
oring the finalists of the 2011 NCSEA Excellence in Structural CMC Steel Products
Engineering Awards, as well as those individuals receiving the CSC Inc.
NCSEA Cornforth, Delahay, and Service Awards. DESIGN DATA.
Fabreeka International, Inc.
FYFE Co. LLC
Wallace Engineering Structural Hardy Frames, Inc.
Consultants, Inc PLATINUM Hilti
Sponsors ITW Red Head
Alliance Steel, Inc. SILVER LNA Solutions
NucorVulcraft Group
Powers Fasteners
RISA Technologies, LLC
SidePlate Systems, Inc.
Simpson Strong-Tie
Star Seismic
Steel Cast Connections, LLC
Structural Desktop, Inc.
TurnaSure LLS
Unbonded Brace
Valmont Industries
Vector Corrosion Technologies
W.R. Grace & Co.

STRUCTURE magazine 53 August 2011

 Call for 2012 SEI/ASCE Award Nominations
Nominations are being sought for the 2012 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, 2011 with most deadlines falling on November 1, 2011.
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Visit the SEI Awards and Honors page at http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/honorawards.html for more information and
nomination procedures.
American Society of Civil Engineering Structural Awards
Jack E. Cermak Award
This award was created by the Engineering Mechanics Division/
Structural Engineering Institute to recognize Dr. Jack E.
Cermaks lifetime achievements in the field of wind engineer-
ing and industrial aerodynamics.
Norman Medal and J. James R. Croes Medal
The Norman and Croes Medals recognize papers that make a
definitive contribution to engineering science. The Norman
Medal was instituted and endowed in 1872 by George H.
Norman, M. ASCE. The Croes was established by the Society
on October 1, 1912, and is named in honor of the first recipi-
ent of the Norman Medal, John James Robertson Croes, Past
President of ASCE.
Shortridge Hardesty Award
This award was instituted in 1987 by the firm Hardesty &
Hanover to honor the contributions of Shortridge Hardesty
as the first chair of the Column Research Council (Structural
Stability Research Council since 1976). The Shortridge Hardesty
Award may be given annually to individuals who have contrib-
uted substantially in applying fundamental results of research
to the solution of practical engineering problems in the field
of structural stability.
Ernest E. Howard Award
This award may be presented annually to a member of ASCE
who has made a definite contribution to the advancement of
Structural Columns
and endowed in 1954 by Mrs. Howard in honor of her husband,
Ernest E. Howard, Past President of ASCE.
Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prizes
In July 1946, the Board of Direction authorized annual awards
on the recommendation of the Societys Committee on Research
to stimulate research in civil engineering. In October 1964,
Mrs. Alberta Reed Huber endowed these prizes in honor of
her husband, Walter L. Huber, Past President of ASCE. Up to
five prizes may be awarded for notable achievements in research
related to civil engineering and are often seen as helping to
establish careers of the top researchers in civil engineering.
Moisseiff Award
The Moisseiff Award recognizes a paper contributing to structural
design, including applied mechanics, as well as the theoretical
analysis or construction improvement of engineering structures,
such as bridges and frames, of any structural material. The award
was established in 1947 in recognition of the accomplishments
of Leon S. Moisseiff, M. ASCE, a notable contributor to the
science and art of structural engineering.
Raymond C. Reese Research Prize
The Raymond C. Reese Research Prize may be awarded to the
author(s) of a paper published by ASCE that describes a notable
achievement in research related to structural engineering and
recommends how the results of that research (experimental and/

structural engineering, either in research, planning, design, con- or analytical) can be applied to design. The prize was established
struction, or methods and materials. This award was instituted in 1970 in honor of Raymond C. Reese.

Structural Engineering Institute Awards

(Contact SEI directly for more information on these awards visit the SEI website at www.asce.org/SEI.)
Dennis L. Tewksbury Award
The Tewksbury Award recognizes an individual member of the
Structural Engineering Institute who has advanced the interests
of SEI through innovative or visionary leadership; who has
promoted the growth and visibility of SEI; who has established
working relationships between SEI and other structural engi-
neering organizations; or who has otherwise rendered valuable
service to the structural engineering profession.
Walter P. Moore, Jr. Award
This award honors Walter P. Moore, Jr. for his dedication to
technical expertise in the development of structural codes and
standards. The award is made annually to a structural engineer
who has demonstrated technical expertise in, and dedication
to, the development of structural codes and standards. The
contribution may have been in the form of papers, presentations,
extensive practical experience, research, committee participation,
or through other activities.
Gene Wilhoite Award
The Wilhoite Award recognizes an individual who has made sig-
nificant contributions to the advancement of the art and science
of transmission line engineering. The SEI Technical Activities
Division Awards Committee makes recommendations regard-
ing who should receive the Gene Wilhoite award. However,
they seek the opinions of the members as to which papers are
meritorious. If a reader encounters a paper that s/he believes is
outstanding for any reason, please convey this information along
with a statement as to why s/he considers the paper exceptional
to Susan Reid at sreid@asce.org.
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 54 August 2011


2012 Ammann
Call for Nominations
The O. H. Ammann Research Fellowship in Structural Engineering
is bestowed annually to a member for the purpose of encouraging
the creation of new knowledge in the field of structural design
and construction. The O. H. Ammann Fellowship was endowed
in 1963 by O. H. Ammann, Hon.M.ASCE, and was increased
in 1985 by Klary V. Ammann (widow of O. H. Ammann).
The deadline for 2012 Ammann applications is November 1, 2011.
For more information and to download an application visit the SEI
website at http://content.seinstitute.org/inside/ammann.html.
Electrical Transmission Structures 2012
Call for Abstracts
Help build the grid of tomorrow and be a part of the program
by submitting your abstract today!
Suggested topics include the following:
Aesthetic Design Principles
Construction Challenges
Emerging Technologies
Extreme Loading Events
Foundations
Lifeline Reliability and Performance
Line Design, Re-rating and Upgrading
Line and Substation Siting
Managing Aging Infrastructure
Project Management
Call for New Members
New Structural Dynamics Subcommittee
of Dynamic Effects TAC
The new Structural Dynamics Subcommittee of the Structural
Engineering Institute (SEI) of ASCE seeks new members. The
subcommittees mission is twofold; to foster research into the
behavior of civil structures subjected to general dynamic loadings
(other than Earthquakes, Winds or Blast); and to strengthen and
develop the practice related to these issues. The considered load-
ings include (but are not limited to) Vehicles, Trains, Pedestrians,
Industrial work, other ambient loadings, and combinations of mul-
tiple loadings simultaneously. This new Subcommittee seeks new
members to contribute and to be involved in its activities. Among
other activities, the subcommittee members will develop ideas for
committee reports on topical issues, contribute to the writing of
such documents, propose and chair sessions at the annual SEI
Structures Congress, and develop continuing education materials.
To become a member of the Subcommittee on Structural Dynamics,
an individual must: have completed their formal education (either
undergraduate or graduate degrees), have a strong interest in topics
related to the subcommittee (e.g. through experience, research
activities, etc.), presently be (or soon become) a member of the
ASCE or SEI. Qualified candidates who are interested in joining
the subcommittee are to fill out the on-line application found on
the SEI website: www.seinstitute.org/committees/tadjoin.cfm.
For questions please contact the Subcommittee Chair, Dr. Oren
Lavan, at lavan@tx.technion.ac.il.
STRUCTURE magazine
Structural Columns
Have you been missing important
SEI news and information?
SEI uses email as the primary method of communicating
with members. Since a number of our members dont have
a current email address on file, they are not receiving the SEI
Update, calls for papers, announcements about conferences,
programs, etc. Please take a few minutes to update your email
at www.asce.org/myprofile, or call 800-548-ASCE (2723)
or 703-295-6300, or email member@asce.org.
Regulatory Compliance
Structural Analysis and Design
Substation Design and Upgrading
Project case studies are encouraged on all of the above topics.
A poster session format may also be provided. Abstracts are
due September 15, 2011, and must include the title of the
paper, a 200-word maximum description of the content of the
paper, relevant graphs and photos, names of all authors, mailing
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE
address, phone number, and e-mail address of the main author.
Questions contact Debbie Smithat dsmith@asce.orgor
703-295-6095.
Save the date November 4-8, 2012 Columbus, Ohio.
Visit the SEI website for more information: www.asce.org/SEI.
Advances in Hurricane Engineering:
Learning from our Past
Call for Papers
We invite you to join us in building an exciting program by
submitting abstracts for individual presentations and proposals
for complete sessions. The conference will include both oral
and poster presentations. Novel session formats, such as panel
discussions and debates, are encouraged. Proposals should focus
on topics consistent with the list published below. All Proposals
are due September 9, 2011.
Review the list of topics below as you prepare your submission.
A complete list of topics and subtopics can be found on the
Call for Paperspage of the conference website.
Wind Engineering General
Coastal Flooding
Engineering for the Building Envelope
Low-Rise Buildings Wind
High-Rise Buildings Wind
Infrastructure Wind and Flood
Meteorology and Oceanography
Risk Modeling and Forensic Engineering Wind and Flood
The conference is organized by the Applied Technology
Council and the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE.
Questions Contact Debbie Smith at dsmith@asce.org or
703-295-6095.
Save the date October 24-26, 2012 Miami, Florida.
Visit the SEI website for more information: www.asce.org/SEI.
55 August 2011

Looking for a few good people!
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
CASE is looking for a few good engineers who would like to
devote their time to improving the business practice experience
of engineering firms. A brief description of the committees
looking for help is below; if you are interested in learning more,
contact Heather Talbert, htalbert@acec.org or 202-682-4377.
Programs and Communications Committee Responsible
for the planning and organizing all CASE education sessions
at the SEI Structures Congress, ACEC Fall Conference, plus
CASE planning meeting locations. This committee also keeps
the editorial calendar of CASE articles for both STRUCTURE
magazine and Structural Design magazine.
Contracts Committee Responsible for developing and
maintaining all CASE contracts to assist practicing engineers
with risk management.
CASE Business Practice Corner
If you would like more information on the items below, please contact Ed Bajer, ebajer@acec.org.
Certifications to the Lender on a Project Design/Build Contract: Hand Over
If you review contracts, look for anything that implies you will Drawings and Designs or Limit
sign certifications for the lender. Reserve your right to negotiate
what you may sign in the future. You should not agree to give the
the License?
lender notices of progress or defaults by the client. You are not
the eyes and ears of the bank. However, it is not unreasonable
to give a correct statement of the status of the project. Do not
waive your right to stop work or at a minimum add your right
to temporarily suspend services in the event of the clients failure
to pay. Do not answer questions about anything not related to
your scope, e.g. environmental compliance or utility connec-
CASE in Point
tions. The lender pays you nothing and although your client
may say these terms are standard, the lender will not walk
away from a loan because of the engineers certification wording.
Redesigning May Be Expected
Redoing design documentation because the owner changed their
mind about what they want can be very costly for the engineer
and the owner. Documenting the owners requirements for the
project at the outset, including the initial project description,
will help the owner develop an understanding of what they
want. Pinning down the owners requirements at an early stage
is considered good discipline for the engineer. A certain amount
of redesigning may be expected as incidental to obtaining the
owners acceptance of the documentation. However, when the
engineer is required to make significant changes in documenta-
tion that has been previously accepted, they should be entitle
to additional compensation.
STRUCTURE magazine 56
CASE Planning Meeting
this month!
The CASE Summer Planning Meeting took place on Tuesday
and Wednesday, August 9-10 in Chicago, IL. On the agenda
were committee breakout meetings for National Guidelines,
Contracts, Programs & Communications, and Toolkit com-
mittees, which continued work on their respective assignments
and planning for future CASE products. The CASE Executive
Committee held its meeting on Wednesday. Stay tuned for a
summary of the events in the September edition!
CASE committees have been the reason behind CASEs success
for over 20 years and they remain vital to CASEs future. As part
of the committees ongoing activities, face-to-face meetings and
informal discussions are held twice a year to explore current issues
and work on projects like new and revised Risk Management
Tools, Guidelines and Contracts, as well as Publications, and
Risk Management Convocations. These meetings also allow
the various CASE committees to interact across all of CASEs
activities. Contact Heather Talbert (htalbert@acec.org or
202-682-4377) if your firm is interested in joining CASE or
getting more involved in the committees.
This was a question posed to some engineering firm counsels. Be
sure to read the ownership provisions in the prime agreement.
The response was varied but, generally, the favored response was
to limit the use of drawings and designs to a specific project.
If there was any transfer requirement, there should be a strict
re-use on other projects indemnification and any changes made
have to be made by a licensed engineer. Such a transfer should
only be made after you are paid in full.
Owner Wants to Assign Your Contract
to Someone Else
Assignment gives a party the ability to transfer their rights to
another party. The engineer could be forced to work for someone
they prefer not to work with, or someone with whom they have
never bargained. You can protect yourself by either prohibiting
assignment without mutual consent or by providing for compen-
sation for increased costs caused by the assignment. Beware of
an overreaching client who gives themselves the right to assign
but prohibits you from doing the same. They may be thinking
about selling the project along with your services. Unilateral
provisions are a good indication of how fair a client will be.
August 2011
 CASE in Point
CASE Risk Management
Convocation heads to
Las Vegas This October
The next CASE Risk Management Convocation will take place
during the ACEC Fall Conference, October 19-22, 2011,
at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, NV. For more details and to
register go www.acec.org/conferences/fall-11/index.cfm. On
October 20, the CASE Convocation will include the following
confirmed sessions:
BIM and the Bottom Line David Odeh, Odeh
Engineers
What to Watch Out for in the Consensus Documents
Stephen Hobie Andrews, Vandevender and Black
Risks Associated with Technology Gregg Bundshuh,
Greyling Insurance Brokerage and Risk Consulting, Inc.

SAVE THE DATE!!!

CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies

CASE Risk Management Convocation Coming To Chicago, IL!
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in conjunction with the Structures Congress at the Fairmont
Chicago, Millennium Park, Chicago, IL, March 29-31, 2012. For more information and updates go to www.seinstitute.org.
The following CASE Convocation sessions are tentatively scheduled to take place on Friday, March 30, 2012:
Profitability Killers and How to Avoid Them Michael DeSantiago, Primera Engineers, LTD
Financial Key Indicators to Look for When Running a Structural Firm Scott Braley, Braley Consulting
and Training
Making the Transition from Project Manager to Principal (Panel Discussion)
Ownership Transition and Different Methods of Valuing Your Firm (Panel Discussion)

ACEC Education Information

Huckabee to Handicap 2012 Election
at Fall Conference in Las Vegas
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a leading con-
servative voice, will kick off the ACEC 2011 Fall Conference
at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, October 19-22.
Other speakers at the Conference include Jacobs CEO Craig
Martin, former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister, Nevada
Governor Brian Sandoval, CDM CEO Richard Fox, Sargent
& Lundy CEO Alan Bud Wendorf and AMEC President
Hisham Mahmoud.
Pop superstar Elton John will perform at Local Color Night.
For more information on the Fall Conference and to register,
follow this link: www.acec.org/conferences/fall-11/index.cfm.
Tap Opportunities in Sustainable
Infrastructure With September Course
September 7-10, Baltimore, MD
Gain a competitive edge in the growing market for sustainable
infrastructure with the latest information from leading engineers
and A/E industry market experts.
ACECs new 3-day Green Infrastructure and Sustainable
Communities course includes a field trip along with sessions
on profit opportunities in sustainable development; the
latest on sustainable legislation, regulations and standards;
sustainable infrastructure rating systems, including the new
ACEC/APWA/ASCE envision system; BIM utilization
in sustainable projects; sustainability audits; and applying
lifecycle costing and analysis to proposed projects and pro-
grams. For agenda details and to register, follow this link:
www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1281.
SEI Challenges A/E Leaders; New Class
Starts in September; Register Now!
Participants in ACECs Senior Executives Institute (SEI)
acquire new tools and insights to prosper in the increasingly chal-
lenging A/E business environment. Current and up-and-coming
executives with a minimum five years experience managing
professional design programs/businesses are invited to register
for this highly regarded leadership-building opportunity. Next
available is Class 17, which begins in September 2011. For
more information, contact Deirdre McKenna at 202-682-4328
or dmckenna@acec.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 57 August 2011

Structural Forum
Missing from the Checklist on the Safety of Nuclear Structures
By Mohammed Ettouney, Ph.D., P.E., F.AEI, Dist. M. ASCE
R
ecent news stories regarding the
safety of nuclear reactors focus
predominantly on meltdowns and
exposed rods. Debates about the
long-term safety of nuclear facilities empha-
size human error and security breaches,
sometimes alluding to insufficient controls on
substandard construction, poor maintenance,
and lax inspection. Nowhere, however, is the
natural aging of the containment structure
and other dependent structures addressed,
nor does anyone discuss the effect of aging
on capacity.
After 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the
recent earthquake in Japan, engineers who
design structures to withstand natural and
manmade disasters modified their assump-
tions. Even non-engineers came to realize that
human knowledge advances, and structural
codes and designs evolve, one disaster at a
time. Based on recent events, future designers
of nuclear plants have no choice but to antici-
pate an increase in critical storms, the double
whammy of earthquakes and tsunamis, where
relevant, and the potential of airplane impact.
Nevertheless, these demands on a struc-
ture are only half the story capacity is the
other half. A basic tenet of structural safety is
that capacity should always exceed demand.
The problem is that natural aging decreases
structural capacity, while demands on build-
ings, bridges, tunnels, and, of course, nuclear
power plants, almost always increase over
time. Assessing the current capacity of an
aging structure to support growing demands
is not an easy task, and the subject seldom
receives the respect it deserves.
Unfortunately, the assertion that nuclear
power plants are built to the strictest qual-
ity control standards is irrelevant. Stringent
quality control during construction guaran-
tees only that the structures initial capacity
approximates that intended by the original
design. It does not prevent or forecast the
nature of the inevitable degradation of struc-
tural capacity over time.
In fact, structures age much as people do.
One would expect even the most robust new-
born to have a few health issues at 40, and
even more at 60. Moreover, they would be
predictable only in the most general sense,
because even a barrage of tests prognosticating
STRUCTURE magazine
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
good health does not preclude the subsequent
occurrence of a sudden heart attack or the
discovery of a malignant tumor. Likewise,
engineers can say with relative certainty that
a building will not retain its initial design
capacity after 40 years, but current testing and
inspection routines do not reveal the extent
of the degradation with the same certainty.
This applies whether the degradation occurs
slowly, as corrosion, fatigue, wear-and-tear,
or freeze- thaw cycles, or suddenly, due to
an earthquake, hurricane, or terrorist attack.
The good news is that, just as mapping and
studying the human genome offers new hope
for the prediction and prevention of disease,
the emerging field of structural health prom-
ises to improve future estimates of structural
degradation welcome prospects for both
human and structural health.
If we accept that structural aging of infra-
structure is not necessarily visible to the naked
eye, nor easily predictable, then meaningful
assessment of the current state of degradation
of infrastructure, including nuclear facilities,
is the logical alternative. To be effective, how-
ever, it must be performed by knowledgeable,
unbiased professionals who can apply the
proper mix of state-of-the-art analysis and
their own ingenuity, and who do not have a
vested interest in the outcome.
The silver lining behind recent events in
Japan may be that the new field of infrastruc-
ture structural health will be forced to expand
rapidly, and that regulators may be motivated
to adapt their protocols to include the insights
58 August 2011
the new field may provide. Certainly, our abil-
ity to assess the capacity of major suspension
bridge cables has increased as aging bridges
approach the century mark. Sophisticated
sampling and analysis, better knowledge of
how wires degrade over time, and noninva-
sive testing of wires inside cables now enable
engineers to predict the rate of degradation
and determine when cables require replace-
ment. Knowing that 40 years is not too soon
to begin assessing the structural health of
bridge cables, however, does not guarantee
that bridge owners will act on this knowledge.
Our hope is that the more educated people
understand the subtleties of structural
health, the more likely they are to push for
more sophisticated and independent assess-
ments that incorporate the effects of aging.
Nuclear power plant owners should not shy
away from these candid discussions, because
they could increase public confidence in
the decisions of regulators regarding nuclear
power plant construction, decommissioning,
and burial decisions in which the public
has a right to participate and that can have
global repercussions.
Mohammed Ettouney, Ph.D., P.E.,
F.AEI, Dist. M. ASCE is a principal
at the structural engineering firm of
Weidlinger Associates, Inc., in New York
and is a co-author of the two-volume book,
Infrastructure Health in Civil Engineering
(CRC Press, Aug 15, 2011).