®

STRUCTURE
Special Section: Anchors, Piers, Foundations
and Underground Construction
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

January 2011 Concrete

 The Hollow Set Drop-In is specifically
designed and engineered for Sleeve available in Zamac alloy.
Cone available in carbon or
anchoring in hollow base materials stainless steel.
such as hollow concrete block, brick
with weep holes and precast hollow Zamac sleeve allows better
corrosion resistance. Great
core plank. It can also be used in solid for anchoring into thin wall
base materials, and is appropriate for base materials.

overhead applications.

Drill the appropriate size hole. Attach the anchor to the setting Anchor has been set. Put fixture in place and bolt in.
tool and tap into predrilled hole.
Turn the tool clockwise to
pre-expand the anchor. Unscrew Ultimate and Allowable Load Capacities for Hollow-Set Dropin
the setting tool and your anchor in Hollow Concrete Masonry1,2,3
is set.
Rod/ Minimum Drill f´m ≥ 1,500 psi (10.4 MPa)
Anchor Embedment Bit
Ultimate Load
Great For Diameter Depth Diameter Allowable Load
d hv dbit Tension Shear Tension She
Anchoring in.
(mm)
in.
(mm)
in. lbs.
(kN)
lbs.
(kN)
lbs.
(kN)
lbs
(kN

In Wall 1/4
(6.4)
7/8*
(22.2)
3/8 530
(2.4)
1,575
(7.1)
105
(0.5)
315
(1.4

Thickness 5/16
(7.9)
1*
(25.4)
5/8 1,035
(4.7)
1,815
(8.2)
205
(0.9)
365
(1.6

As Little 3/8
(9.5)
1*
(25.4)
5/8 1,225
(5.5)
2,485
(11.2)
245
(1.1)
495
(2.2

As 1”! 1/2
(12.7)
1 1/4*
(31.8)
3/4 1,790
(8.1)
3,655
(16.4)
360
(1.6)
730
(3.3
5/8 1 1/2* 1 1,790 3,740 360 750
(15.9) (38.1) (8.1) (16.8) (1.6) (3.4
1. Tabulated load values are applicable to anchors with carbon and stainless steel cones.
Powers Fasteners, Inc. 2. Tabulated load values are for anchors installed in minimum 6-inch wide, minimum Grade N, Type II, lightweight, medium-w
2 Powers Lane or normal-weight concrete masonry units conforming to ASTM C 90. Mortar must be minimum Type N. Masonry cells may
grouted. Masonry compressive strength must be at the specified minimum at the time of installation (f'm ≥ 1,500 psi).
Brewster, NY10509 3. Allowable load capacities listed are calculated using and applied safety factor of 5.0. Consideration of safety factors of 20
www.powers.com higher may be necessary depending upon the application such as life safety, and in sustained tensile loading applications.
*Anchors were installed with sleeve flush to face shell surface and with setting tool for hollow base materials.
P: (914) 235-6300
F: (914) 576-6483
Interested in learning more about Powers’
Hollow Set Drop-Ins and to request a
FREE sample, simply fax your request to
(914)576-6483
 Make your connection
to HALFEN.
Global connections from a global company.
W hether you are designing
curtain wall connections for
an airport; connections for bridge
or tunnel services; or screening
connections for a parking structure;
HALFEN channels provide the
answers.
Easy installation
Halfen Anchoring Systems · Meadow-Burke Products · 8521 F.M. · Road 1976 · Converse · TX 78109 · USA ·
Phone: 800 323 6896 · www.halfenusa.com
Easy use
HALFEN channels are available for casting
into concrete or use as framing. The fast
Individual support
For further information and technical
assistance make your own connection to
bolted connections allow easy adjustment, HALFEN today.
and reduced installation time. Worldwide: www.halfen.com
USA: www.halfenusa.com
Better health and safety
When cast-into the concrete structure,
Many advantages with one result:
HALFEN channels are installed without
HALFEN provides safety,
drilling or welding, and so avoid installer
reliability and efficiency for you
hazards such as noise, dust, vibration,
and your customers.
hot surfaces and high voltages.
Superior performance
HALFEN cast-in channels offer safety and
reliability over the widest load range.
They are available in stainless steel and
high quality galvanized finish.
 27
FEATURES
Shrinkage-Compensating
CONTENTS January 2011
Concrete in Post-Tensioned
Buildings – Part 2
By Kenneth B. Bondy, S.E.
COLUMNS
Case studies of four projects which demonstrate the effective
use of shrinkage-compensating concrete to mitigate restraint-to- 7 Editorial
shortening (RTS) cracking in post-tensioned concrete buildings. What Are Your New Year’s
Resolutions?
30 South Tower of the Milwaukee By John A. Mercer, Jr., P.E., SECB

City Hall – Part 2 9 InFocus

Remember the Hyatt
By Mark D. Webster, P.E., Gunjeet Juneja, P.E.
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
and Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
10 Building Blocks
After the completion of the Part 1 investigation, the City of
Steel or Synthetic Fiber
Milwaukee proceeded with design for the repairs of the
Reinforcement?
South Tower. The City quickly established a goal for the
By Pierre Rossi
repairs to last 100 years.
12 Codes and Standards
ACI 318 and Pile Stability
35 Anchors, Piers, Foundations and By Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D.,
Special Underground Construction P.E., S.E. and C. Scott Branlund,
P.E., S.E.
Section By Larry Kahaner
16 Structural Practices
Although projects are not coming as plentiful as before the
Becoming a Results-Oriented
recession, foundation companies are seeing a slow but steady
Structural Engineer
improvement in the pace of inquiries, bids and projects.
Part 1
By John P. Miller, P.E., S.E.
ON COVER
®

STRUCTURE

THE 18 InSights
300 New Jersey Avenue is a 10-story concrete office building with an Glazing Retrofits for
Special Section: Anchors, Piers, Foundations
and Underground Construction

adjacent atrium and 6-story parking garage. It is the first commercial Blast Mitigation
office building designed and built in the United States by world By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E.,
renowned architectural firm, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners. SECB, BSCP
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI

The 300 New Jersey Avenue project was one of the 2010 NCSEA 22 Professional Issues
Excellence in Structural Engineering award winners. Sustainability and the
January 2011 Concrete
See the Spotlight article on page 51. Structural Engineer
By Zak Kostura, M.Eng, EIT and
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE® magazine does not constitute endorsement Jennifer Pazdon, EIT
by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole
responsibility for the content of their submissions. 42 Historic Structures
Critical Skills for Structural

DEPARTMENTS Engineers Encountering

Historic Structures
By Dr. Debra F. Laefer
24 Structural Performance 48 Legal Perspectives
Wood Pre-fabricated Shear Panels Dispute Resolution Techniques
for Lateral Force Resistance By David J. Hatem, PC IN EVERY ISSUE
By Renee Strand, P.E. and Jordan S. Rattray
6 Advertiser Index
44 Great Achievements 51 Spotlight
Charles Conrad Schneider The New DC: The Atrium at 300 50 Resource Guide
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. New Jersey Avenue (Anchor Updates)
46 Product Watch By Azer Kehnemui, D. Sc., P.E.,
Hakan Onel P.E., S.E. 50 Noteworthy
SIPs Provide Green Building
and Rupa M. Patel 52 NCSEA News
Benefits in Traditional and
Cutting-Edge Designs 58 Structural Forum
54 SEI Structural Columns
By Joe Pasma, P.E. For the Love of the Profession
By Robert H. Lyon, P.E. 56 CASE in Point
 Advertiser index PleAse suPPort these Advertisers

ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

Computers & Structures, Inc. ............... 60 KPFF Consulting Engineers .................. 47
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp........ 23 MacLean-Dixie ..................................... 38
DBM Contractors Inc. .......................... 35 Meadow Burke ........................................ 4 The easiest to use software for calculating
Fyfe Co. LLC ........................................ 29 Monotube ............................................. 37 wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
Geopier Foundation Company.............. 41 Mortar Net ............................................ 13 IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
Grip-Tite Manufacturing Co., LLC....... 36 NCEES ................................................... 8 these codes ($195.00).
Hayward Baker, Inc. .............................. 34 NCSEA/Kaplan Engineering Educ. ....... 15
ICC.................................................. 20-21 Pile Dynamics, Inc. ............................... 40 Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc..... 49 Powers Fasteners, Inc. .............................. 2 Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists
onwide/ Irvine Institute of Technology.................. 6 RISA Technologies ................................ 59 ($100.00).
ITW Red Head ..................................... 19 SAS Stressteel ........................................ 38 Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
ee
Simpson Strong-Tie............................... 25
6 hour IRVINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. ......................... 3 Demos at: www.struware.com
E (Electr), PE C.V. Chelapati, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE Struware, Inc. .......................................... 6
and CA Survey PE/SE License Seminars – Webcast – Nationwide/Worldwide
Guaranteed Pass or 1 year of free archives Subsurface Constructors, Inc. ................ 39
University of Notre Dame ....................... 6
Advertising Account MAnAger
SE Vertical, SE Lateral – 16 hour
n.
Also – PE (Civil), PEME, PEEE (Power), PEEE (Computer), PEEE (Electr), PE (Env),
Surveying (FS, PS), PMP, Contracts and Legal, CA Seismic and CA Survey W.R. Meadows, Inc ............................... 26
Ph: (949) 585-9137 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,
11/8/2010 P.E.,
9:45:29SECB
AM
Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org
editoriAL stAFF
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB Mike C. Mota, P.E. Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
CBI Consulting, Inc., Boston, MA CRSI, Williamstown, NJ
execdir@ncsea.com
Richard Hess, S.E., SECB Evans Mountzouris, P.E. Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Hess Engineering Inc., Los Alamitos, CA The DiSalvo Ericson Group, Ridgefield, CT
publisher@StRuCtuREmag.org
Mark W. Holmberg, P.E. Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E.
Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc., Marietta, GA Dokken Engineering, Folsom, CA Associate Editor Nikki Alger
publisher@StRuCtuREmag.org
Brian J. Leshko, P.E. Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E.
HDR Engineering, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA KPFF Consulting Engineers, Seattle, WA Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@StRuCtuREmag.org
John A. Mercer, P.E. Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Mercer Engineering, PC, Minot, ND BergerABAM, Vancouver, WA Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@StRuCtuREmag.org
Brian W. Miller John “Buddy” Showalter, P.E.
Davis, CA American Wood Council, Leesburg, VA
STRUCTURE® (Volume 18, Number 1). ISSN 1536-4283.
Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the
Faculty Positions in Structural Engineering National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and
published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3
The Department of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences at the Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members
University of Notre Dame (www.nd.edu/~cegeos/) invites applications of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is
ADVERTISEMENT – For Advertiser Information, visit www.structuremag.org

$65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $125/yr foreign (including

for faculty positions to complement the existing Structural Engineering
Canada). For change of address or duplicate copies, contact
group. Qualified candidates at all levels will be considered with hiring your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in
rank and tenure status commensurate with academic accomplishments. STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not
Successful candidates must hold a doctoral degree in an appropriate field necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the
and must demonstrate potential for high quality research and teaching. The department is seeking STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
outstanding faculty members with a research focus on, but not limited to: bridge engineering and STRUCTURE® is a registered trademark of National Council of
infrastructure systems, high-performance and sustainable civil structures, reliability and performance Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission
of structures under extreme loading, and foundation-structure interaction. Candidates for the of the publisher.
positions should be qualified to teach civil engineering courses, with a strong commitment to teaching
excellence at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Each successful faculty candidate is expected
to develop and sustain an externally funded research program and publish in leading scholarly National Council of Structural
journals. Applications should be submitted online at www.nd.edu/~struct as a single PDF with Engineers Associations
cover letter, detailed CV, statements of research and teaching, and names and contact information for
www.ncsea.com
three references. Review of applications will start immediately and continue until the positions are
filled. The University of Notre Dame is committed to diversity in education and employment, and
women and members of underrepresented minority groups are strongly encouraged to apply. C3 Ink, Publishers
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc.
Inquiries related to this search can be directed to struct@nd.edu. 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959
P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432
publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org

STRUCTURE magazine 6 January 2011

editorial What Are Your New Year’s Resolutions?
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By John A. Mercer, Jr., P.E., SECB
I
am committed to cleaning up my desk sometime in 2011. I
cleaned it off sometime in 2010 and I was so proud. It lasted
for a week or two, but it seems like one thing adds to another
and here we are again, buried in paper, books, and magazines.
I’ve heard that a messy desk is a reflection of a creative mind. That
gives me pause to consider whether or not I should even attempt
to clean it. I can still find my pencils and pens, but where did I put
that job file…?
The only other issue that I am committed to is my continuing
education. I am signed up to try some of the webinar approaches to
obtaining PDH’s, but I still look forward to traveling in February to
a southern location to spend a few days where there isn’t any snow or
ice. I also get to see some of you there as well. (I live in the beautiful
state of North Dakota in case you were wondering.)
I have a question for you. In your opinion, whose responsibility is
it to maintain your continuing education? Personally, I believe that
it is every engineer’s responsibility, not their employer’s. “A carpenter
without a hammer and saw doesn’t build much”. Some firms may
offer a policy to participate in partial or even full reimbursement for
continuing education expenses as a part of their benefits program.
Past experience has taught me that anyone considering starting
their own firm should join ACEC and become a participating CASE
member immediately. I joined ACEC for the insurance benefits when
I started my firm, but didn’t participate in any of the conventions
or other activities for the first 12 years of membership. I missed on
many education opportunities, not counting the relationships and
networking I’ve been able to establish with other engineers like your-
self. I discovered the true value of my membership to be centered in
my participation in ACEC and CASE.
In the March 2008 STRUCTURE magazine Editorial, John
Grieshaber, P.E. discussed the issue of mandatory continuing education
(MCE) requirements and listed states’ annual, biennial, or triennial
PDH requirements to maintain licensing. At the time of its writing,
33 out of 55 registration boards required continuing education. How
many of your registrations require continuing education?
I encourage you to take advantage of the perfect storm currently
forming for CASE structural engineers to attend the CASE Winter
Meeting, and leverage their travel expenses to stay on and attend the
NCSEA Winter Institute to be held in Jacksonville, FL at the end
of February 2011.
Now is a perfect time for CASE member firms and new structural
engineering firm principals to make plans to attend both meetings.
Get a bigger bang for your buck by attending the CASE Winter
meeting and NCSEA Winter Institute, and receive PDH continuing
education credits for the presentations you attend. Look for dates,
times and accommodations information in other sections of this and
future issues.
Looking forward to 2011, a CASE Risk Management Convocation
will be held at the Structures Congress in Las Vegas in April 2011,
Don’t Gamble on your Future. CASE will discuss the following topics:
STRUCTURE magazine
How Structural Engineers Can Work Effectively with
Architects Who Use AIA C401
If your firm works as a sub-consultant to architects, examine
CASE’s Commentary on AIA Document C401, the Standard Form of
Agreement Between Architect and Consultant. AIA Contract Document
C401 incorporates by reference AIA Contract Document B101, the
Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect.
The interplay between C401 and B101 cannot be over-emphasized.
Using C401 without understanding fully the interrelationships with
B101 is a recipe for disaster. This presentation will cover how the
engineer’s rights and obligations are impacted by these two agreements
and CASE’s recommended provisions to include in your contract
with the architect.
The Changing Face of Indemnity: Meaner and Uglier!
This program will present an overview of some recent California cases
having received national attention, which could present potentially
disastrous results for the engineering community. The program will
conclude with a description of some legislative and practical efforts
to defend against this unfortunate tide.
New Tools for Managing Risk and Project Implementation
The CASE Tool Kit Committee has developed a number of new
tools that will be presented in this session. Developing a Culture of
Quality provides a white paper and PowerPoint presentation used to
engage firm leaders in a discussion about their firm culture and key
aspects that contribute to quality.
A new tool on staffing projections provides a method for firms to
project future revenues and staffing demands based on contract values
and potential work.
Managing Computer Software Use provides a white paper on key
aspects and responsibilities of the project manager and principal in
charge relative to software use on projects.
Lessons Learned from Arbitration, Mediation and Litigation
A panel discussion will focus on applying lessons learned from the
speakers’ involvement with arbitration,
mediation and litigation. The speak-
®
ers, who are a practicing structural
structure
engineer & arbitrator, an attorney
specializing in construction law, and
a member benefit
a professional liability insurance agent,
will share some of their own lessons
learned and anecdotes.
So there you have it. My winter and
early spring schedule is set. How about
yours? I will look forward to meeting
you at one of our CASE meetings. Step STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
forward and introduce yourself.▪
7 January 2011
inFocus Remember the Hyatt
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
A
rallying cry often serves to unite people behind a particular
cause, especially in a time of war. Texans urged each other
to “Remember the Alamo!” During the Spanish-American
War, it was “Remember the Maine!” For World War II, the
exhortation was to “Remember Pearl Harbor!” The objective in such
cases was to highlight a particularly egregious offense committed by
the enemy – often whatever it was that provoked the conflict in the
first place.
Structural engineers should remind each other of certain past events
for a different reason – we need to invoke occasions when our pre-
decessors, our colleagues, and we ourselves have made mistakes, so
that hopefully we can avoid similar errors in the future. One such
case study is the collapse of the skywalks at the Hyatt Regency hotel
in Kansas City, Missouri. This year will mark the 30th anniversary of
the deadliest structural engineering failure in United States history,
which happened on July 17, 1981.
The details should be familiar to most of us already. The architect
wanted the walkways that traversed the main lobby to look as light
and airy as possible, suspended by thin rods hanging down from the
structural steel framing above. The preliminary drawings showed each
rod supporting the end of a box member formed by welding two
channels together at the flange tips. The fourth floor walkway was
directly above the second floor walkway, and the rods were depicted
as continuous, with nuts and washers at both levels.
As the fast-track project proceeded, the fabricator notified the
engineering team that continuous rods would not be practical and
suggested, as an alternative, providing two separate rods – one to hang
the fourth floor from the roof, and the other to hang the second floor
from the fourth floor. The engineers approved this modification, but
never performed any calculations to verify its structural adequacy.
They did not realize that this arrangement would double the bearing
load from the upper rod’s nut and washer on the bottom of the box
member at the fourth floor level.
On that fateful Friday night, during a popular tea dance event, this
nut and washer pulled through the built-up box member, sending
the second and fourth floor walkways crashing down to the floor
below. The subsequent forensic investigation revealed that even the
original connection was not adequate for the loads specified by the
governing building code – a situation that was greatly exacerbated
by the revised configuration, which was barely able to support just
the weight of the walkways. Based on these findings, the structural
engineers in responsible charge were stripped of their licenses by the
Missouri board.
What should “Remember the Hyatt” bring to mind? The most
important thing is that structural engineers have a uniquely significant
responsibility to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of
the public. Architectural, mechanical, and electrical system failures
usually result in unattractiveness, poor functionality, discomfort,
and/or inconvenience. A structural system failure almost always has
more serious consequences; even in the best cases, there are often
substantial costs associated with correcting what is or could become
a life-threatening situation.
STRUCTURE magazine
There is a more specific lesson to be learned as well. The fundamental
mistake in the case of the Hyatt failure was the design of the skywalk
hanger rod connections – or, rather, the fact that these connections
were never truly designed at all. The engineering team did not take
any steps to ascertain the load capacity of the conceptual arrange-
ment, and then overlooked it again when the fabricator proposed
changing it during submittal review. In what we do for a living, the
devil really is in the details.
What specific steps can we take to “Remember the Hyatt”? For one
thing, a non-profit organization, the Skywalk Memorial Foundation,
is currently raising funds for a permanent memorial to honor the
114 people who perished and the 216 people who were injured by
the collapse – many of whom were permanently disabled – and to
recognize the emergency and medical personnel, firefighters, police
officers, public servants, and others who bravely responded immedi-
ately afterwards. The site is a small tract of land donated by the City of
Kansas City in Hospital Hill Park, just east of the Hyatt facility itself.
The preliminary design, prepared by local architect Lorie Bowman,
includes a series of concentric circles in an outdoor gathering space.
The concrete plaza will have 114 LED pinlights in the inner circle
and 216 pinlights in the next ring. The remaining bands of colored
concrete will have hundreds of additional lights in a more dispersed
formation, to represent the families, the rescue workers, and those
who suffered psychological trauma as a result of the tragedy. The
objective is to provide a place for quiet contemplation and small
gatherings, with lots of colorful landscaping; to celebrate the lives,
but remember the loss.
I think that our profession would do well to take up this cause.
We are widely (and wrongly) perceived as mere number-crunchers,
rather than front-line preservers of human life, liberty, and happiness.
Creation of the Skywalk Memorial, with generous financial assistance
from the nation’s structural engineering community, would highlight
the crucial role that we play in modern society and the importance
of taking further steps – like separate licensure – to reduce the likeli-
hood of a similar disaster in the future. Please join me in supporting
this worthy endeavor.▪
How to Contribute
The Skywalk Memorial Foundation needs roughly $400,000 to
cover design and construction. This translates to only about $12
per recipient of STRUCTURE magazine. To make your tax-
deductible donation, or to learn more about the project, please visit
www.skywalkmemorial.org.
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB (chair@STRUCTUREmag.org) is an
associate structural engineer at Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City,
Missouri, and chairs the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board.
9 January 2011
Building A
fter over 30 years of techni-
cal research and development,
engineering and construction

Blocks
professionals no longer consider
fiber reinforced concrete as exotic. This
positive assessment is the result of several
factors, including:
• Conclusive experience (especially for
updates and information steel fiber concretes which have been
on structural materials used since the 1970s);
• Technical understanding of the materi-
als (formulation, use, physical, chemical
and mechanical properties, etc.);
• National and international recommen-
dations on the sizing of the structures
or structural elements made up of
these materials.
Comparisons
There are now two types of fiber available
on the market: steel and synthetic fibers.
Unfortunately, when
reviewing the available
Steel or Synthetic literature on these two
types, certain approxi-
Fiber Reinforcement? mations are made
and even errors can
be found in the texts.
By Pierre Rossi
Our objective is not to call out these discrep-
ancies but to offer some of the more objective
elements regarding these fibers, so that users
can make their own determinations. We have
chosen not to make an exhaustive compara-
tive analysis between suppliers, but rather to
focus on two important problem areas where
differences between the fibers can be found.
The two problem areas are mechanical per-
formance and durability.
Pierre Rossi is the Research Director at the
LCPC (Laboratoires Centrale des Ponts et Mechanical Performance
Chaussées), Paris, France.
It is useful to remember the two main points
about fiber reinforced concrete. Fiber rein-
forced concrete is a composite material made
up of a matrix – the concrete, and the rein-
forcement (e.g. the fiber). In a fiber reinforced
concrete, the fibers distribute the strain across
the cracks created in the matrix. In the sim-
plest analogy, fibers are only useful if cracks
exist in the material. If the material does not
present the potential for cracking, there would
be no need for the addition of fiber. And, the
potential for cracking makes concrete a prime
candidate for the addition of fibers.
When cracks occur, the mechanical proper-
ties of the fiber are important. The modulus
of elasticity defines the rigidity of the fiber.
The higher the modulus of elasticity of the
Figure 1: Example of Dramix® steel fibers. fiber, the better it will control the cracks in
terms of length and opening. And, it goes
In industrial flooring, steel fibers are a proven and
recognized solution. Already more than 1/3 square
meters is reinforced with steel fibers.
without saying that the anchoring of the fibers
is essential as well.
Cracks appear at different times over the life
of the material, from the initial shrinkage up
to advanced age. Although cracks result from
shrinkage, creep and cyclic loading, the struc-
tural (e.g. density) and mechanical characteristics
(resistance in compression, Young modulus) of
concrete, which develop progressively, also have
an effect on crack development.
• During the first three hours after place-
ment of the concrete, its resistance and
Young modulus are very low: compres-
sion resistance is lower than 3 MPa,
traction resistance is below 0.3 MPa
and Young modulus is below 5 GPa. If
the concrete cracks during this period,
loads to be taken by the fiber and the
size of crack openings will be low.
• After 24 hours, the mechanical
properties of the concrete increase
considerably: compression resistance
higher than 10 MPa, traction resistance
is above 1 MPa and Young modulus is
above 15 GPa. During this maturation
period if the concrete is “pushed” again
to crack, the load resisted by the fibers
and the size of the crack widths will be
more significant.
Behavior
Steel fibers have a high modulus of elasticity
(200 GPz) and a high resistance in traction
(between 800 and 2,500 MPa). At the very
earliest age of the concrete matrix, small cracks
may appear as the concrete shrinks. Also during
this period, the fibers are not yet adequately
anchored in the immature concrete matrix.
As such, these steel fibers are not very effective

10 January 2011
against crack propagation. As the concrete ages,
the effectiveness of the steel fibers increases and
crack propagation decreases.
The most common synthetic fibers used in
concrete mixtures are primarily polypropylene
fibers. They have a low modulus of elastic-
ity, varying between 3 and 5 GPa. Available
polypropylene fibers are typically short in
length and small in diameter.
Recently, another type of synthetic fiber has
become available for structural applications
– polymer fiber, also called macro-synthetic.
In comparison to the polypropylene fibers,
these macro-synthetics are larger in length and
diameter, and have a higher modulus of elas-
ticity (between 5 and 10 GPa, approximately).
Two other types of synthetic fibers are also used
in concrete, but less frequently. These are polyvi-
nyl alcohol (PVA) fibers and aramid fibers, with
Young Modulus of 30 and 70 GPa respectively.
These fibers are used in very high and ultra high
performance fiber reinforced concretes.
Polypropylene and other synthetic fibers
restrain plastic shrinkage during the first 24
hours after concrete is poured. This is primar-
ily due to their low Young Modulus, making
them very reactive to potential cracks. Indeed,
slight displacements on the fibers as small
crack openings begin generate sufficient loads
to combat the propagation of cracks. Some
types of polypropylene fibers are fibrillated
and therefore anchor into the matrix very
well, increasing their effectiveness.
Conversely, as the concrete becomes more
mature, synthetic fibers become less effective.
Indeed, because of their high elongation or
“stretchiness” relative to their low Young modu-
lus, synthetic fibers are able to undergo larger
displacements as cracks widen. Therefore, in
aged and cracked concrete structures with
macro-synthetic fibers, cracks can be much
wider than with steel fibers and the deforma-
tion of these structures may be (too) significant.
It is also important to consider mechani-
cal properties related to problems of creep
with fibers. The creep of a material describes
how it flows in the direction perpendicular
in time under sustained strains. Steel fibers in
strain in the concrete matrix do not creep, or
hardly ever creep. However, creep associated
with synthetic fibers is potentially significant.
This may have negative effects. Indeed, one
may encounter a situation where the concrete
with synthetic fibers responds correctly to the
specifications of the structure (mechanical
stability, deformation, openings of cracks) but
the creep of fibers (between cracks) makes the
structure “sway” which is not acceptable with
deformation (good use of the structure) and
crack openings which become too significant
(durability problems). Figure 1, taken from
STRUCTURE magazine
the literature related to the product, illustrates
this phenomenon. It presents a comparative
study of the creep of pre-cracked girders with
steel fibers and macro-synthetic fiber rein-
forced concrete. This is only an illustration;
the size of the creep depends on the initial
opening of the cracks, which is not speci-
fied here.
Durability
Apart from some aramid fibers, there is no
durability problem associated with synthetic
fibers in concrete. Corrosion of steel fibers
may occur. Superficial corrosion of the fibers
may cause discolorations on exposed surfaces.
However, surface corrosion of the fibers does
not affect the load carrying capacity of the
structures of which it is comprised. This
potential corrosion of steel fibers may be
minimized in practice by:
• Optimizing the formulation of the
fiber reinforced concrete;
• Using non steel frameworks or ones
with an “internal skin” (synthetic
tissue for example);
• Using galvanized fibers.
The second aspect regarding the durability
of fiber reinforced concretes concerns the fire
resistance of structures. Steel fibers are not a
determining factor in the fire resistance of
structures. What we can underscore is that
a structure with fiber reinforced concrete
behaves no worse in the presence of fire than
a normal reinforced concrete structure.
Conversely, some synthetic fibers, par-
ticularly polypropylene microfibers, have a
significantly positive impact in a fire. This is
due to a very simple phenomenon: in the case
of a fire, polypropylene fibers disappear (they
have reached their fusion point) to leave in
place a significant network of fine canaliza-
tions (capillaries) shared through the volume
of the structure. These canalizations act as
expansion vessels for the water vapor gener-
ated under pressure by the fire (evaporation
of the water present in the concrete).
Additionally, the durability of the fiber
reinforced concrete structures is affected by
the progression of time. A fiber reinforced
concrete matrix must ensure a seal, e.g. pre-
vent water infiltrations. As discussed above,
the problem of creep with synthetic fibers
increases over time. Because of this, the abil-
ity of the synthetic fiber and concrete matrix
to provide sealing properties to the structure
may diminish with time. This problem is not
encountered in steel fiber concrete matrixes.
Finally, in the case of prefabricated portable
elements, or structures which may come into
direct contact with users, safety problems may
11 January 2011
Example of macro synthetic fibers.
arise when using steel fiber concretes. When
the steel fibers have small diameters, less than
approximately 0.25 mm, any protrusions at
the surface may be “sharp” and cause injuries.
And, regardless of size, one can never guaran-
tee 100% that any steel fiber will not show on
the surface of the structure. Designers should
examine technical solutions to mitigate this
problem. Protrusion of synthetic fibers does
not present the same hazard level.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the following is a brief synopsis
of the pros and cons of various fiber additives.
• Steel fiber concretes do not perform in
the early stages of the concrete matrix
cure, but they are very effective for the
cracking in concrete structures which
have reached maturity.
• Polypropylene micro fiber concretes
are effective in young age cracking
(plastic shrinkage).
• Macro-synthetic fibers in concrete are
technically less significant than steel
fiber concretes in relatively stressed
structures, due to varying abilities to
maintain certain functions over time;
• Polypropylene microfibers can
improve the fire resistance of con-
crete structures;
• Care is needed regarding portable
structures or surfaces in contact
with users when they contain
micro steel fibers. These micro
steel fibers can cause cuts if no
technical solution is adopted.
There are pros and cons to both synthetic
and steel fibers; in some cases the two fibers
have been combined, which is not as strange
as you may have thought.▪
This article is a translation of Pierre Rossi’s
papers published in Béton Magazine,
March 2009.
Codes and
standards
updates and discussions related to codes
and standards
ACI 318 and Pile Stability
By Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
and C. Scott Branlund, P.E., S.E.
Stephen P. Schneider Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
is a Project Manager and helps with the
technical aspects on a variety of projects
at BergerABAM. Steve can be reached at
steve.schneider@ABAM.com.
Scott Branlund, P.E., S.E. is a Senior Project
Manager/Diver in the Waterfront division
and has been with BergerABAM for 27
years. Responsible for the design and QA/
QC on numerous pier and wharf projects,
Scott also leads dive teams on underwater
inspection of piles after constructed. Scott can
be reached at scott.branlund@ABAM.com.
Three-dimensional schematic showing a typical container wharf and an example of highly variable pile
lengths. Water is cut away to show slenderness of waterside piles, often having a length of 60 feet or more
from deck level to the mudline below. Piers would be oriented normal to the shoreline with many long
piles being needed to support the pier deck.
W
hen learning reinforced con-
crete and structural steel
design as an undergraduate
in college, one might begin
to think that unlike the
potential for local and
global buckling that
might occur for struc-
tural steel elements,
concrete accommodates compression very
well. While mostly true, concrete piles used
for piers and wharfs may be the exception,
at least where global instability is concerned.
This article reviews slenderness effects for con-
crete compression elements needed for the
pile design, and the apparent direction of
future codes. It is possible provision changes
in ACI 318 may compromise a critical provi-
sion for structures similar to wharfs and piers
that may be susceptible to overall instability.
Typically, wharfs run parallel and are often
connected to the shoreline and piers are ori-
ented perpendicular to the shoreline. Both
types of structures can have pile lengths varying
dramatically over their width and/or length.
Because the mudline typically slopes near the
shore and then remains fairly flat over a consid-
erable distance away from shore, piers generally
have far longer piles as a percentage of the total
pile count compared to wharfs. However, pile
design for wharfs and piers involves one of the
more slender concrete compression elements
faced by the structural engineer, particularly
when the structure must accommodate ships
with deep drafts where required water depths
along the face needs to be 50 feet or more.
While slenderness must be considered for both
piers and wharfs, piers are more susceptible
to overall pile instability and will thus be the
primary focus of this discussion.
Because of their economy and availability,
solid 24-inch octagonal prestressed concrete
piles are used for many major waterfront
12 January 2011
structures along the west coast of the United
States. When used in a deep water pier, pile
lengths near the shore can be 40 to 50 feet
long from the soffit of the pier deck to an
assumed point of fixity below the mudline,
resulting in an average slenderness ratio of
l/r = 85 for the 24-inch octagonal pile section.
Piles farthest from shore can often support
decks in water as deep as 50 feet or more,
resulting in a pile slenderness of l/r = 175 or
greater between soffit to point of fixity for the
typical octagonal pile section.
Piles supporting a pier may be installed in
a plumb (vertical) or battered configuration.
In the high seismic region of the west coast,
plumb piles are typically preferred, where
resistance to lateral loads is due exclusively to
flexural resistance of the pile at the top and
bottom. Consequently, the effective length
factor must be larger than k=1, and generally a
value of k=1.2 is used as a minimum assuming
a pile length with good fixity at the pier deck
and good knowledge of the location of fixity
of the pile below mudline. When considering
that the average length of a pile for a long pier
can be over 65 feet long, the pier is effectively
a 5- to 6-story building with virtually all of
its mass at the roof.
To accommodate a wide variety of present and
future demands, owners are more frequently
requiring piers and wharfs to be designed to
accommodate substantial live load, in the range
of 600 to 1,000 pounds per square foot. The
large gravity load requirements and long slen-
der piles in flexural resistance coalesce into a
fairly extreme stability demand on the piles.
Design standards, such as the Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures by the
American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE
7-05 and others, typically specify the require-
ments of the 2005 edition of the Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete by
the American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-05.
The design of slender elements such as these and the method in which
elastic buckling is considered in the ACI provisions may not necessarily
be apparent. This article summarizes our understanding of the current
design philosophy of ACI 318-05 Chapter 10.10 “Slenderness Effects
in Compression Elements” and, more importantly, our understanding
of the future provisions in ACI 318-08.
In general, the ACI 318 provisions for slender column design address
column instability exclusively by the moment magnification method.
The 1989 ACI suggests that this is “similar to the procedure used as
part of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) specifica-
tions.” However, there are some distinct differences in the way each
code accommodates instability that may not be apparent by casual
Section of wharf showing the dramatic variation in pile lengths.
inspection. In structural steel, the column demand is intended to be
amplified for the P-δ and P-∆ effects (slenderness along the element
chord and slenderness due to frame sway), in all cases. In addition, system. Non-sway moments, Mns , are amplified by a similar method
the column compressive capacity is limited by either elastic Euler with associated factors needed for the P-δ effect. ACI 318-05 allows
buckling or by the inelastic behavior of the column considering amplified moments, δMs, to be computed by one of three methods:
residual stresses. In contrast, the capacity of a long concrete column a) A second-order elastic frame analysis, often called
is the same as the short column capacity (the axial load-moment P-M a P-∆ analysis.
interaction surface for the cross section) and is therefore not reduced b) Use of the approximation Q = ΣP∆/ΣVh , where ΣP is the
for Euler buckling directly. For long concrete columns, slenderness sum of all of the gravity loads in the story, ∆ is the story
is accommodated by the moment magnification method in which drift, ΣV is the total story shear and h is the story height.
the moments are amplified depending on if the applied loads induce Q is termed the “stability coefficient” by other codes such
sway or no sway on the structural system. The general form of this as ASCE 7-05, Chapter12.8.7.
moment amplification is: c.) Substituting Q with the ratio of ΣPu / 0.75ΣPc where ΣPu is
the sum of the factored gravity loads in a story, ΣPc is the
δMs = ( 1 –1 Q ) M
s Equation 1 sum of the critical buckling loads for all columns in the story
and 0.75 is a stiffness reduction factor, φk .
where δ is the moment amplification factor and Ms is the moment Regardless of which method above is used in computing the ampli-
on the column induced by loads producing sway of the structural fied moments, it is important that the stiffness is reduced for the
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

TotalFlash®
·control
EVERY Moisture
element
built into each
lightweight, easy to
install panel.
· Everything arrives in one order. Just open
the carton and start installing.
· Available in sizes for new construction, restoration,
renovation and remediation.

Blok-Flash®
Simply insert “with
Insect Barrier” into Tough, lightweight, embeddable
Mortar Net specs.
Blok-Flash® flashing system
delivers the surest, most cost
Call today for effective control of moisture and
more information mold growth in exterior single-
and samples. wythe CMU wall systems.

See our complete line of Masonry Moisture Control Products, including HouseNet®,
BlockNet®, Stone&StuccoDrain & Weep Vents

STRUCTURE magazine 13 January 2011

cracked moment of inertia and for creep under
sustained loads. These conditions effectively
reduce the Euler buckling load to the critical
buckling load, Pc, of a concrete column.
While the moment magnifier method is
intended to account for slenderness and
ultimately elastic buckling, it is clearly
more effective when applied loads, such as
wind and seismic, induce large column end
moments. A structure that has large axial
loads, such as a pier loaded by large grav-
ity loads only, may not necessarily induce
large column moments and therefore may
Elevation of wharf showing pile slenderness.
be subject to only the minimum required
eccentricity of the axial load. Because the concrete column capac- When the provisions of Methods a., b. and c. are plotted for applied
ity is not reduced directly by the elastic Euler buckling, and the axial load vs. the amplification factor, the curve becomes asymptotic
P-δ magnification would not necessarily amplify the small bending to the buckling capacity as predicted by each method. The predicted
moments induced by gravity loads beyond the minimum eccentric asymptotic value, without reduction for cracked moment of inertia
moment, column capacities supporting large gravity loads may not and creep, is an indicator of how well that provision predicts the Euler
be reduced properly for Euler buckling. buckling capacity. Method a. becomes asymptotic at Euler buckling
One set of provisions that are particularly applicable to this situation provided the second-order analytical model is performed properly.
are found in Chapter 10.13.6 of ACI 318-05. Ironically, these require- Method b. provides the least accurate estimate for elastic buckling,
ments are within the moment magnification for sway section of the actually overestimating Euler buckling by 1.22 times for the end
column slenderness provisions of ACI 318-05; however, heavy gravity restrained sway case for plumb piles in piers and wharfs. Method c.
loads only do not necessarily cause large second-order moments in the results in a value 0.75 times Euler buckling because of the stiffness
sway case, even in a long pier with highly variable pile lengths. Per reduction value, φk, included in the denominator. Consequently, the
Section 10.11.4, if applied loads do not cause second order moments method chosen in analysis may have significant consequences on the
greater than 5%, only the nonsway moment magnification provisions true estimate of instability of the structure.
of Chapter 10.12 must be considered and there is no need to use Noticing this scatter in the stability estimates from ACI 318-05, it
provisions of Chapter 10.13. Although not codified, it is intended is of interest to compare how the new provisions of the code, ACI
that a lateral deformation is induced on the structural system, or a 318-08, accommodated this global instability requirement. As has
“unit load” imposed, to determine if the second-order effects are larger been the case with many concrete code cycles, the slenderness provi-
than 5%. So if performed properly, heavy gravity loads in sidesway sions for concrete columns changed. Instead of the global stability
frames would most likely induce second-order effects larger than 5% provisions being embedded within the Magnified Moments – Sway
which would ultimately lead to the overall frame stability provisions. Frame of ACI 318-05, the ACI 318-08 has lumped this into a single
The provisions of ACI 318-05 Chapter 10.13.6 are particularly general provision of Chapter 10.10.2.1. This provision states that the
applicable to piers and wharfs, since these structures inevitably have demand on the structure from second-order effects cannot exceed 1.4
variable pile lengths and can be susceptible to large axial loads. With times the linear elastic demand on the system. With this reduction
the variable pile lengths, it could be argued that a single pile cannot in the limit of second-order effects, the commentary of ACI 318-08
buckle individually. Thus, even though all piles might be plumb piles suggests it is no longer necessary to retain the ACI 318-05 Chapter
which would qualify it as a sway frame having an effective length factor 10.13.6 global instability provisions.
of k=1.2 minimum, if an individual column cannot buckle indepen- However, we also understand that the ACI column committee is
dently the effective length can be assumed more consistent with a considering adopting the requirement of Chapter 10.10.2.1 of ACI
nonsway frame column, or k<=1. Thus, the pier is only susceptible 318-08 as a seismic condition only. It is possible this provision was
to instability if all columns are on the verge of buckling, or if enough always intended to be a seismic requirement since the commentary for
columns are on the verge of buckling and there is insufficient lateral this section also compares it to the ASCE7-05 Chapter 12.8.7 that is
restraint by the piles not near Euler buckling to prevent global instabil- strictly a seismic criterion. In addition, pier and wharf structures are
ity. Consequently, determining if the sum of all columns are close to often designed to Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance
Euler buckling is the appropriate method to determine if a structure Standards (MOTEMS), which also has a limitation on second-order
with dramatically different pile (column) lengths is near instability. effects for seismic behavior and is nearly identical to ASCE7-05.
The provisions of ACI 318-05 Chapter 10.13.6 require the amplifica- Consequently, another provision to limit the amount of P-∆ influence
tion of δMs for Methods a. and c. to be less than 2.5 and the Q value on the seismic behavior of the structural system is not really needed by the
in Method b. to be less than 0.6 (which effectively makes it consistent ACI 318 provisions, at least for most structures using ACI as a reference
with Methods a. and c.). The understanding of this provision is prob- code for concrete. Plumb piles on a wharf or pier design is perhaps one
ably best illustrated by resolving the requirement in Method c. to: of the more slender elements experienced in the design of many types of
structural systems. A consistent, effective and accurate methodology to
ΣPu = 0.6 * 0.75 * ΣPc = 0.6 * φk * ΣPc Equation 2 prevent the instability of the piles is needed. If the current ACI 318-08
Chapter 10.10.2.1 becomes limited to a seismic provision, the global
where Pc is in effect the Euler buckling capacity reduced for cracked stability provision of ACI 318-05 Chapter 10.13.6 should be reinstated
sectional properties and creep. This requirement is comparable to the and should be revised so that regardless of the method used, the predicted
elastic buckling portion of the AISC steel column capacity require- overall stability capacity of the structure is consistent.▪
ments Pu < φc 0.877 Pe.
STRUCTURE magazine 14 January 2011
 Pass
Featured instructors:
Donald R. Scott, S.E.
Force Distribution / Wind
Jennifer Butler, P.E.
Analysis Methods
Joe Miller, Ph.D., P.E.
Wood (Vertical & Lateral), Light Gage
John Lommler, Ph.D., P.E.
Foundations / Retaining Structures
(Vertical & Lateral)
Lawrence Novak, S.E., FaCi, LEED® aP BD+C
Concrete
Rafael Sabelli, S.E.
Structural Steel (Vertical & Lateral)
Ravi Kanitkar, S.E.
Concrete
Susan M. Frey, P.E., S.E.
Masonry (Vertical & Lateral)
timothy W. Mays, Ph.D., P.E.
Format of Exam, Lateral Forces, Force
Distribution / Seismic, General (Lateral)
Structural Exam
thE
with confidEncE!
Prepare for exam day success with this new course designed by the National
Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), Kaplan Engineering
Education, and leading structural engineers from across the industry.
The exam will undergo significant changes in April 2011, making it
even more challenging. Be prepared with our online exam review course!
Structural Engineering Exam Live Online Review Course
• Virtual, synchronous review course delivered via Stream 57 Technology
• 24 hours of Instructor-Led seminars over multiple sessions
• New material for the new 16-hour Structural PE exam
• Includes a Kaplan Engineering Learning System (a $194.95 value)
Live Online Course Dates:
January 29–30 - Vertical Forces Review
February 12–13 - Lateral Forces Review
Course Fee: $1199 | Modules Also Available Individually: $749
For more information please contact: Lauren Comstock
1-317-319-8681 | lauren.comstock@kaplan.com
Visit www.kaplanaecengineering.com/LiveReview
for a complete course syllabus and instructor biographies.
REgiStER tODay! 1-800-420-1432
www.kaplanaecengineering.com/livereview
Structural
PracticeS
practical knowledge beyond the textbook
Becoming a Results-Oriented
Structural Engineer
Part 1: Technical Skills
By John P. Miller, P.E., S.E.
John P. Miller, P.E., S.E. is a Principal
with KPFF Consulting Engineers, St.
Louis, MO. He may be contacted at
john.miller@kpff-stl.com.
A
s newly minted structural engi-
neers, we were all eager to get
settled in with our employer and
get to work crunching numbers
and working on projects. This is great –
every firm needs fresh young talent for many
reasons. Most young engineers tend to be
task-oriented, whose metrics might include:
How many hours did I work this week? Was
my day filled with productive work? Did I
complete my assignment on time? Was the
input data on my structural model correct?
Did I learn something new today?
As younger engineers grow and become
more experienced in their field, some will
be interested in maturing into something
other than task-oriented engineers. Many
firms have in-house training and mentoring
programs that help younger engineers transi-
tion into becoming results-oriented engineers.
For results-oriented engineers, it matters less
how many hours
they work than what
results are achieved
from that work.
Measurable results
might include new
clients, profit, revenue, problem solving,
good risk management, creative solutions,
and whether a client is happy with your work.
This is a two-part article that identifies and
describes sixteen key skill sets that engineers
in a structural engineering practice should
have in order to achieve results and make
significant contributions to the firm. These
skill sets follow two broad themes; techni-
cal and management. Part One covers the
technical theme.
Each skill set starts with a set of questions to
help you assess your overall maturity level for
that particular shell. These are followed by sug-
gested ways to improve within each skill set.
Familiarity with All Structural
Project Types and Materials
Are you familiar with all of the project types
that your firm normally works on? How many
of these have you actually worked on? Are you
familiar with all of the usual structural mate-
rials, like reinforced masonry and concrete,
structural steel, light gage, post-tensioning,
stick-framed wood and timber, engineered
lumber, etc.? Are you familiar with all of the
normal structural systems, like flat plates, pan
slabs, pre-engineered metal building systems,
composite steel, metal deck, steel joists and
joist girders, retaining walls, etc.? Are you
familiar with customary lateral force resisting
systems like shearwalls, Eccentrically Braced
Frames (EBF), Special Concentrically Braced
16 January 2011
Frames (SCBF), Special Moment Resisting
Frames (SMRF), chords and collectors, etc?
Are you familiar with various foundation sys-
tems and ground improvement techniques?
Improvement Tasks
• Review drawings of other project types
that you have not worked on
• Ask questions
• Make it known that you would like
to work on a certain building type or
structural material that interests you or
that you are not very experienced with
• Educate yourself by reading books, trade
magazines, engineering journals, etc.
• Take classes and attend seminars
• Join a professional organization
• Be curious about other people’s projects
and discuss them together, even if you
are not associated with that project
• Review drawings for projects pre-
pared by other engineering firms
whenever possible to see how other
firms do things
Ability to Simplify a Problem
Do you know how to bracket a problem?
How precise of an answer is required on a
particular problem? Can you look at a prob-
lem and reduce it down to its simplest form?
Can you recognize where a detailed analysis
is required and where an approximate solu-
tion is good enough? How efficiently do you
spend your time?
Improvement Tasks
• Learn to run quick hand calculations to
check your work
• Know the answer by approximate meth-
ods before you model it in the computer
• When an exact answer is not required
or achievable, simplify
• Learn to work fast and efficiently
• Know when to use software and when
NOT to use software
• Use rules of thumb and short cuts
whenever it makes sense
Completeness and
Thoroughness of Drawings
How well are your drawings coordinated
with other disciplines? Is there a “perfect”
set of documents? How well do the general
notes and specifications agree with the draw-
ings? How well organized are your plans and
details? How clear are your structural draw-
ings to the end user? Do you know who the
end users are? How complete is the informa-
tion on your drawings and specifications? Will
this project be reviewed by an outside party
and does that affect the level of completeness?
Improvement Tasks
• A set of drawings that goes to the
Principal for final review should
represent the best possible and most
complete effort on your part
• Make sure the general notes, specifica-
tions and drawings always agree
• Make sure your drawings follow
common drafting rules and
office standards
• Make sure drawings are well organized
and appropriate for the project
• Discuss the drawing organization at the
start of the project
• Determine if the project size or com-
plexity warrants the need to over-do a
set of drawings
• Read the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC) Code of Standard
Practice and the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) Detailing Manual
• Review the drawings for constructability
Technical Skills
Are you conversant with all the computer
software available in your office? How is your
knowledge of Building Code requirements?
Do you have a good understanding of struc-
tural analysis and design techniques? Are you
familiar with all the various material codes?
Do you have a detailed understanding of the
basis for seismic loads, wind loads, snow loads,
etc.? How much experience do you have with
geotechnical issues? Are you familiar with all
the various framing systems? Do you have a
good inventory of rules of thumb?
Improvement Tasks
• Read and learn the International
Building Code (IBC), the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
codes and other similar building codes
• Be familiar with all material codes
(AISC, ACI, National Wood Products
Association, American Iron and Steel
Institute, Steel Deck institute, Steel
Joint Institute, etc.)
• Be familiar with American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• Learn about Factory Mutual (FM)
requirements and Underwriters Labs
(UL) assembly ratings
• When you review a geotechnical
report, you should have an intimate
understanding of all geotechnical
aspects of the site. Read the geotechni-
cal report AT LEAST three times
• Become familiar with all available
structural engineering software in the
office – go through the software guide
and practice every program or go
through every tutorial
STRUCTURE magazine
• Take a class or two in areas in which
you are weak or inexperienced
Writing Skills
Are you able to clearly and succinctly express
a thought or technical concept in writing? Are
your paragraphs and sentences grammati-
cally correct? Is your writing professional and
liability free? Are you as careful with emails as
you are with other types of correspondence?
Improvement Tasks
• Read The Business Writer’s Handbook
(St. Martins Press) or Handbook of
Technical Writing (St. Martins Press) or
similar books on how to write
• Practice writing as often as you can
• Write correspondence and reports in
third person active voice
• Read Design Professional Insurance
Corporation’s (DPIC) Lessons in
Liability booklet to understand the
problem with words like “all”, “final”,
“inspect”, “certify”, “best”, “worst” and
scores of others.
• Read everything you write AT LEAST
three times before you send it out to
catch grammatical and syntax errors.
Then read it again from the perspective
of a lawyer, and then again from the
perspective of the intended recipient.
• Try using the Oxford English
Dictionary (OED) instead of MS
Word’s thesaurus
Quality and Organization
of Calculations
Are your calculations neat and orderly, easy
to follow, complete, and correct? Why do you
perform calculations? Do you dive into the
detailed beam design first thing on a proj-
ect? Does your level of effort change if you
know your calculations will be reviewed by
an outside party? Do the calculations help
the contractor? Should you save calculations
after the project is constructed?
Improvement Tasks
• Organize calculations into sections
such as foundations, floor framing,
lateral analysis, etc.
• It is helpful to have a calculations index
on larger projects
• Develop a written design criteria
document tailored for each project so
that you and all other engineers on the
project work with the same parameters
• Imagine someone who did not work on
the project having to read and under-
stand your thought process by reading
your calculations
17 January 2011
• Cite conclusions in the calculations
and indicate any assumptions made
• Cite references when appropriate
• Pay special attention to organization
and completeness when you know the
project will be reviewed out-of-house
• Remember that, although most
building departments require struc-
tural calculations to be submitted for
building permit, they are not part of
the construction documents and are
only used as a guide to assist in making
engineering decisions
• Consider purging your files of the
calculations when a job is complete as a
part of your records retention policy
Desire to Learn New Things
Do you embrace new software? Do you view
Building Information Modeling (BIM) as a
hindrance or an advantage? Do you want to
work with new materials and building types?
Do you want to learn how the consulting
business operates? Are you open to new
structural systems? What are your thoughts
on Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) and
Design/Build (D/B) delivery?
Improvement Tasks
• Do not be afraid to use new software
• Take a class or two and go to seminars
– continue your education
• Ask to review the office or company
financials with one of the principals
• Take a leading role in the implementa-
tion of BIM in your office
• Become an expert in emerging technol-
ogy or techniques
You may find it surprising that many
of the architects, contractors, and build-
ing owners who hire structural engineers
don’t always know, or care, whether we’re
technically superior compared to the next
engineer or another firm. They may take it
for granted that all structural engineers have
a similar level of technical ability. Having
a command of the technical aspects of our
profession is certainly essential and basic,
but many of the consumers of our services
value other skill sets, like our ability to
make good decisions, our ability to take
ownership, whether we embrace BIM and
IPD, and our capability to understand a
project from their point of view. In Part
Two, we will explore a broad set of man-
agement skills that should be mastered to
round out your ability to make a significant
contribution to the success of your firm and
achieve results.▪

InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques
and current industry issues
Glazing Retrofits for
Blast Mitigation
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB, BSCP
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB, BSCP
(jschmid@burnsmcd.com), is an associate
structural engineer and the Director
of Antiterrorism Services at Burns &
McDonnell in Kansas City, Missouri. He
is vice-chair of the SEI Codes & Standards
Committee on Blast Protection of Buildings.
W
hen an explosion occurs near
a populated building, flying
fragments from broken
windows and glazed doors
cause the vast majority of non-fatal injuries.
Conventional annealed or heat strengthened
glass shatters into relatively large, jagged
shards that can produce multiple lacerations
on anyone unfortunate enough to be sitting
or standing nearby when the shock wave
arrives. Tempered glass tends to break into
smaller “rock salt” fragments, but these are
then propelled at high velocity into the room.
Laminated glass offers much better perfor-
mance and is the preferred solution for new
construction. An adhered interlayer of poly-
vinyl-butyral (PVB) is sandwiched between
two panes of annealed or heat strengthened
glass. When subjected to airblast effects, the
PVB holds the glass together, even if it cracks,
and stretches out considerably in response
to the overpressure.
However, proper
replacement of exist-
ing glazing systems
with laminated glass
can be a difficult
and expensive proposition, often requiring
replacement or reinforcement of framing
members and connections as well.
A popular alternative is to apply a polyester
fragment retention film (FRF) to the interior
surface of the glass, which performs much like
the PVB interlayer in laminated glass. The
four most common retrofit configurations
are as follows.
Daylight-Applied FRF – The simplest, least
intrusive and least expensive way to reduce the
fragment hazard from glazing is to apply FRF
only to the exposed interior surface of the glass
(Figure 1). A thickness of 4 to 7 mils is usually
Catcher Bar Attached to Wall
Wall
Window Frame
Glass with Anti-
Shatter Film on
Inside Surface
Elevation View
No Scale
Figure 2: FRF Plus Catcher Bar.
18 January 2011
Glass Anti-Shatter
Film (applied to
exposed glass
only)
Outside Inside
Section View
No Scale
Film not held in frame,
glass breaks here
along entire frame
edge
Frame
Figure 1: Daylight-applied FRF.
sufficient, and there is virtually no impact on
appearance or functionality. However, the
perimeter of the pane remains vulnerable to
shear failure in a blast event, such that the
entire sheet of filmed glass could be blown
out of its frame and into the building, posing
a risk of blunt force trauma. Furthermore,
in an insulating glass unit (IGU), only the
inboard lite is filmed, so it is still possible for
fragments from the outboard lite to pose a
hazard to occupants.
FRF Plus Catcher Bar – One way to improve
the protection provided by daylight-applied
FRF is to install a rigid bar across the filmed
glass, on the interior, either horizontally or
vertically (Figure 2). In a blast event, the FRF
will hold the glass together, and if it shears
off around the perimeter, the pane will wrap
around the catcher bar and slap together –
likely dislodging a few fragments. Substantial
anchorage is required at both ends of the rod,
which protrudes into the room and may be
an impediment if the window is intended
to be operable. Thicker FRF – typically 7 to
11 mils – is required, and for an IGU, frag-
ments from the outboard lite will be largely
unimpeded.
FRF Plus Net Curtain – Another enhance-
ment for daylight-applied FRF is to install
a polyester curtain that is hung from a rod
above the filmed glass, on the interior, and
has weights sewn into it at the bottom, where
excess material is housed in a box (Figure
3). Once again, in a blast event, the FRF
will hold the glass together; in this case, if
it shears off around the perimeter, the net
curtain will catch the entire pane and drop it
to the floor. Substantial anchorage to the wall
is required for both the rod and the box, and
 Curtain Rod Attached to Wall

Wall
One thing that all retrofits using FRF have in Acknowledgment
Net Curtain common is the limited service life of the film
Much of the information in this article and
itself – typically about 10 years. When evalu-
Window Frame all of the accompanying figures are taken from
ating replacement vs. retrofit, it is important
the Window Analysis Guide, published by
Glass with Anti- to keep this life-cycle cost consideration in
the US Army Corps of Engineers Protective
Shatter Film on mind. A somewhat larger up-front investment
Inside Surface Design Center (pdc.usace.army.mil) as part
in laminated glass may pay off by eliminating
of the Help file for its Window Fragment
Curtain Box Attached the need for removal and replacement of FRF
to Wall (holds excess Hazard Level Analysis (HazL) software.
curtain and weighted
in the future.▪
curtain edge) Elevation View
No Scale

Figure 3: FRF Plus Net Curtain.

the curtain must be removed and washed

regularly – hopefully not on a day when
an explosion occurs!

Attached FRF – The most effective tech-

nique using FRF involves fastening it to
the frame around the glass along either
two opposite sides or all four sides (Figure
4). Needless to say, it is also the most
complex, most intrusive and most expen-
sive option, requiring thicker FRF – 7
mils minimum – as well as mechanical
attachment or the application of a struc-
tural silicone sealant. As with laminated

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

glass, it may be necessary to replace or
reinforce the framing members and con-
nections in order to ensure that the entire
assembly is not dislodged from the wall
in a blast event.

Glass Anti-Shatter
Film

Outside Inside

Section View
No Scale Film anchoring device
attached to frame
Film extended onto
frame surface
Frame

Figure 4: Attached FRF.

STRUCTURE magazine 19 January 2011

ICC and NCSEA––Partners in Building Safety
Introducing the NCSEA Affiliate Bookstore
As part of ICC’s continued partnership with NCSEA, and in appreciation
for your shared commitment to building safety, we are happy to offer
10–20% off the list price on select codes, standards, and structural SAVE
references. These items will assist you with the important life-saving
work you do every day. 10-20%
at www.iccsafe.org/NCSEA

10% off
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
To get your discount, enter
Promotional Code: NCSEA
in your shopping cart.
Author: Alan Williams, Ph.D., S.E., C. Eng.
A comprehensive reference filled with equations, calculations,
and modeling instructions. It covers classic methods of analysis
and recent advances in computer applications. (624 pages)
#9320S List $89.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $80.96

REINFORCED MASONRY ENGINEERING HANDBOOK:

CLAY AND CONCRETE MASONRY, 6TH EDITION
Publisher: MIA
Eliminates repetitious calculations and offers detailed explanations,
hundreds of drawings and 70+ step-by-step examples. (648 pages)
#9346S6 List $99.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $89.96

ASCE/SEI 7-05: MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS

AND OTHER STRUCTURES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE IBC®, 2009
#9002S05 List $125 | NCSEA Affiliate $112.50 Authors: Doug Thornburg, AIA, and John Henry, P.E.
Comprehensive, practical analysis of critical changes between
the 2006 and 2009 IBC. Hundreds of color figures (365 pages)
ASCE/SEI 7-10: MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS FOR BUILDINGS
#7024S09 List $42.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $36.51
AND OTHER STRUCTURES
#9002S10 List $125 | NCSEA Affiliate $112.50
MASONRY STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Author: Richard E. Klingner
2005 NDS WOOD DESIGN SPECIFICATION PACKAGE
Complete guide to masonry materials and structural design
#9542S List $150 | NCSEA Affiliate $135
using the 2009 IBC and 2008 MSJC. (588 pages)
#9355S List $118 | NCSEA Affiliate $100.30
TMS 402-08/ACI 530-08/ASCE 5-08
#9026S08 List $100 | NCSEA Affiliate $135
DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES ASD/LRFD, SIXTH EDITION
Authors: Donald Breyer, Kenneth Fridley, Kelly Cobeen, David Pollock, Jr.
ANSI/AF&PA SDPWS-08: 2008 SPECIAL DESIGN The field’s leading text demonstrates all necessary steps and
PROVISIONS FOR WIND AND SEISMIC STANDARD techniques, provides practical design examples. (1,025 pages)
#9580S08 List $50 | NCSEA Affiliate $45 #9047S6 List $79.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $67.96

AISC 325-05: STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, 13TH ED.

#9206S05 List $350 | NCSEA Affiliate $297.50

and select CODE MASTERS

15% off
 People Helping People Build a Safer World™

2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE®

20% off
GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF OUT-OF-PLANE WALL ANCHORAGE:
Publisher: ICC BASED ON THE 2006/2009 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05
Includes bonus downloads. (704 pages) Author: Timothy W. Mays, Ph.D., P.E.
#3000S09 List $111 | NCSEA Affiliate $88.80 Loaded with example problems, this unique guide is the solution to
out-of-plane wall anchorage analysis. (175 pages)
2009 IBC: CODE AND COMMENTARY #7043S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20
Publisher: ICC
Read expert commentary printed after each code section. A GUIDE TO THE 2009 IRC® WOOD WALL BRACING PROVISIONS
Understand code intent and improve application. From: APA and ICC
2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 1 (CHAPTERS 1–15) Learn correct application of the lateral bracing requirements of
#3010S091* List $114 | NCSEA Affiliate $91.20 the 2009 IRC––one of the most common sources of confusion and
2009 IBC CODE AND COMMENTARY, VOLUME 2 (CHAPTERS 16–35) misapplication. Includes 200 color tables and figures. (255 pages)
#3010S092* List $114 | NCSEA Affiliate $91.20 #7102S09* List $41 | NCSEA Affiliate $32.80

2009 IBC HANDBOOK: STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN: EARTHQUAKE-

Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., and John Henry, P.E. RESISTANT STEEL STRUCTURES
Discusses IBC Chapters 16–23 using 200+ color figures to Authors: Subhash C. Goel and Shih-Ho Chao
clarify application and intent. A bonus CD contains the complete Filled with examples, formulas, tables, and drawings. (280 pages)
Handbook and many helpful structural references. (681 pages) #7032S List $98 | NCSEA Affiliate $78.40
#4001S09* List $95 | NCSEA Affiliate $76
SEISMIC DESIGN USING STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS: 2006 IBC,
2009 IBC CHECKLIST™: STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05
Editor: Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Jaehong Kim, and Farhad H. Shad
The most comprehensive structural plan check book available! Go Effective answers to many common questions. (204 pages)
step-by-step through the 2009 IBC structural requirements to #9183S09 List $54.95 | NCSEA Affiliate $43.96
ensure compliance. Bonus CD contains lists in PDF and editable RTF
files. (375 pages) SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE WIND LOAD PROVISIONS OF
#4008S09* List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20 ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE
Author: T. Eric Stafford, P.E.
STRUCTURAL LOAD DETERMINATION: UNDER 2009 IBC AND Each update is explained in straightforward language. (160 pages)
ASCE/SEI 7-05 #9591S10 List $73 | NCSEA Affiliate $58.40
Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCE
Packed with flowcharts, load diagrams and illustrated design examples SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE SEISMIC LOAD PROVISIONS OF
solved in a step-by-step fashion. (380 pages) ASCE 7-10: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE
#4034S09* List $65 | NCSEA Affiliate $52 Authors: S.K. Ghosh, Ph.D., Susan Dowty, P.E., Prabuddha Dasgupta, Ph.D., P.E.
Provides brief summary of updates, diagrams and examples. (192 pages)
DESIGN OF LOW-RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS: #9590S10 List $83 | NCSEA Affiliate $66.40
BASED ON THE 2009 IBC, ASCE/SEI 7-05, ACI 318-08
Author: David Fanella, Ph.D., S.E., P.E., F.ASCE GUIDE TO THE DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGMS, CHORDS AND
A straightforward approach helps engineers analyze, design and detail COLLECTORS: BASED ON THE 2006 IBC AND ASCE/SEI 7-05
low-rise cast-in-place reinforced concrete buildings. (384 pages) #7042S06 List $59 | NCSEA Affiliate $47.20
#7034S09 List $79 | NCSEA Affiliate $63.20
2006 IBC STRUCTURAL Q&A
*Also available in PDF Download. #4003S06 List $45 | NCSEA Affiliate $36

START SAVING TODAY! 1-800-786-4452 | www.iccsafe.org/ncsea

10-04029
PROFESSIONAL
ISSUES
issues affecting the structural
engineering profession
Sustainability and the
Structural Engineer
A Dialectic of the Structural
Engineer’s Role in Sustainable
Building Practice
By Zak Kostura, M.Eng, EIT, LEED AP
and Jennifer Pazdon, EIT, MSE
Zak Kostura is a practicing structural engineer
with Arup. Mr. Kostura also currently serves
as editorial advisor for several industry-
related publications. He is an adjunct
professor within the Graduate School for
Architecture, Planning and Preservation at
Columbia University. Zak may be reached
at zak.kostura@arup.com.
Jennifer Anna Pazdon is a structural
engineer at Robert Silman Associates. She
is the acting Programs Chair for SEAoNY
and a contributing author for the ASCE
SEI Sustainability Committee’s 2010
publication: “Sustainability Guidelines
for the Structural Engineer”. Jennifer may
be reached at Pazdon@silman.com.
E
very single player in the design and
execution of the built environment
plays a major role in the sustain-
ability of our future. The process of
creating a green building by today’s standards
requires the input and cooperation of every
professional on the design team. The process
beckons for a form of leadership equipped
with the capability to envision and realize
a rational end product amongst an ocean
of competing objectives. It could be argued
that, as structural engineers, we are the best
outfitted among consultants to take the lead
in this respect. By doing so, our efforts would
at once drive the evolution of modern sus-
tainable design and the enhancement of the
structural engineering profession.
There are indisputable truths worth noting.
In the United States and around the world,
more available resources go into creat-
ing buildings than
any other manmade
enterprise in exis-
tence today. These
resources – manifested
as energy, raw materi-
als, and available land for both the building
itself and the waste generated – are largely
non-renewable. As builders, our collectively
unchecked consumptiveness continues to
negate the positive impact our industry may
otherwise have on modern society.
It is also an unassailable fact that the face
of contemporary building design and con-
struction is changing. Design teams face ever
greater motivation to consider and address
the impact their work will have on the world
around them. The annual number of new cer-
tified green building projects and accredited
sustainable designers continues to increase
dramatically. Every year, more clients demand
sustainability in the design of their projects
throughout the country and, in turn, they face
impressive public support for their business
practices in the form of real estate sales and
press coverage.
Beyond these established realities, there is
much uncertainty. The very definition of
a “green building” remains elusive and the
criteria for certification by prominent orga-
nizations remains fundamentally flawed. It
has been shown time and again that building
green is marketing gold, but how much of
our effort in promoting sustainability stems
from our humanitarian sense of social respon-
sibility? Even for the engineers, architects,
consultants and builders who have accepted
the concept of sustainable design with open
arms, it remains to be fully decided how these
22 January 2011
principles will ultimately settle upon profes-
sional fields that are themselves in a constant
state of flux.
Symbiosis
Enter the structural engineer. With extensive
technical training and an affinity for interpret-
ing complex systems, structural engineers
have the capacity to preserve and enhance
the principles behind modern sustainable
design. By harnessing these principles, the
structural engineering industry could in turn
reap tremendous symbiotic opportunities to
enhance their role in the design process and
the quality of the end product.
Commonly accepted and often implemented
tactics of the sustainable-minded structural
engineer center on responsible materials selec-
tion. Recycled and low energy materials, as
well as locally produced sources, are the most
apparent contributions a structural engineer
can make to the “greenness” of a project.
Because they are easily quantifiable, these
additions are recognized by current metric
standards such as LEED. However, this is far
from the end of the contributions to be made.
Structural engineers can lead a project toward
enhanced sustainability by doing what they
commonly do: take a proactive role at the
design table and facilitate solutions to prob-
lems requiring a multidisciplinary approach.
An enhanced building feature, whether it
serves to benefit the structure’s mechanical
efficiency, energy consumption or recycled
content often requires the cooperation
of numerous constituencies across varied
building trades. It is the nature of the design
process that enhancements in one area may
lead to added complications in others. When
a building feature is considered non-essential
(as many modern-day green building fea-
tures often are), such a complication is often
solved quickly through exclusion. Vigilance
is required to realize any complex design
approach that is not strictly required by the
client’s scope. By taking an assertive role in
facilitating collaboration across disciplines,
the structural engineer can uphold and pro-
mote the design team’s sustainable objectives.
Bearing in mind the already considerable
complexity of our profession, the difficult
balance of market interests, building secu-
rity concerns, architectural intentions, and
technological advances, one might proffer
that a leadership role in sustainability is a
second helping on an already too full plate.
But how do we prioritize? As the industry
advances, we should look toward making
the process better and not simply faster. In
truth, the fact is that the choice is no longer
one to be made. The building industry, via
bodies such as the USGBC, the AIA COTE,
the GSA, a swarm of publications such as
Ecostructure and Metropolis Magazine, pri-
vately funded research, and a multitude of
inspired individuals have already blazed a
path in the direction of sustainable building
practices. It is now vital to the profession that
the structural engineer take a primary lead
in the further development of techniques,
metrics and standards related to sustainability.
The holistic fiber of sustainability is often
touted, meaning that the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts. Consequently, by assert-
ing a lead role in this domain, we increase our
primacy as members of the design, construc-
tion, political and societal spheres. Technical
fields may grow more specialized, but the
world in which they exist grows evermore
interconnected. Any single action on behalf
of an individual can have resounding impli-
cations. The specific duties of the structural
engineer are generally opaque to the public
due to their complexity and in some cases
as a result of disinterest. Little attention is
paid the structural engineer at the completion
of design as compared with the architect or
owner. When interest is spurred, it is often in
the wake of disaster and failure. Firms devote
portions of their revenues to developing an
attractive website and other marketing mate-
rials in order to appeal to clients as well as
potential employees. There is no question
that, with amplified participation in sustain-
able design, we increase the accessibility and
appeal of our persona. It is certainly in the
interest of safety that the structural engineer
must remain sober to interests of self-pro-
motion that might compromise the integrity
of our work, but it is also true that public
perception will sway how we are valued by
clients and other consultants. This, combined
with the additional services we can provide
as sustainable minded consultants and the
demand for sustainable buildings in the real
estate market, will translate to greater job
security and accordingly higher fees.
STRUCTURE magazine
Structural engineers are equipped with
excellent analytical tools; if they lack in any
field, it is in regard to communication and
leadership skills. Favorably, the altruistic
nature of interest in sustainability is often
accompanied by a personality interested in
people and communication. Thus, in addi-
tion to benefiting the practicing engineer by
enhancing the value associated with our work
by others, respecting sustainability increases
the appeal of our industry to the kind of
employees firms seek to hire and keep.
Conclusion
By approaching structural engineering in
a sustainable fashion, structural engineers
have the opportunity to serve as role models
within the building community, which col-
lectively contributes in enormous proportion
to the ever growing levels of consumption and
waste in America. Change begins with small
steps, such as individual engineers adhering
to practical and proven methods of design
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
with greater sustainability. Such a mindset is
in fact practical, not idealistic. If a substantial
portion of the professional engineering com-
munity can be convinced of this, the approach
will grow. Guidelines will improve and many
of the most progressive green building tac-
tics may someday become industry standard.
Someday, perhaps green buildings will just be
called buildings.
The nature of structural engineering is what
we make of it. The duties and responsibilities
mandated by the global building industry are
virtually endless. With all the talk about hand-
off of risk and responsibility and tasks that
we as structural engineers don’t want to do,
who’s talking about what we do want to do?
The field can be as mundane or as challenging
as we seek it to be. Our choices set the stage
for the future. If we adopt technically chal-
lenging – and socially responsible – aspects
of 21st Century building design, we realize
an industry that will attract a generation of
young, innovative designers and problem
solvers; fuel innovation in sustainable living,
working and development; and continue the
bold traditions of visionary engineers that
have come before us.▪
This article was originally published in the
Winter 2006 issue of Structural Engineers
Association of New York (SEAoNY) Cross
Sections. It is reprinted with permission.
23 January 2011
Structural Performance
Wood Pre-fabricated Shear Panels
for Lateral Force Resistance
By Renee Strand, P.E.
T
o limit damage of wood-framed
light commercial buildings, multi-
family structures and homes
against lateral forces from earth-
quakes and high wind, the International
Building Code (IBC) and International
Residential Code (IRC) allow several bracing
methods. These include shear walls and braced
wall panels built on-site, and pre-fabricated
shear panels as allowed under the alterna-
tive materials section of the code. From an
engineering standpoint, these are all workable
solutions – depending on the specific wall
design and building characteristics.
However, pre-fabricated shear panels offer
a number of advantages to consider, such
as consistent and predictable performance
to satisfy code requirements, and the ability
to accommodate high loads in narrow wall
segments and other applications. For wood-
framed structures, wood pre-fabricated shear
panels also help simplify work for building
crews when compared to steel panels.
Structural Applications
Because many modern building designs call
for numerous window and door openings
along a wall line, the required length of site-
built shear wall segments or braced wall panels
may be too wide to meet the architect’s desired
aesthetic. For engineered designs, the code-
established height (h) to width (b) ratios are
3.5 to 1 for wind-controlled design loads and
2 to 1 for seismic-controlled design loads
(with an exception for 3.5 to 1 for seismic
if the allowable shear load is multiplied by
2b/h). For prescriptive design, even though
the height-to-width ratios can be increased
beyond 3.5 to 1 under certain rules, the
required brace wall length may still be limited
by the architectural design.
Pre-fabricated shear panels are tested to
industry standards, and can thus exceed code
limits on height-to-width. This allows for
accommodating high loads in narrow wall
segments. For example, a 24-inch wide by
8-foot tall wood pre-fabricated shear panel
can have an allowable shear load of 4,435 lbs
based on seismic controlled designs or 4,880
lbs based on wind controlled designs.
STRUCTURE magazine
performance issues relative to extreme events
Some pre-fabricated shear panels can also
be used as part of a single- or double-portal
frame system installed on a concrete foun-
dation. Code-evaluated portal frames have
been tested as an assembly consisting of 1 or
2 panels with a header spanning the opening
and connected to the panel(s) with a moment-
resistive connection. Load capacities vary by
manufacturer and for steel versus wood shear
panels but, as an example, an 18-inch wide
by 9-foot tall wood shear panel in a single-
portal system can have an allowable seismic
shear load of 1,905 lbs and an allowable wind
shear load of 2,090 lbs. The same size panel in
a double-portal system can have an allowable
seismic load of 3,810 lbs and an allowable
wind load of 4,180 lbs.
Pre-fabricated shear panels have also been
tested and used successfully in tall walls up
to 20 feet high and in two-story structures
to meet the latest code requirements. Refer
to ICC-ES ESR-2652, April 1, 2010, for
details on one such product. The code evalua-
tion report justifies using the panel as a shear
wall in Type V construction, wood-framed
buildings and as a one-to-one replacement for
braced wall panels specified in IBC Section
2308.9.3 and IRC Section R602.10.
Because they come in a variety of sizes
(heights ranging from 7 to 20 feet and widths
ranging from 12 to 48 inches), wood pre-fab-
ricated shear panels provide design flexibility
for a variety of wall sizes and loading condi-
tions. As these details vary by product, it is
important to confirm specific capabilities in
the manufacturer’s literature.
Ease of Construction
Beyond structural considerations, specifying
wood pre-fabricated shear panels can help
streamline construction. Although ensuring
a stable, code-compliant structure is the top
design concern, taking into account the chal-
lenges building crews face on the jobsite can
help reduce labor time and costs.
Due to the extensive list of components
for site-built shear walls or braces (e.g.,
studs, plates, sheathing, anchor bolts, hold-
downs, nails, etc.), site-built shear walls
and braced wall panels can be difficult and
24 January 2011
Wood pre-fabricated shear panels can accommodate
high lateral loads in narrow wall segments.
time-consuming to build. If contractors do
not follow design details closely, there is also
a risk of red tag delays due to mistakes such as
over-driven nails, incorrect nail spacing, nails
that miss framing members, misplaced hold-
downs and over-bent straps, to name a few.
Wood pre-fabricated shear panels are easier
to install than site-built options since they
come in one-piece units and have simple
brackets for attachment to the building’s
foundation (additional fasteners are required
at the top). Because of their consistency and
pre-attached hold-down components, pre-
fabricated shear panels also typically can pass
inspection easier than site-built shear walls
and braced wall panels.
While engineers often specify steel shear
panels given a general familiarity with them,
such panels can be more difficult to use on-
site than wood pre-fabricated shear panels for
contractors working on wood-framed build-
ings. Steel panels require additional framing
materials to attach finish products, and the
ability to modify the panels in the field is lim-
ited. Wood pre-fabricated shear panels, on the
other hand, can be nailed, making them easier
for contractors to attach exterior siding and
interior wallboard. Crews can also trim some
wood panels in height, which allows modifica-
tions to fit uneven foundations and varying
wall heights. In addition, wood pre-fabricated
shear panels can be drilled to accommodate
wiring or plumbing. It is important to follow
the manufacturer’s guidelines for field trim-
ming or drilling.
For more information, contact a shear panel
manufacturer. They can provide details on
product sizes, applications, allowable loads,
and code compliance.▪
Renee Strand, P.E., is a senior engineer for
iLevel by Weyerhaeuser. She can be reached
at renee.strand@weyerhaeuser.com.
 Cracked&
Cracked &
IBC
®

Uncracked
CONCRETE 2009
ICC-ES
ESR-3037

Strong-Bolt 2 ™

• The only 3⁄8" diameter anchor

solution for 3 1⁄4" thick concrete
• Available in Stainless Steel
• Code listed ICC-ES ESR-3037

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 3⁄8" diameter anchor – the only anchor
on the market for shallow embedment in cracked concrete. As a Category 1 anchor, Strong-Bolt 2 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.
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 AT YOUR SERVICE™
 meet the newest member of our waterproofing products family:

mel-rol precon ® TM

VERTICAL HORIZONTAL

You’ve trusted W. R. MEADOWS to protect
your structure from the harmful effects
of moisture intrusion for years. Now
we’re proud to introduce our newest water-
proofing technology – MEL-ROL PRECON –
a dual function underslab and blindside
waterproofing membrane.
MEL-ROL PRECON does double-duty when used in horizontal
applications for underslab waterproofing and vaporproofing. Not
only does it block water, it Inhibits vapor intrusion creating an
environmentally friendly indoor environment.
MEL-ROL PRECON’s dual functions make it a great fit for all your
waterproofing and vaporproofing needs – plus, it works seamlessly
with all our other MEL-ROL products.

MEL-ROL PRECON goes where conventional waterproofing
products are impractical – such as positive-side waterproofing
where access is prohibited due to the soil retention system.
MEL-ROL PRECON fabric bonds tenaciously to poured concrete
walls to create solid waterproofing protection. Superior to traditional
clay-type products, MEL-ROL PRECON features a greater seal to stop
water in its tracks. A flexible, rubberized asphalt core also creates
stronger protection than clay-type products currently used.
For innovation and performance in moisture-proofing products,
trust W. R. MEADOWS, a family-owned and operated company
for more than 65 years.
One source. One system. One family. Choose W. R. MEADOWS
for your next waterproofing project.
Visit www.wrmeadows.com or call 1-800-342-5976
for more information.

MEL-ROL – MEL-ROL LM – MEL-ROL LM (ALL SEASON) – MEL-ROL PRECON - MEL-DRAIN™ – PROTECTION COURSE
Use of Shrinkage-Compensating
Concrete in Post-Tensioned Buildings Figure 1: Efflorescence at crack
on L1 slab soffit.

Part Two: A Four-Building Survey

By Kenneth B. Bondy, S.E., FACI
L3 (top level) of Parking Structure B2 looking north.

This is the second of a two-part article presenting case studies of four projects which demonstrate the effective use of shrinkage-compensating concrete
to mitigate restraint-to-shortening (RTS) cracking in post-tensioned concrete buildings. Two of these projects were built more than 40 years ago, one
has been in service for 12 years, and one is new, completed just 19 months before this writing. The first two buildings surveyed were presented in the
April, 2010 issue of STRUCTURE magazine.

John Wayne Airport Parking Structures
A2 and B2, Santa Ana, CA
Construction began on Parking Structures A2 and B2 at John Wayne
Airport in Santa Ana, CA in the early 1990s. Virtually everyone in the
Southern California construction community during that period was
aware of the project because of its dramatic RTS cracking problems
and the ultimate resolutions.
The buildings are framed with cast-in-place, monolithic post-tensioned
concrete slabs, beams, and girders. Each contains three elevated levels
(L1, L2, and L3), and each is three bays wide (about 175 feet) in the
direction of the beam spans, and very long (over 1,000 feet) in the direc-
tion of the slab spans. The long direction is separated into independent
sections, each slightly over 300 feet in length, with two permanent
expansion joints. Each independent section has two pourstrips.
The buildings were built in two phases: first an initial level (L1), and
then two upper levels (L2 and L3) as the need for additional parking
arose. The first elevated level (L1), built with normal-weight portland
cement concrete, was completed in the early 1990s and immediately
began to crack severely. Eventually, over 70,000 linear feet of cracks
were measured and repaired in the 480,000 square feet of floor area in
both structures. Prior to repair, some of the cracks allowed the passage
of water through the slab, resulting in unsightly efflorescence at the
slab soffit and potential damage to cars below (Figure 1).
Construction proceeded on the upper two levels in the late 1990s.
The most significant structural change made in the upper levels was
the use of Type K shrinkage-compensating concrete. Virtually all other
details relating to RTS were unchanged: dimensions, pourstrips, join-
ery details, and the contractor executing the work. The two expanded
structures were completed and went into service in 1998.
A visual inspection of all three elevated levels of both structures was
made in February 2009, about eleven years after completion of the
second phase. There is a striking difference in the performance of the
upper levels (L2 and L3) where shrinkage-compensating concrete was
used, and the lower level (L1) where it was not. The L1 level is laced
with thousands of feet of unsightly repaired cracks (Figure 2). The
upper two levels, L2 and L3, are virtually crack free. Since the only
significant and relevant variable is the use of shrinkage-compensating
concrete in the upper levels, the performance difference can be reason-
ably attributed to the cement.
continued on next page

Figure 2: Typical repaired cracks on structure A2 Level L1. Figure 3: Top of slab near expansion joint, structure A2 Level L1.

STRUCTURE magazine 27 January 2011

Figure 4: Same Location as Figure 3, One Floor Up On Level L2.
Figure 3 (page 27) shows the top of the slab at a double column
straddling the expansion joint at the L1 level. Diagonal cracks radi-
ate off the columns in an orientation consistent with RTS on either
side of the expansion joint. Figure 4 shows the top of the slab on the
L2 level, exactly one floor above the location shown in Figure 3. The
slab is crack free at this location.
Ridgecrest Community Residence,
University Of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
The building is an 8-story student dormitory and parking structure
built on-campus for the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. In this
building, the use of shrinkage-compensating concrete resulted in the
elimination of pourstrips in large post-tensioned slabs with cost sav-
ings and excellent performance.
All of the floors are framed with cast-in-place post-tensioned flat
plates (solid thickness slabs supported on concrete columns with no
drop panels or shear caps). The lower three elevated slabs are roughly
650 by 300 feet in plan dimension, separated by a central permanent
expansion joint running in the 300’ dimension. The slab-on-ground
and the first two elevated slabs (7¼ inches thick) are used for parking;
the third elevated deck (11-12 inches thick) is the first residential floor
and forms two large courtyard areas with landscaping. Type K cement
was used in the lower three slabs but not in the upper residential slabs
(7¼ inches thick) where Type 1 was used (with pourstrips).
The photograph in Figure 5 was taken in April, 2009 when the
building was structurally complete but architectural finish work was
still underway.
The original design of the building used light steel framing in the
upper residential floors. Bearing walls were supported on the third
floor concrete deck on a grid of deep concrete transfer beams, with a
post-tensioned slab outside and between the beams. On the lower two
elevated parking slabs, each of the two 300- by 300-foot pieces were
divided temporarily into four smaller pieces by pourstrips, specified
to be kept open for 9 to 12 weeks.
Bids came in substantially over the approximately $70 million
budget. The structural engineers, Structural Design Group (SDG) of
Birmingham, AL, value-engineered the job for cost-cutting measures.
They eliminated steel framing and changed to post-tensioned concrete
slabs in the upper residential floors, using the same column layout as
the parking area below. That eliminated the grid of transfer beams at
the third level. They used KSC™ shrinkage-compensating concrete in
the lower three elevated slabs in order to eliminate pourstrips. This
resulted in direct savings in the cost of building pourstrips, and a
STRUCTURE magazine 28
Figure 5: North elevation showing three lower parking levels and five upper
residential levels.
significant savings in construction time. SDG did a complete rede-
sign of the building based on these and other cost-saving measures.
Bids on the redesigned job came in under budget. Net savings realized
by eliminating pourstrips was estimated at $250,000, including the
premium for the KSC concrete. Total savings realized by the redesign
was about $3 million.
Construction started in 2007 and the building was completed in
2009. During an onsite inspection of the parking level slabs in April
2009, they were found to be in excellent condition. No cracking
was evident related to RTS or applied load. Careful observation of
the far corners of each of the sections separated by the expansion
joint – where the most RTS cracking could be expected – revealed
these critical areas to be crack-free. An experienced observer of post-
tensioned slabs would rate the performance and condition of these
large slabs as outstanding.
In a published article describing the building, the structural design-
ers state:
“The real proof is the slab itself – there are virtually no cracks
in more than 420,000 square feet of slab. Further, the concrete
frame was bid and completed 42 days ahead of (a very aggres-
sive) schedule.”
The first elevated slab of this building was extensively instrumented
to measure short and long-term concrete strains and curvatures. The
testing program was directed by Dr. Jim Richardson, professor of
Civil Engineering at the University of Alabama. Data collected 14
months after construction of the slab has been published in the ACI
Structural Journal.
Measurements made 14 months after the slab concrete was placed
show that total shortening in the first-floor slab (ε = 0.000435 in/in)
was less than half that predicted for conventional (i.e., non-shrinkage-
compensating) concrete normally used for this application. That is
extremely significant, since studies of concrete shrinkage versus time
show that over 80% of total shrinkage has occurred at 14 months,
and the remaining 20% progresses with dramatically decreasing rate
over the next 20 years. If it is assumed that another 10% of the final
total strain will occur between 14 months and 5 years, predicted
total strain at 5 years would be 0.000435/0.9 = 0.000483 in/in., a
value reasonably consistent with the 5-year strain of 0.00034 in/in
measured in the Santa Monica Structure #2. Continuing strain mea-
surements made on the Ridgecrest structure should lead to important
new information on creep relaxation and temperature change effects.
This is an extremely important building whose significance cannot
be overestimated. Its success will help establish a relationship between
post-tensioned concrete and expansive concrete that should have a
January 2011
Soffit of First Level slab (standing on slab-on-ground) looking northwest. The
first supported level is the most susceptible to RTS cracking.
great impact on future design and construction practices. Things were
done in this building that could not have been done without the use
of shrinkage-compensating concrete, and they resulted in outstanding
performance and significant cost savings.
Conclusion
RTS (along with tendon corrosion) is one of the two biggest problems
ever faced by the post-tensioning industry. Looking back over the growth
of post-tensioned concrete for 5 decades, and the early efforts to solve the
shortening problems, it seems that the use of shrinkage-compensating
concrete may have made the solution to the RTS problem easier.
Observations of the four buildings included in this survey (including
the two discussed in the April 2010 issue) indicate that, on most post-
tensioned concrete buildings, the use of shrinkage-compensating concrete
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Fyfe Ad-Oct 2010.indd 1
STRUCTURE magazine
Slab-column joint at First Level near northwest corner of slab.
(when properly mixed, placed, finished, and cured) can substantially
eliminate pourstrips; and, with due consideration of temperature effects,
can realistically increase the maximum length between expansion joints
to approximately 500 feet, with equivalent or superior performance.
The author gratefully acknowledges the staff of CTS Cement
Manufacturing, Inc., whose products include KSC shrinkage-com-
pensating cement, and in particular its president, my old friend Ed
Rice, for their assistance with this article.
Kenneth B. Bondy, S.E., FACI, is the current President of the Post-
Tensioning Institute (PTI) and was, in 2005, inducted into the PTI
Hall of Fame, Legends of Post-Tensioning. He serves on numerous ACI
committees. Mr. Bondy can be reached at www.kenbondy.com.
The online version of this article contains references.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
12/1/10 10:55 AM
29 January 2011
 Solutions to This article is the second of a three-part series on the rehabilitation of the
South Tower of the historic Milwaukee City Hall. Part 1, published in
Structural Distress the November, 2010 issue of STRUCTURE®, addressed the investigation
of significant masonry cracking in the structure. Part 3 will discuss the

in the South
design for durability of the reconstructed masonry.

Tower of the
A
fter the completion of the inves-
tigation outlined in Part 1 of
this three-part series, the City of
Milwaukee Milwaukee elected to proceed
with design for the repairs of the South Tower
City Hall of Milwaukee City Hall (Figure 1). National
engineering firm Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Inc. (SGH) teamed with architect Engberg
Part 2 Anderson and engineer Bloom Companies,
By LLC for the repair design. The City of
Mark D. Webster, Milwaukee quickly established a goal for the
LEED AP, P.E., repairs to last 100 years, with regular mainte-
Gunjeet Juneja, P.E. nance for wear and tear of the materials. The
and Donald O. City awarded the construction contract to J.P.
Dusenberry, P.E. Cullen & Sons, Inc. of Janesville, Wisconsin.

Finite Element Analysis

SGH performed finite element (FE) analyses
to determine the most likely causes of the
observed cracking patterns in the tower and
to help design the structural repairs. These
analyses included global models evaluating
the tower steel structure and the masonry
walls, and component models to study the
effect of brick pointing on a wall section and
the performance of critical masonry piers.
Steel Structure FE Model
The interior steel structure (the core truss,
Figure 2) of the tower extends from the 10th
floor to the lantern at the apex of the roof,
86 feet above the 13th floor. The truss was
analyzed using a two-dimensional model rep-
resenting one plane of the three-dimensional
trusswork. This model calculated the load
distribution through the truss under the
weight of the roof and wind loads acting on
the roof, and provided the reactions of the
steel structure on the masonry for the design
of masonry rehabilitation.
With the exception of the 13th-floor plate
girders that span between the core truss and
the masonry walls and the steel columns
immediately above, all members of the core
truss were modeled to carry only tension and
compression. The plate girder members were
modeled as beam elements to capture the
important bending behavior of the girders
and the effects of the eccentricity of the con-
nection of the diagonal truss members and
the plate girders.
The steel structure is supported on two steel
trusses spanning diagonally across the tower
Figure 1: Milwaukee City Hall’s South Tower.
STRUCTURE magazine 30 January 2011
 at the 10th floor. The flexibility of this
support was accounted for using elas-
tic springs at the base of the analytical
Figure 2: The core model. The spring stiffness was calcu-
steel truss within lated based on the elastic deformation
the South Tower. of the diagonal truss considered as a
simply supported beam resting on the
masonry. Rotational restraints were used
at the ends of floor beams where they
are embedded in the masonry walls.
Cross-sectional properties were cal-
culated from the structural shapes
specified on the drawings for the steel
tower, and from field measurement of
some members.
The steel truss supports 3-inch-thick
terra cotta roof tile and copper clad-
ding, the weight of which we modeled as
concentrated masses at nodal locations.
Other miscellaneous weights, such as
the lantern weight at the top of the core
truss, were also included. The weight of
the floor at various levels was modeled
as concentrated masses at the beam- Figure 3: FE mesh of the tower masonry.
column intersection nodes.
The wind load was calculated in accordance with Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-02), using 90 mph as the basic wind speed
for Milwaukee.
The steel structure incorporates tie rods that appear intended to help resist tower
overturning forces between the 12th and 13th floors. The tower was analyzed with
and without these tie rods. The results show that the tie rods do not significantly
influence the stresses in the members or the tower deformations.
The steel stresses throughout the model were found to be within allowable limits,
based on standard design practice at the time the tower was built.
Masonry Wall FE Model
The reactions from the steel truss analysis were applied to a FE model of one side
of the masonry tower from the 9th to 13th floors. The effect of the adjacent perpen-
dicular walls at the tower corners was modeled by applying a symmetric boundary
condition about a 45-degree plane through the center of the corner pier. Figure 3
shows the FE mesh of the masonry tower model.
The cross-sectional properties of the wall and piers were computed, incorporating
the offsets in the wall at different levels. The various colors in Figure 3 represent the
different section and material properties used in the model. SGH analyzed the wall
for gravity loads including the reactions from the steel tower. The resulting stress
values were used to design the repairs at and above the 11th floor.

Elements of the Structural Design

Figure 4 (page 32) schematically shows the locations of some of the major structural
elements that we discuss below.
Durability
SGH addressed the durability goals of the project by careful selection of systems,
materials, and details. Much of the tower structure, both interior and exterior,
is exposed to the elements and subject to temperature extremes, rain, snow, and
humidity, at heights where the wind can drive precipitation into every corner, so it
presented exceptional durability challenges.
Galvanized steel was specified for all new structural steel. As a value engineering
step, the final construction utilized a durable three-coat paint system, comprised of
an inorganic zinc-rich primer followed by an epoxy intermediate coat and finished

STRUCTURE magazine 31 January 2011

with a polyurethane coat. SGH specified stainless steel or hot-dip
galvanized components for all post-installed anchors and threaded
rods. For concrete elements, epoxy-coated reinforcement and wire-
welded fabric was specified for all applications, and a minimum
concrete strength of 5,000 psi.
Ring Beam
The structural analysis found excessive horizontal tension stresses in
the perimeter masonry at the 13th level. These walls supported four
solid masonry gables, incorporating 15-foot diameter clocks, and
massive solid masonry corner turrets, as well as a portion of the load
from the sloping steel-framed roof.
To resist the stresses at the 13th level, we designed a reinforced
concrete “ring beam” that is 1 foot 3 inches wide by 4 feet 6 inches
deep. Because the gable walls and corner turrets were in poor condi-
tion, and constructing the ring beam required removing the masonry
at this level, it was determined that the solution that best matched
the economic and durability goals of the project was to remove and
reconstruct the masonry from the 13th level up, incorporating modern
materials and systems while maintaining the historical appearance
of the tower.
The ring beam was designed using forces derived from the computer
model of the steel roof, as well as loads from the 13th floor and the
clock gables.
The ring beam at each face is supported by the corner turrets and
by four intermediate piers, which also required reconstruction due
to extreme deterioration.
Corner Turrets
At each corner of the tower, the ring beams frame integrally into the Figure 4: Schematic diagram showing location of major new structural elements.
massive concrete cores of the reconstructed corner turrets. The solid
concrete cores are over 7 feet in diameter and nearly 11 feet tall.
The ACI 301 Specifications for Structural Concrete Checklist states that
Clock Gables
heat of hydration should be considered for elements with minimum
dimensions over 2.5 feet. Because the turrets are large by this standard, The clock gables were originally constructed using solid mass masonry
special procedures were specified to address the potential for excessive with embedded structural steel framing. Precast concrete panels
heat gain in these elements. The use of up to 30% flyash or 50% slag attached to new structural-steel framing were used to reconstruct the
replacement of cement was permitted to reduce the heat of hydration. gables. This solution offered structural system continuity with the
A maximum differential concrete temperature of 35 degrees Fahrenheit steel framing in the core truss, eliminated any embedded structural-
and a peak temperature of 135 degrees Fahrenheit was specified. steel framing that would be vulnerable to future hidden corrosion,
To verify that the contractor’s mix design would meet these goals, and provided a stable backup surface for the brick veneer cavity wall
SGH required the contractor to submit thermal and strength analysis system used to face the new gables.
of the mass concrete mix, including heat-of-hydration analysis of Three 6-inch precast panels were specified to frame the face of
the cement, concrete strength tests, adiabatic heat signature tests on each gable (Figure 5) and two panels for the cheek walls, nominally
6-inch by 12-inch cylinders, and simulation studies. reinforced with #5 bars at 12 inches on center each way at panel
The mix design for the 5,000 psi turret concrete included 615 lb/cy mid-thickness. The panels were designed to resist their self-weight,
of cementitious materials, 32% of which was a combination of Type out-of-plane wind, and seismic forces, providing connections with
C fly ash and slag, as well as a set-retarding/water-reducing admix- slotted and oversized holes between the precast and steel to isolate
ture. The contractor engaged a consultant to perform heat analyses the panels from other loads that were intended to be supported by
of the pour, which predicted a maximum temperature of 130 degrees the steel framing.
Fahrenheit and a maximum temperature differential of 32 degrees
Cintec Ties
Fahrenheit, assuming a placement temperature of 50 degrees and
ambient temperature ranging from 45 degrees to 50 degrees. To address vertical cracking and spreading of the tower walls at the
There were some concerns about the actual pour, because the deliv- 11th floor, the installation of three horizontal 54-foot long, Cintec
ered temperature of the concrete was 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 1-inch diameter deformed stainless-steel rods were specified in each
the air temperature was below 40 degrees, but temperature sensors masonry face. The rods were sized using the tensile stress results
cast into the northwest turret recorded a maximum temperature of from the FE analysis of the masonry wall. In the Cintec system, the
115 degrees Fahrenheit in the middle of the turret and a maximum rods and associated fabric socks are inserted into cored holes, drilled
temperature differential of about 30 degrees Fahrenheit, satisfying horizontally in the plane of the walls at mid-thickness, and grouted.
specified goals. No significant cracking was observed in the concrete The fabric socks prevent uncontrolled dispersal of the grout while
when the contractor removed the forms. “keying” into voids and irregularities in the base material.

STRUCTURE magazine 32 January 2011

Pier Reconstruction
Each tower face had four solid brick masonry
piers that needed to be reconstructed at the
12th story: two round piers approximately 1
foot 9 inches in diameter, and two roughly
rectangular piers with overall dimensions
of approximately 5 feet 6 inches by 2 feet 6
inches. The replacement piers were designed
as reinforced composite masonry elements to
strengthen them beyond what was inherent
in the original unreinforced brick piers. The
piers are reinforced with #6 vertical bars and
#4 ties.
In these composite masonry elements, the
veneer brick served as formwork for the
grout. The brick was constructed in two-
foot lifts. After the mortar set, the brickwork
was braced as needed and filled with masonry
grout. The grout needed to be sufficiently
fluid to fully engage the perimeter brick and
carefully consolidated to ensure composite
action with the brick.

Figure 5: View of the ring beam, corner turrets, and clock gable precast backup during construction.
Construction Sequence
The construction sequence for the tower reconstruction presented
special challenges. The top story of masonry had to be completely
rebuilt, while the sloping roof structure above remained supported
and capable of resisting live, snow, and wind loads. In the construc-
tion documents, a specific demolition and construction sequence
was recommended that would maintain the structural integrity of
the tower during construction, as follows.
1) Remove the clock gable and corner turret masonry down to
the 13th floor.
2) Remove the steel elements that were embedded in the clock
gables and the steel framing between the gable faces and
sloped roof framing.
3) Repair or replace remaining corroded steel members
as required.
4) Install Cintec anchors at the 11th floor.
5) Reconstruct the floor system at the 12th story. The replace-
ment floor framing was designed to carry shoring loads
needed to complete the following steps.
On one side of the tower at a time, complete Steps 6 through 10,
allowing at least one week of curing time at a given side before pro-
ceeding to the next side:
6) Shore the central core truss and the 13th floor down to the
new 12th floor.
7) Remove all the masonry at the 13th-story and 12th-story piers,
including one contiguous corner turret.
8) Reconstruct the 12th-story piers and corner turret up to the
bottom of the ring beam.
9) Cast the new concrete ring beam and remaining portion of
the associated corner turret.
10) Resupport all roof framing and floor framing on the newly
constructed ring beam as required.
11) Reconstruct clock gables.
The contractor elected to modify the proposed sequence, for schedul-
ing reasons, by constructing the ring beams at the 13th floor before
constructing the 12th-story piers. Since the piers support the ring
beams, SGH was especially concerned about establishing tight joints
between the tops of the piers and undersides of the beams. Following
constructive dialog with the contractor, a sequence was settled upon
in which the contractor constructed each composite masonry pier to
the bottom of the terra cotta capital, cast in place the concrete backup
for the capital, leaving a 2-inch gap below the ring beam, and then
finally filled the gap beneath the ring beam with dry-pack.
Conclusion
The South Tower of the Milwaukee City Hall had serious structural
damage that related to its original design, but had been aggravated
by decades of exposure to a very aggressive environment. Using
a combination of tailored construction materials and techniques,
structural repairs and reconstruction procedures were developed that
were designed to revitalize and extend the useful life of the South
Tower of the magnificent Milwaukee City Hall, while preserving its
important historical features.▪
Mark D. Webster, LEED AP, P.E., is a Senior Staff II –
Structures and project manager at national engineering firm
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. He can be reached at
mdwebster@sgh.com.
Gunjeet Juneja, P.E. is a Senior Staff II – Structures at Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc.. She can be reached at gjuneja@sgh.com.
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E., is a senior principal at Simpson Gumpertz
& Heger Inc. He can be reached at dodusenberry@sgh.com.

Photos courtesy of Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH)

STRUCTURE magazine 33 January 2011

FOUNDATION
Foundation Firms Seeing Improvement
Business is getting better.
By Larry Kahaner

T
hat’s the word from foundation companies. Although projects
are not coming along as fast or as plentifully as they did before
the recession, company officials are seeing a slow but steady
improvement in the pace of inquiries, bids and projects.
“Clearly, there’s been a reduction in the amount of work because
of the economy,” says Jim Hussin, Director at Hayward Baker, Inc.
(www.haywardbaker.com), headquartered in Odenton, Maryland.
“But we’ve turned the corner. There’s not a rapid rise, but we’ve seen
some improvement… we’ve definitely seen a pick-up in the past year.”
beginning to move off the bottom with slow growth over the next
few years.”
The company has recently been building its ground improvement
business. “It’s more diversification for us. Our approach has always
been to be diversified across different but related techniques and
applications.” The company, which has been in business for 60 years,
is geographically diverse, too, covering the 12 Western states including
Alaska and Hawaii. It also maintains regional offices in California.

T
Hayward Baker offers a full range of pre- and post-construction ony Jacobsen, Senior Engineer at Grip-Tite (www.griptite.com)
services for foundation rehabilitation, settlement control, liquefaction of Winterset, Iowa, which has been manufacturing earth
mitigation, soil stabilization, groundwater control, slope stability, exca- anchoring products for almost 90 years, is seeing a rise in
vation support, and underpinning. The company has 20 offices across demand, too. “We’re starting to see a pick-up in industrial work.
the United States, as well as locations in Central and South America, We’re also seeing some increase in residential retrofit, usually two
and Canada. “Soil mixing is growing rapidly, and the techniques of stories or less.”
handling soft soils has evolved over past years,” Hussin notes. “We’re continued on next page
now finding more applications in areas
that were thought to be too expensive,
but are now economically viable.” He
adds: “We have a full range of techniques
that are available to clients, and we can
get creative and offer innovative solutions
to their problems.”
In the near term, Hussin forecasts that
more of their work will be in horizontal
markets such as infrastructure, roads and

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

bridges. In vertical markets, he sees more
work in hospitals, education and power.
“We’ll see a recovery in commercial first,
and then residential will follow.”

B
ob Carnevale, Business De-
velopment Manager at Seattle-
based DBM Contractors, Inc.
(www.dbmcm.com), agrees that business Design/Build
is improving. “The construction industry
is suffering compared to two or three years Earth Retention
ago, but we have been diversified across Foundation Support
public and private work. Traditionally,
when one is up, the other is down. Prior to Slope Stabilization
the most current downturn, though, they Ground Improvement
were both up. Since then the private sector
has dwindled, so like most other construc- Dewatering
tion companies, we’ve been making our
living from public sector projects.” He
adds: “We think we’re bouncing along
the bottom and our indicators during the 800-562-8460 www.dbmcontractors.com
last six months seem to show that we’re

STRUCTURE magazine 35 January 2011

FOUNDATION
“ The market has shrunk, but we’ve doubled our
business. We continued to hire people to do
R&D work. ”
Jacobsen is seeing a trend toward larger diameter helicals, especially
the 2⅞-inch and the 3½-inch, both for new construction. “We
are within six months of providing a 4½-inch diameter helical for
three-story concrete building and lateral loads.” He adds: “We’re
pushing toward a 1¾-inch square bar for retrofit and tie backs for
new construction…next year we’ll see a 2¼-inch square bar, helical
shaft, mainly for new construction.”
Jacobsen notes that the new diameters will allow the company to
get into higher density materials and provide some benefits in highly-
expansive soil, like that found in the Front Range in Colorado, which
is the most populated region of the state.
A
lso touting the benefits of helical piles is Stephen Petres of
MacLean Dixie (www.macleandixie.com), located in Franklin
Park, Illinois. “The market has shrunk, but we’ve doubled our
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine 36
business,” says Petres, who has been involved with helical piles for 39
years. “We continued to hire people to do R&D work.”
The company serves both the utility market and the civil market
with a complete line of helical piles, from small to large, says Petres,
Product Manager – Anchoring Products. “We’re trying to offer an
alternative product for engineers who are not familiar with helical
piles. We want to address the issues of why engineers are not using
more helical piles.”
To this end, the company has done two things. First, it came up
with their Strength Squared coupling system. Petres notes that engi-
neers are wary of using pipes with drilled holes, fearing that they will
deform. “So we came up with a square engagement system which
gives engineers confidence that they’re not going to have bolts that
shear. We’re offering strength to structural engineers.”
Second, the company submitted its helical piers for testing by an
accredited laboratory. “We spent money to submit some of our
products to an ICC AC-358 evaluation
program, about a year and a half ago. We
expect certification this year [2011].” He
says that the company has already been
assigned preliminary certification num-
bers for their 1½-inch, 1¾-inch, 2⅞-inch
and 3½-inch products. “After certifica-
tion, structural engineers will have the
confidence to use our products because
they have been tested by an accredited
lab. They can study the data themselves.”
Petres is confident about the growth
of helical piles as engineers are asked to
squeeze even more costs out of their proj-
ects. “There’s greater pressure for SEs to
cut costs, and I think they’re becoming
more open minded about alternatives like
helicals,” he says. (See ad on page 38.)
M
onotube Pile Corporation
(www.davidsonpipe.com),
part of the Davidson Group
of Companies, is dedicated to manufac-
turing steel piles for exclusive use in the
deep foundations industry. The Canton,
Ohio company mainly serves the United
States market, says General Manager Sam
Kosa. “It appears that highway work is
increasing slightly. We’re seeing more bid-
ding action.” He adds: “We’re starting to
see more activity in government projects,
continued on page 38
January 2011
Put infrastructure spending
on a solid foundation.
Monotube® Piles. Solid Economics
In the infrastructure space across America, it’s
estimated that more than 8,600 projects are shovel-
ready and simply awaiting funding to get under-
way. Coincidentally, polls show we Americans are
strongly in favor of major investment in our aging
infrastructure. However, concurrent with this favor-
able opinion is a strong demand for accountability
and measurable efficiencies in how our tax dollars
are going to be spent. We as corporate citizens,
whether manufacturer, designer, engineer or
contractor, have a serious interest in this.
Monotube tapered steel foundation piles have
consistently delivered capital-saving measurability
for more than 80 years.
P.O. Box 7339 • Canton, OH 44705-0339 / Ph. 330.454.6111 • Fax 330.454.1572
Executive Office: 5002 Second Avenue • Brooklyn, NY 11232
Email: monotube@neo.rr.com / www.monotube.com.
Using conventional equipment, a Monotube
requires a shorter driven length to achieve
design load capacity, fewer man-hours and less
energy to install than competing products. We
have numerable test site data proving
Monotube pile’s superior performance and it’s
yours free for the asking.
America is about to embark on a historic
expenditure of taxpayer dollars. We at
Monotube Pile Corporation know we can
help you keep costs in check. Give us a call
today because, as always, we’re ready to
deliver solid economics.
Request our
Free Catalog
FOUNDATION
CONTINUOUSLY HOT-ROLLED THREADED STEEL BARS FOR DEEP FOUNDATION ELEMENTS, MICRO
PILES, MULTI-BAR CAISSONS, TIE-BACKS, DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTED ANCHORS, FORMWORK TIE
ROD SYSTEMS, POST-TENSIONING SYSTEMS, HOLLOW CORE SELF DRILLING ANCHOR SYSTEMS, GRADES
80, 97, 150, 160 KSI, 60 FOOT MILL LENGTHS OR GREATER, DESIGNED FOR HEAVY CONSTRUCTION,
HIGHER LOADS, BETTER ENGINEERING, BETTER DESIGN
SAS HIGH STRENGTH BAR REINFORCEMENT

and we’re anticipating more government

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

jobs this year.”

The company offers four diameters, four
gauges, and three rates of taper that allow
the designer to select a Monotube suitable
for a wide variety of economical applica-
tions. For fully embedded foundation piles,
the most commonly used diameters are 12
and 14 inches, with design loads up to 150
tons, contingent on soil capacity. Kosa
notes that one advantage of the Monotube
pile is the ability to nest a tapered section
into an extension to produce a compact
bundle. This process reduces shipping and
storage volume by as much as 40 percent.

SAS
GRADE 97 FOUNDATION DOWEL REINFORCEMENT

F
FOR WTC TOWER 2
elix Ferrer, President and CEO of
STRESSTEEL Fairfield, New Jersey-based SAS
100 NEW DUTCH LANE Stressteel, Inc. (www.stressteel.com),
FAIRFIELD, NJ 07004 says that business is definitely getting better.
P: 973 . 244 . 5995 “Some projects that were stopped two years
WWW.STRESSTEEL.COM F: 973 . 244 . 0544
ago are coming back to life. Developers
are now talking to us about new sites, new
developments and new projects in New
York City. We have picked up some work,
and it’s getting pretty exciting.”
TM He says that his company offers 3-inch
diameter grade 150 bar anchors, each with
a capacity of 1,028 kips. These anchors
are being used to tie down One World
Trade Center – about 230 anchors that
are about 90 feet deep –  and also will
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org

be  used on the other buildings in the

Strength Squared™
complex. “That’s pretty significant for
foundations, that we’re using this type of
tie-down technology.”
Steel Cast Coupling System

I
n the area of ground improve-
ment, Lyle Simonton, Director
Increased Torque Capacity of Business Development for St.
Louis-based Subsurface Constructors
Bolt Holes Align for Faster Assembly (www.subsurfaceconstructors.com),
says the company has done well in the
Bolts Do Not Shear During past year. “We had an extremely busy
Installation year. There is still a lot of work: DOTs,
wastewater, schools, medical, etc.” The
Lighter Weight Leads and Extensions 100-year old company is working on some
high profile projects, like deep founda-
Hot Dip Galvanized to ASTM A-153 tions for the new Mississippi River Bridge
Missouri approach and ground improve-
ment work for the Indiana Department of
www.MacLeanDixie.com Transportation. He further notes that some
C o p y r i g h t © 2 0 11 M a c L e a n D i x i e H F S
continued on page 40

STRUCTURE magazine 38 January 2011

FOUNDATION retail commercial projects are coming on line, too, such as senior
living facilities.
Simonton says that the company has been highlighting the green
benefits of soil mitigation using its Vibro-Stone Column machines.
“We can often build stone columns without having to pre-drill.
This limits how much spoil we generate, so that’s positive for a more
sustainable construction approach.”
earthmovers also have large carbon footprints. We are faster and use
less equipment.” He adds: “As many owners are also developing more
sustainable construction projects, they are exhibiting preference for
this soil reinforcement approach for the LEED benefits and reduced
carbon footprint, compared to more conventional foundation sup-
port options.”
The RAP system is also more cost effective, says FitzPatrick. “Design
teams, contractors and owners are all challenged to build more with

A
lso touting the green benefits of soil improvement is Geopier
Foundation Company, Inc. (www.geopier.com), based in
Mooresville, North Carolina. “Our biggest role has been as
a developer of technologies suited for any site. We have a variety of
less.  Many project teams are opting for the schedule and cost benefits
offered by a RAP system, as opposed to costly over-excavation and
replacement, or deep foundations.”

systems to treat virtually any soil condition. Impact systems allow us
to treat to deeper depth, up to 45 feet in a cost-effective way,” says
Brendan FitzPatrick, P.E., Director of Engineering and Development,
North America. The company highlights its Rammed Aggregate Pier
(RAP) system, which FitzPatrick says lowers a project’s carbon foot-
print because they’re not using steel and concrete for driven piles
or caissons, both of which have larger carbon footprints. “Massive
Pile Driving Analyzer ® Model PAX
Tests on
Location or
Remotely with
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
“T
hings are looking up on the testing side of the founda-
tions business,” according to Gina Beim, P.E., senior
consulting engineer-marketing at GRL Engineers
(www.pile.com) in Cleveland, Ohio. “We see an increase in remote
testing. Business seems to be picking up.” She credits the increase
to several factors, including the cost savings involved with remote
testing as opposed to on-site testing. “We have been seeing some
results of campaigns to help DOT understand remote testing. Lots
of structures are transmitting data now. This is a trend. We’re feeling
the pull for this.” She notes that AASHTO’s LRFD bridge design
standards will lead to more testing, and that the cost effectiveness of
remote testing will become of greater interest. “We hope that testing
in a more economical way will give the market a method to keep
standards high while offering cost-saving methods.” Aside from the
savings of not needing someone on site to check readings, another
cost benefit is not having to ship wires and cables to the project site.
Beim adds that the company is introducing a product aimed at the

drilled shaft market. It will include remote sensing. “The Thermal

Integrity Profiler (TIP) inspects the integrity of a drilled shaft using
iCAP™: instant a temperature method,” says Beim. Now in prototype, the product
capacity by is expected to be available in spring or summer. “We can inspect
signal matching the drilled shaft that has been fitted with the temperature sensor
remotely. It’s imbedded in the shaft itself and will indicate how good
Dynamic Load Testing of Deep Foundations the concrete is.”▪

Smart (wireless)
Sensors
eliminate cables
ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES
Complies with STRUCTURE® magazine is planning several
ASTM D4945 additional SPECIAL ADVERTORIALS
in 2011.
To discuss advertising opportunities, please contact
our ad sales representatives:

Cleveland, OH USA iCAP CHUCK MINOR DICK RAILTON

+1 216-831-6131 Phone: 847-854-1666 Phone: 951-587-2982
Sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
www.pile.com sales@pile.com

STRUCTURE magazine 40 January 2011

Historic
structures
significant structures of the past
Critical Skills for Structural
Engineers Encountering
Historic Structures
By Dr. Debra F. Laefer
Dr. Debra F. Laefer is an American who is
a tenured lecturer in Civil Engineering at
the University College Dublin in Ireland
and past Interim Director of Conservation
Research for their Master’s in Urban and
Building Conservation. She is also Chair
of the Heritage and Existing Structures
Committee for the Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute. Dr. Laefer may be
reached at debra.laefer@ucd.ie.
To stack Waste heat to drier
Preheat
Movement of cars
Fire
U
nlike some parts of Europe,
America has yet to develop a
formal designation or description
of a “Preservation Engineer”; yet
many members of the structural engineering
community regularly inspect, evaluate, and
recommend repairs, interventions, and modi-
fications for the thousands of buildings on
national and local historic registers and the
many others that qualify for such status (Figure
1). Because of the predominance of vernacular
structures and small religious buildings that
constitute this specific building stock and the
proportionally modest resources generally
available for their maintenance and upgrading,
small local firms are often engaged on their
behalf. The nature of these firms, and in fact
that of most structural engineering firms, is
that few have engineers on staff with specialized
training in assessing historic buildings.
“Old” Buildings
Although it is true
that Newton’s pre-
cepts do not differ
based on a building’s
age or architec-
tural significance,
there needs to be an
acknowledgment that material production,
material selection, structural systems, and join-
ing options are all constantly evolving topics.
This is problematic, as what is taught in most
civil engineering programs focuses exclusively
on new construction with only the rarest of
curriculum providing any instruction in tradi-
tional or “archaic” technologies. This fact leaves
the majority of today’s engineers ill-equipped
to address the problems of older structures,
because these buildings include materials and
structural systems that behave in ways that fun-
damentally differ from modern construction.
A common example of the criticality of this is
in understanding the traditional role of lime-
based mortars and their expected strength
capacity. Portland cement’s general displace-
ment of lime as the main binder in late 20th
century mortars was a failure to recognize a
major role of mortar as the sacrificial element
in the building fabric. As buildings move
due to a wide range of external factors, from
temperature-based expansion to differential
settlement because of non-uniform loading,
Preheated air for burners
Cool
Movement of gases
Figure 2: Tunnel Kiln. Courtesy of
Dr. Debra F. Laefer.
42 January 2011
Figure 1: Inspection of Masonry Façade. Courtesy
of Dr. Debra F. Laefer.
they tend to develop small cracks. In traditional
masonry, the weak lime-based mortars tend
to crack, instead of the substantially stronger
brick. This is intentional. In part this is because
the mortar has the ability to heal itself to some
extent (referred to as self-annealing), because
of the carbonation based curing process which
relies on air (as opposed to the hydration based
curing for concrete, which is dependent upon
free water). A soft mortar can also be periodi-
cally removed from between the facing side of
the bricks in the process of repointing. With
Portland cement based mortars, the mortar is
nearly as strong, if not stronger, than the brick.
Thus the brick is as likely to develop cracks,as
the mortar, and periodic maintenance cycle of
repointing is nearly impossible without risking
damage to the bricks as the mortar is removed
from the joints. As seen in this example, failure
to understand material properties and their
roles in distinction to those of modern ones,
jeopardize the long-term viability of preserv-
ing buildings.
Not only is this problematic with respect
to preserving architectural heritage but, as
America tries to come to terms with sustain-
ability, life-cycle, and embodied energy issues,
two things need to be acknowledged. The
first is that an existing structure represents an
enormous previous investment from an envi-
ronmental perspective. Thus, its replacement
represents a complete loss of that investment
and requires the major environmental expen-
diture of manufacturing new materials and
energy investment in their assembly, as well
as the further energy needed for demolition,
removal, and disposal of the existing structure.
Another example relates to the plaster ren-
derings over adobe walls. When removed, the
structures fair much worse from a durability
perspective. They also become more vulner-
able to damage and subsequent collapse when
exposed to seismic loading. Similarly, if the ren-
dering is repaired with a cement-based product,
the subsequent performance tends to be vastly
inferior to the application of traditional, local
materials. So not only are non-local materials
inferior to those originally used, they often
require higher levels of embodied energy as
they must be shipped greater distances.

Acquiring the
Knowledge and Skills
The situation is complicated. In some cases,
gaining the specialty skills and background
needed to sensitively and cost-effectively
work with historic buildings can be rela-
tively straight forward as is the case with
documentation, where surveying skills and
conservation theory are areas where the field
is well established and literature is readily
available. Even legislation and standards from
around the world are now readily available
through the power of the Internet.
Other areas, such as masonry evaluation and
timber intervention, are arguably less accessible
through self-study. In fact, at a recent workshop
for the development of curricula in Preservation
Engineering held at the University of Vermont
in collaboration with the National Center for
Preservation Technology and Training, there was
a fairly strong consensus amongst academics
and practitioners alike that to best understand
masonry and timber not only did specialty con-
tent need to be developed, but that the ideal
situation would include firstly the introduc-
tion of formal courses on modern masonry and
timber. This approach might on the surface seem
counter-intuitive. However, because current
practices are based on much more homogenous
materials, where the variability of performance is
highly controlled through modern production
and material inspection methods. Thus, first
studying the contemporary design methodolo-
gies is actually much easier.
The vast majority of older brick and timber
structures in America are vernacular and were
designed and built without the benefit of
an engineer, even when the engagement of
engineers for larger structures was already
common practice. Consequently, the configu-
ration of a large percentage of these structures
was based on common practices. Although
some of these are documented in a few early
20th century handbooks, the texts are hard
to access, arguably incomplete, and do not
approach the subject in a way that would be
familiar to a modern engineer. For example,
modern practice is based upon a certain
probability that the materials are within a
particular performance range. That perfor-
mance level is in part an outgrowth of testing
methods that the structural engineering com-
munity has developed and adopted through
consensus documents, such as those published
by ASTM. Since most of these standards did
not exist until recently, the limited testing data
from the period of original construction is
hard to evaluate in a modern context. A per-
fect example is stiffness. In the few available
documents where deformation of masonry
piers was documented, the reported results
STRUCTURE magazine
are on the final deformation at the time of
failure. Current practice dictates determin-
ing the Young’s modulus early in the loading
curve and through a series of discrete measure-
ments. Accurate properties are essential for
the analysis of an historic structure.
The issue is further complicated by the higher
variability of traditional materials compared
to their modern counterparts. An easy to
understand example of this is in brick making.
Modern brick production employs a tunnel
kiln to dry and fire the units. The equipment
is highly controlled with respect to the tem-
perature levels and exposure time of the bricks
to the heat. Furthermore, the conveyor belt-
like arrangement of the tunnel kiln promotes a
uniform heat exposure (Figure 2). In traditional
kilns there was little heat flow so that bricks
located closer to the heat were more thoroughly
fired than those further away, resulting in mate-
rial variabilities with coefficients of variation
in excess of 20%, even after hand culling of
the material (Figure 3). Finally, just to further
complicate the matter, the modern engineer
must evaluate what decades (if not centuries) of
exposure has done to material capacity.
Another problem is that many of the subjects
that the modern structural engineer needs to
study in preservation engineering fall into the
category of either developing technologies or
emerging fields. Some examples of the former
include non-destructive analysis, sensors, sta-
bilization, repair, and treatment strategies.
Base-isolation is a good example of something
that was nearly completely unknown 30 years
ago but is now becoming a more mainstream
(although still quite expensive) option for
the seismic protection of historic buildings.
In the latter category is the field of disaster
management, where training and expertise are
rapidly evolving along with changing com-
munity expectations.
Perhaps the geotechnical community can
provide a partial model on how structural
engineers can move forward to incorporate
fundamental training for engineering students
that would be appropriate for interacting
with historic buildings. Geotechnics is an
area where specialty products have long been
developed for heritage buildings, because
of the potential liability during subsurface
construction when it occurs adjacent to one
of these facilities. From a financial impera-
tive, several sub-specialties have developed
including compensation grouting, jet grout-
ing, micropiles, and screw piles, just to name
a few. From 1970 through the early 1990s,
these technologies faced great difficulties in
gaining wide spread acceptance and adoption,
especially on public projects because of an
absence of widely available testing data and
clearly defined specifications. Since then, the
43 January 2011
Figure 3: Traditional Scove Kiln.
industry has gone to greater transparency, in
part as a function of the expiration of patents
and also in recognition that government agen-
cies often control the means and methods used
on a project. Thus, the permitted technologies
must cooperate in facilitating verification of
products and procedures. Increasingly, the
teaching of these techniques is occurring at
the master’s level. Additionally, many faculty
member use examples in the classroom involv-
ing major historic monuments to illustrate the
criticality of understanding fundamental soil
mechanics. A common example is teaching
primary and secondary clay consolidation
calculation using the Tower of Pisa as a mini-
case history. Such an approach enlivens the
classroom and introduces, in an indirect way,
the fundamental role of engineers and engi-
neering in historic preservation.
Unfortunately, there are topics that cannot
be addressed effectively through any of these
means. Teaching forensics is a good example, as
even the most fundamental skills such as con-
ducting a load take down and understanding
a building with respect to code development
requires more than “chalk and talk” instruction.
Teaching preservation ethics in a meaningful
way is another good example. In both instances
fieldwork, case histories, and mentoring by
experienced engineers are inherent components
to the process. Such experiential learning can
only be obtained through mentored profes-
sional practice or through the creation of highly
specialized graduate level courses.
Conclusion
In summary, America’s structural engineers
have much to learn about historic buildings, if
we want them safely preserved for the sake of
both architectural heritage and environmental
protection. Some of this information is readily
available for self study and some from spe-
cialty courses, but eventually the community
will have to embrace and financially support
the dual concepts of preservation engineer-
ing as a formal master’s level endeavor and of
preservation research as a scholarly pursuit
worthy of tenure at top academic institutions
and funding at a national level. Such is already
the case in parts of Europe.▪
Great achievements
Charles Conrad Schneider
By Frank Griggs, Jr., Ph.D., P.E., P.L.S.
C
harles Schneider was born in
Apolda, Germany and received
his engineering education at the
Royal School of Technology at
Chemintz, Germany. After graduating in
1864, he worked as a mechanical engineer
before immigrating to the United States in
1867. He went to work for the Paterson
Locomotive Works for four years before going
on to the Michigan Bridge and Construction
Company in Detroit. This was his first profes-
sional involvement with bridges which would
occupy most of his career. In 1873, he went
to work for the Erie Railroad in New York
City. Here he worked for Octave Chanute,
who designed the Kansas City Bridge, the first
bridge over the Missouri River in 1867-68. In
addition, George Morison, who had worked
with Chanute on the Kansas City Bridge,
was there as his Principal Assistant Engineer.
While with the Erie, “one of his duties was to
check the strain sheets and plans submitted
by bridge companies... Bridge work up to this
time had usually been let on a competitive
lump-sum basis. Mr. Schneider soon found
that this method was unsatisfactory, and the
Railroad Company’s officials decided to make
their own plans; and it was Mr. Schneider’s
duty to prepare them...”
In 1875, he went with Chanute who was
selected as one of the Board of Engineers to
review proposals for a bridge at Blackwell’s
Island across the East River in New York
City. While reviewing them, he met Charles
Macdonald who eventually won the com-
petition. After leaving this position, he
went to work for a year with the Delaware
Bridge Company and Macdonald. During
this period the Delaware Bridge Company
had an agreement with the Edgemoor Iron
Company to fabricate all of their bridges.
Schneider was stationed at the Edgemoor
Company, where he designed and supervised
construction of several bridges including the
Pennsylvania Railroad Rockville Bridge, 23
spans of 160 feet with two tracks, over the
Susquehanna River and the Cohoes Bridge
over the Mohawk River on the Delaware and
Hudson Railroad.
From 1879-1883, he was associated with
George Morison on the Plattsmouth,
Bismarck and Blair Bridges across the
Missouri River as well as the Snake River
STRUCTURE magazine
notable structural engineers
Bridge at Ainsworth, Washington. His men-
tors, Macdonald, Chanute and Morison were
some of the most renowned bridge engineers
of the time.
In 1883, he set himself up in business as a
“civil engineer in New York making a specialty
of designing and superintending bridges and
structural work for buildings.” One of his
first large clients was the Canadian Pacific
Railway which was racing westward in com-
petition with Jim Hill’s Great Northern.
One of Schneider’s first jobs was to design
wooden Howe Trusses, his most famous
being the Stoney Creek Viaduct in the Selkirk
Schneider’s Second Stoney Creek Viaduct.
Mountains. The only iron in the bridge was
the wrought-iron verticals and miscellaneous
bolts and plates. Even though built of wood
and considered to be a temporary bridge, it
survived until 1893 and was replaced by a
steel arch bridge designed by Schneider.
He was asked to design an iron bridge,
just west of his Stoney Creek Viaduct, over
the Fraser River. This river was a fast flow-
ing stream which precluded placement of
falseworks in the river bed. Schneider, based
upon his previous exposure to the Blackwell’s
Island Bridge competition, decided to build
this bridge using cantilever techniques. He
Fraser River Bridge.
44 January 2011
C. C. Schneider
completed a design of the 525-foot span,
located 125 feet above the river, in the spring
of 1882. Due to slowness of the iron delivery,
even though it was the first cantilever designed
by Schneider, it would not be completed
until 1887. It lasted until 1910, when it was
replaced by a new steel bridge.
On October 13, 1882, the Michigan
Central Railroad asked Schneider to submit
a proposal for a bridge across the Niagara
Gorge near Roebling’s suspension bridge.
They wanted “an estimate for a double-track
railroad bridge of 900 feet clear span, for the
purpose of ascertaining the probable cost
of bridging the Niagara below the Falls...
intimating that a braced arch reaching from
cliff to cliff might be the proper design for
the proposed structure.” He submitted his
completed design to the Central Bridge
Works of Buffalo, New York who in turn
submitted a tender to the Niagara Bridge
Company. The tender was accepted by the
Board of Directors on April 11, 1883.
The erection technique worked out by
Central Bridge Company and Schneider
became the pattern which was followed on
many cantilevers in the future. They started
by building their towers and anchor spans
from falsework resting on rock banks. They
designed and built two travelers to erect the
rest of the bridge. The travelers worked out-
ward on each cantilever until they reached
the end of the cantilever span. The suspended
span was 120 feet long and the maximum
reach of each traveler was 40 feet. Schneider
did not want the traveler to go beyond the
end of the cantilever span, as he did not want
to overload the cantilever span or anchor-
age. This left 40 feet of suspended span that
could not be erected by the travelers. He

Niagara Cantilever from a postcard.
solved this by placing wooden beams across
the 40-foot gap and erecting the rest of the
truss by hand methods.
The speed at which the bridge was erected
was impressive, with the entire bridge taking
four months. What Schneider and Central
Bridge did was to erect the superstructure of
a new style bridge, using new techniques, over
900 feet long and 230 feet over the Niagara
River in less than two months.
In June 1885, three commissioners were
appointed to oversee building of a bridge
across the Harlem River near John Jervis’
High Bridge. They set up a design com-
petition and offered premiums of $1,500,
$1,000 and $500 to the top three entries. On
December 3, 1885 seventeen designs were
submitted. Designs of the Union Bridge
Company, Edward Shaw, Julius Adams, C.
C. Schneider and Wilhelm Hildenbrand were
favored by the commission. To help them in
making a decision, they formed a Board of
Experts consisting of Theodore Cooper, P. P.
Dickinson, Edward Kendall and McAlpine
to review the plans. The Commission rec-
ommended Schneider’s design for the first
premium. The design was modified by the
Union Bridge Company, and the bridge was
completed on February 22. It wasn’t totally
opened until December 1889, when residents
tore down the barricades and started using
the bridge.
In 1886, he entered into a partnership with
the Pencoyd Iron Works to design, fabricate
and erect their bridges. During this period,
Schneider designed or built the Delaware
River Bridge for the Pennsylvania Railroad,
L. L. Buck’s record setting arch bridge over
the Niagara River below the falls, The James
River Bridge for the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railroad and many other smaller bridges in
the United States, Mexico and Japan.
One of his potentially greatest bridges was at
Blackwell’s Island where, in 1893, the Long
Island Railroad Company was planning a
bridge across the East River. Schneider was
selected as engineer and designed a cantilever
bridge crossing the two river channels and
the island. It had two identical cantilever
STRUCTURE magazine
spans of 810 feet in the clear, 840 feet center
to center of piers, making them the longest
cantilevers in the United States. Foundations
were started, and steel contracts for the super-
structure awarded in March 1895. After a
fast start the company ran out of funds and
construction halted.
He remained with Pencoyd until 1900, when
it was purchased by the American Bridge
Company, a J. P. Morgan led consolidation of
28 of the largest steel fabricators and construc-
tors in the United States. At American Bridge
Company, he was appointed Chief Engineer
as well as Director and Vice President until
1903, and then until his death as Consulting
Engineer. The President of the firm noted,
“Mr. Schneider, without question, stood at
the very head of his profession. And, in addi-
tion, I believe never had an enemy in his entire
career.” In 1903 he, along with Theodore
Cooper, was appointed by the Government
of Japan to develop sets of plans for Japanese
railroad bridges,
Around 1895, Theodore Cooper suggested
Schneider should take his place as consulting
engineer before construction of the Quebec
Bridge commenced, due to his age and declin-
ing health. The bridge company did not accept
this recommendation, and Cooper continued
in nominal charge with the Phoenix Bridge
Company taking over more and more of the
design. In 1907, after the August failure of the
bridge, Schneider was selected to investigate
the failure of Cooper’s Bridge. He wrote an
extensive report on the bridge design which
was included with the Report of the Royal
Commission. He was asked to respond to
three questions, the most important being,
“The advisability of discarding the present
plans of the Quebec Bridge, and recom-
mendations as to a new design.” Schneider’s
report was finished early in 1908, but not
released until the Commission’s report was
released. He, after a lengthy structural analysis
of the bridge, had eight conclusions, the most
important being, “The present design is not
well adapted to a structure of the magnitude
of the Quebec Bridge and should, therefore,
be discarded and a different design adopted
for the new bridge, retaining only the length
of the spans in order to use the present piers.”
On May 17, 1911, Schneider was
appointed a full member of the Board that
was to oversee design and construction of
the replacement bridge, serving with Charles
Monsarrat and Ralph Modjeski. Schneider
died January 8, 1916, eight months before
another major bridge failure when the sus-
pended span being lifted into place slipped
off its supports into the river resulting in
45 January 2011
Washington Bridge over the Harlem River.
the deaths of 13 men. The bridge was finally
opened on October 27, 1917.
Schneider was active in ASCE, serving as
Director, Vice-President and President in
1905. He won the Rowland Prize for his
paper The Cantilever Bridge at Niagara Falls
in 1886, the Norman Medal for his paper
The Structural Design of Buildings in 1905
and Movable Bridges in 1908. In addition,
he contributed to many discussions of the
papers of his colleagues.
His memoir in the Transactions ASCE noted,
“Mr. Schneider was dearly beloved by his
many friends on account of his sterling
character and his kindly disposition. He was
always willing and ready to assist brother engi-
neers with advice, giving to them freely from
his rich fund of knowledge, and large indeed is
the number of engineers today in responsible
positions, who owe their training and their
position to him. He was most democratic
in his ways and of a lovable disposition, and
gained, in the highest degree the respect of
everybody who came in contact with him. He
always stood for good work, good designs, and
good details, and the Engineering Profession
is greatly indebted to him for the present high
standard that has been obtained in bridge
and structural work. His was a most useful
life, well lived, an example and an inspira-
tion to the Profession, that will remain in
the memory of all who had the privilege of
knowing him.”▪
Schneider’s Blackwell’s Island Plan.
Dr. Griggs specializes in the restoration of
historic bridges, having restored many 19th
Century cast and wrought iron bridges.
He was formerly Director of Historic
Bridge Programs for Clough, Harbour
& Associates LLP in Albany, NY, and is
now an independent Consulting Engineer.
Dr. Griggs can be reached via email at
fgriggs@nycap.rr.com.
Product Watch
SIPs Provide Green Building Benefits in
Traditional and Cutting-Edge Designs
By Joe Pasma, P.E.
I
n the 1970s, geodesic domes were the
vision of efficient, futuristic build-
ings. It seems that every community
had a least one of these Buckminster
Fuller-inspired creations – whether a home,
restaurant, office, church or motel.
Today, green buildings typically look no
different than conventional buildings. The
unseen systems and materials are often more
important than the outward appearance. A
case in point is structural insulated panels
(SIPs). SIPs contribute to a range of envi-
ronmentally responsible design goals, while
meeting the structural and aesthetic needs of a
host of building types and architectural styles.
Structural Attributes
Structural insulated panels are high-per-
formance, engineered wall, roof, and floor
components for use in single- and multi-
family homes, as well as schools, worship
facilities, offices, retail, and other light com-
mercial buildings. The panels are made of
two outer sheathing layers (typically oriented
strand board – OSB) laminated to a rigid
insulating foam core (such as expanded poly-
styrene – EPS). The skins and foam core work
together to achieve high strength in a manner
comparable to other engineered structural
components, such as I-joists.
In wall applications, SIPs provide exceptional
strength in racking and diaphragm shear capac-
ities, making them suitable as shear walls and
For walls, SIPs provide exceptional strength in
racking capacities.
STRUCTURE magazine
updates on emerging technologies, products and services
SIPs provide a strong and stiff base for a living roof at the Bend, Oregon, Metro Parks and Recreation
District headquarters.
structural diaphragms to resist high winds and
earthquakes. They have been proven for use in
seismic design categories D, E and F.
In roof applications, SIPs perform well under
gravity and snow loads. Designers can specify
SIPs to create vaulted, open interior spaces.
Since they have long clear span capability –
typically up to 20 feet – SIPs can reduce the
need for intermediate structural supports.
They can also be employed in roof struc-
tures without an engineered truss system.
The results are large, soaring rooflines, open
and vaulted ceilings, and overall extra indoor
space for applications otherwise very difficult
to achieve with stick-built construction.
Most SIP manufacturers work with design-
ers and specifiers to ensure their panels are
accepted by local building code officials and
are in compliance with the building codes,
including the International Building Code (IBC)
and International Residential Code (IRC). This
process includes providing alternative material
evaluation or listing reports for SIPs showing
evidence of compliance with code requirements
as an alternate method of construction.
Green Building Advantages
In addition to their ability to meet a range of
structural needs, SIPs support green building
goals, including improved energy efficiency
and indoor air quality.
The key environmental advantage of designing
and building with SIPs is their ability to create
46 January 2011
a tight, high-performance building envelope.
The rigid foam core offers continuous insulation
across the panels’ width and length, reduc-
ing the thermal bridging created by lumber.
Additionally, the large-size panels have signifi-
cantly fewer joints that require sealing.
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
evaluated the energy performance of SIPs
versus stick-built framing. Their analysis of
complete wall assemblies found that SIPs had
an approximately 47 percent higher whole-
wall R-value than a comparably sized stud
wall (i.e., 3.5-inch-thick core SIP versus 2
by 4 studs at 16 inches on center).
Because of SIPs’ capabilities, more design
professionals are using them in net zero-
energy buildings. The panels can help reduce
annual heating and cooling demands by 50
to 60 percent compared to stick framing,
going a long way toward reducing overall
energy needs. This is particularly important
in states such as California, where energy
efficiency is mandated. California’s Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
and Nonresidential Buildings require net-
zero energy construction by 2020 for homes
and 2030 for commercial buildings. All
across the country, the American Institute
of Architects (AIA) has put forth its AIA 2030
Commitment, calling for all new buildings to
be carbon neutral by 2030.
The tightness of the SIPs’ envelope also
makes buildings less prone to infiltration by
Helping speed construction, SIPs arrive at the jobsite in large, ready-to-install sections. SIPs meet a wide range of structural needs in roof, wall and floor systems.

common pollutants such as radon, molds, changed is a growing recognition of their

pollen, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
lead dust and asbestos. As such, SIPs can be an
important part of creating a healthier indoor
environment, which is especially important
in homes, schools and healthcare facilities.
For these and other green building advan-
tages, including reduced construction waste,
SIPs can help design professionals earn up
to 36 or more points in the U.S. Green
Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) program
for homes, and up to 23 points for com-
mercial construction.
Joe Pasma, P.E., is the technical manager
contribution to green building and ability to
for Premier Building Systems, a firm
work well with a range of building designs.
that develops and manufactures high-
For structural engineers and other design
performance, energy-efficient structural
team members who have not yet designed
insulated panels. A licensed structural
a structure with SIPs, to get started, contact
engineer, Pasma has worked with SIPs for
a panel manufacturer or dealer for detailed
almost two decades. Joe may be reached at
information on load capacities, panel sizes,
jpasma@insulfoam.com.
code acceptance and other related factors.▪

Design Flexibility
Design teams are using SIPs in a range
of architectural styles, from traditional to
ultra-modern. SIP buildings look no dif-
ferent than other construction materials,
and can also enable innovative designs.

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

For example, architects working for Brad
Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation to help
rebuild New Orleans, developed a “Float
House” that uses SIP walls and roofs as
Pierce County Terminal, Tacoma, Washington
part of a modular structure built on a chas-
sis designed to float. In Bend, Oregon, the
Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District
opened a new headquarters with a green
“living” roof placed on top of structural
insulated panels. Pushing the design enve-
lope even further, a commercial building in
Seattle used six cargo shipping containers
with a roof made of SIPs. Each of these
projects incorporated a host of other green
features; the design teams selected the SIPs
as a key part of that, as well as for their abil-
ity to meet aesthetic and structural needs.

Conclusion
SIP technology is not new, having been
around for several decades. What has

STRUCTURE magazine 47 January 2011

LegaL PersPectives
Dispute Resolution Techniques
By David J. Hatem, PC and Jordan S. Rattray
C
onstruction projects are built
through the application of ideas,
decisions and judgments made by
different individuals and stake-
holders in the project. Misunderstandings and
differences of opinion are daily occurrences,
even on successful projects. It is common
for some issues that arise during the course
of a project to become a dispute. There are
as many ways to resolve disputes as there
are ways for disputes to arise. Disputes are
resolved through techniques ranging from
court judgments to negotiations between
business partners. In response to the restric-
tiveness and uncertainty in taking disputes to
trial, alternative methods of resolving disputes
have become commonplace.
The occurrence of a dispute is often antici-
pated by parties, and dispute resolution
procedures are agreed to and defined in
contracts. Other times, a dispute resolution
process is developed in response to the cir-
cumstances surrounding the dispute and the
needs of the parties. This article will describe
some of the more typical dispute resolution
techniques, and the benefits and limitations
to each option. The parties to a dispute should
look at the issues and circumstances involved
in their dispute when choosing a dispute reso-
lution technique.
Traditional Dispute Resolution
Litigation
Litigation is the traditional way of formally
resolving a dispute that parties are unable to
resolve on their own. Litigation is the pro-
cess of resolving a dispute through the court
system, which commences when one party,
the Plaintiff, files a Complaint against another
party, the Defendant. The parties to the litiga-
tion are represented by attorneys. Ultimately
the court, through either a jury verdict or a
judge’s decision, will enter a judgment in
favor of one party. The litigation process
is defined and governed by Rules of Civil
Procedure, which can be rigid and inflexible
when compared to alternative methods of
dispute resolution.
Litigation is typically the final step in the
process, initiated only after the parties have
been unable to resolve the dispute and need
the assistance of a decision maker, the judge
STRUCTURE magazine
discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers
or jury. Through the process of litigation
the parties identify the issues in dispute,
exchange information and documents, gather
testimony from people with knowledge, and
retain expert witnesses to render opinions.
Ultimately, after what might be several years,
the parties will present their factual and legal
arguments to a judge or jury which will render
a decision, thereby resolving the dispute. In
its simplest form, a litigation case will involve
one Plaintiff and one Defendant; however, it
is common, especially in construction related
cases, for cases to involve multiple parties,
cross-claims, counter-claims, and multiple
claims for damages.
Litigation is very expensive, and requires a
lot of time from both attorneys and from the
project personnel and representative princi-
pals of the firm. The costs associated with the
exchanging of information, especially in the
era of emails and electronic documents, and
preparing for trial can be daunting, especially
when there are multiple parties. Once a law-
suit is filed, it does not mean that the parties
must give up trying to resolve the dispute on
their own. The parties are permitted, and are
usually strongly encouraged by the Court, to
try to resolve the dispute on their own using
Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques, any
time before a judgment is entered by the Court.
Once a judgment has been entered, either party
has the option of appealing the decision to a
higher court. It often takes years for a case to
be resolved once litigation is initiated.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
In response to the expense, formality and
risk of an adverse finding inherent in litiga-
tion cases, Alternative Dispute Resolution
48 January 2011
(ADR) methods have been developed. The
most common forms of ADR are Arbitration
or Mediation. ADR also covers informal
negotiation or other methods of resolving
a dispute other than through a judgment
entered by a court. All ADR methods are
voluntary and must be agreed to by the par-
ties. Contracts often set forth the method(s) of
dispute resolution that the parties do or may
agree to should a dispute arise. Contractual
dispute resolution processes can be straight
forward or can set forth numerous steps the
parties must take before the final resolution
method (typically litigation or arbitration)
can be commenced.
Arbitration
Arbitration involves the resolution of a dispute
through the issuance of an award by a single
arbitrator or an arbitration panel. Arbitration
is similar to litigation in that all parties will
present their factual and legal arguments to
a decision maker, who will issue an award,
which is intended to be a final resolution
of the dispute. There are however some sig-
nificant, and important, differences between
litigation and arbitration proceedings.
The most significant shortcoming of arbitra-
tion is that, with the exception of a few very
limited circumstances, there is no right to
appeal an award once issued. This removes
an important check and balance which is
inherent in the litigation process, the right
to appeal a bad decision. Any party should
consider the lack of appeal before agreeing
to arbitrate a dispute. Other differences
are that the parties must pay for the time
of the arbitrator(s), and discovery is typi-
cally not allowed, or limited by agreement.
Resolution of the dispute is often efficient
and a decision is typically issued more quickly
than in litigation. Additionally, the proceed-
ings are confidential and are not a matter of
public record. Another important difference
is that an arbitrator may also consider issues
of equity or fairness, and are not limited by
legal precedent like a court is. Depending on
your position, this can either be helpful or
harmful. The parties have the right to agree to
any of the factors of an arbitration proceeding,
such as whether the award will be binding or
non-binding.
Mediation
Mediation is a non-binding, strictly voluntary,
entirely confidential process which uses the
assistance of a third party neutral, a media-
tor, to achieve a settlement of the dispute.
Mediation is flexible process that can be
tailored to the needs of the parties and the
dispute. Mediation involves the mutual agree-
ment of all parties to enter into the mediation
and the mutual selection of the mediator.
The mediator has no authority to bind the
parties and merely facilitates resolution of
disputes through the exchange of informa-
tion and settlement negotiations. The parties
to a mediation are bound by confidentiality,
and cannot use any of the information that
is shared through the mediation process
against the other party at any time (i.e.
at an arbitration hearing or trial).
Through mediation, the parties will
educate the mediator of their position.
Often, but not always, the parties will
exchange mediation statements or presen-
tations with each other. The mediator’s
communications with each side cannot
be shared with the other side. While most
mediations involve a one- or two-day
session which will or will not result in
a settlement, other mediation processes
can involve numerous informational
exchange sessions followed by negotia-
tion sessions
Less Formal Processes
There are also less formal methods of
resolving disputes which do not involve
the use of third-parties. Often contracts
will require, as a first step to resolving a
dispute, less formal negotiation or part-
nering sessions as a way to talk through
and resolve issues before a dispute arises.
Partnering
Partnering is sometimes required by
contract as a means of identifying and
discussing contentious issues with the
STRUCTURE magazine
ultimate goal of moving the project forward. Conclusion
Participants in a partnering session will be the
There are numerous techniques for resolving
project personnel and principals. The parties
a dispute. Some techniques are formal, while
will identify issues and discuss them as they
others are informal and are tailored to the
arise. If resolution of issues cannot be achieved
needs of the dispute. The parties to a dispute
at the partnering session, the parties often
can agree to any method of resolution and
discuss ways to work around the dispute until
often contracts spell out a resolution process.
it is resolved. While a partnering session is a
When agreeing to a dispute resolution pro-
method of resolving issues, it is also intended
cess, whether it is in the contract negotiation
to encourage communication and maintain
stage or after the dispute has arisen, each party
good working relationships.
must weigh the benefits and limitations of
Negotiation each available dispute resolution technique.
All alternative methods of dispute resolution
Negotiation of a dispute, whether it involves
are voluntary, and must be agreed to by all
a casual conversation between long time
parties. Therefore, they are often more suc-
business partners or structured settlement
cessful methods of resolving a dispute in a
discussions, can be a cost effective way to
timely and cost effective manner.
resolving any dispute. At the beginning of a
dispute, parties to the dispute may sit down
David J. Hatem, PC, is the founding Partner
and try and negotiate a resolution of some
of the multi-practice law firm Donovan
or all of the issues in dispute. If not entirely
Hatem LLP. He leads the firm’s Professional
successful, a negotiation session may result in
Practice Group. Mr. Hatem can be reached
the narrowing of issues in dispute. Successful
via email at dhatem@donovanhatem.com.
negotiations are dependant on the parties
understanding of the issues in dispute and Jordan S. Rattray is an associate in the
other factors which influence the ability to Professional Practices Group at Donovan
resolve the dispute together. Hatem LLP. Ms. Rattray can be reached via
email at jrattray@donovanhatem.com.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Model * Load * Analyze * Design * Report * Succeed!
Aluminum Design
Great Looking Reports
IBC 2009, ASCE 7-10
iesweb.com
Integrated Engineering Software
519 E. Babcock St, Bozeman, MT 59715
toll free: 800-707-0816 or info@iesweb.com Quick Easy Versatile
49 January 2011
NOTEWORTHY news and information

Matthew Salveson Retires from STRUCTURE ® Editorial Board

On January 1, 2011, Matt Salveson, Ph.D., P.E. completed his tenure on the magazine to keep me abreast of critical issues in
STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board. Dr. Salveson, a senior engineer professional practice. Thank you very much for
with Dokken Engineering and an Associate Professor with California State giving me the opportunity to serve.”
University in Sacramento, will be concentrating on his academic commit- SEI has appointed Brian Miller to succeed Matt
ments going forward. Jon Schmidt, Chair of the Editorial Board, had this as one of its three representatives on the Editorial
to say about Matt’s tenure, “Matt has been a real asset to the Editorial Board Board. Brian was a representative of AISC on
over the last four years. I am sorry to see him go, but wish him all the best the Board, but separated from AISC at the end
in his other endeavors.” of September. Mr. Miller will continue to work
Regarding his departure from the Board, Matt added, “I have genuinely with the Editorial Board on behalf of SEI. The
enjoyed my service on the Editorial Board. My colleagues on the Board are STRUCTURE magazine leadership continues to work towards filling the
among the best in the field and the magazine’s authors have always given me vacant steel industry seat.
fresh insight into professional structural engineering practice. As my own Please join us in thanking Matt Salveson for his service over the last four
career shifts towards academia, I will continue to rely on STRUCTURE years and wishing him well.

ANCHOR UPDATES news and information from anchor companies

Bentley Systems Hilti, Inc. SAS Stressteel, Inc.

Phone: 800-236-8539
Email: structural@bentley.com
Web: www.bentley.com
Product: RAM Connection V8i
Description: RAM Connection V8i includes base plates for
different column supports. Choose between uniaxial or biaxial
analysis, design the base plate per AISC 360-05 (additional
seismic check per AISC 341-05 included), design the anchor
bolts per ACI 318-05 appendix D in seconds, and get all the
detailed reports and structural details.
Halfen Anchoring Systems
Phone: 210-658-4671
Email: Halfen@MeadowBurke.com
Web: www.HalfenUSA.com
Product: HALFEN
Description: Adjustable anchoring systems for façade and
structural connections. Cast-in channels and T-bolts with
high load capacity for curtain wall, precast, masonry, elevator,
balcony, and other applications. Anchors for dynamic loads
and with 3-dimension adjustability are available in galvanized
carbon steel or stainless steel.
Hayward Baker Inc.
Phone: 800-456-6548
Email: info@HaywardBaker.com
Web: www.HaywardBaker.com
Product: Anchors
Description: Hayward Baker Inc., a member of the international
Keller Group, provides permanent, temporary, and removable
ground and rock anchors for support of excavations, permanent
resistance of hydrostatic uplift forces on bottom slabs, and
resistance of wind-induced uplift forces. Hayward Baker also
provides a full range of geotechnical construction services.
Heckmann Building Products, Inc.
Phone: 800-621-4140
Email: david@heckmannanchors.com
Web: www.heckmannanchors.com
Product: Thermal Pos-I-Tie® Brick Veneer Anchoring System
Description: The THERMAL POS-I-TIE Brick Veneer
Anchoring System reduces thermal conductivity to the backup
wall. System can be used with steel stud, concrete, CMU,
ICF, brick and wood backup walls. The Thermal Pos-I-Tie
can penetrate exterior insulation and gypsum board to screw
directly into the backup while sealing the penetration hole.
Phone: 800-879-8000 Phone: 973-244-5995
Email: us-sales@hilti.com Email: info@stressteel.com
Web: www.us.hilti.com Web: www.stressteel.com
Product: Hilti HIT-HY 150 MAX-SD Product: Hot-rolled Fully Threaded Steel Bars
Description: Every project is unique – that’s why Hilti Description: Innovative products + Solutions. SAS hot-rolled
offers a broad portfolio of leading mechanical and adhesive steel thread bar sizes from #6 to #24 in grades 80, 97, 150
anchoring options. Our innovative HIT-HY 150 MAX-SD is and select 160ksi are used in a wide range of applications
the first and only fast cure adhesive with ICC-ES approval per from rock + soil anchors to multi-bar caissons to high strength
AC 308 for cracked concrete. Download free Profis Anchor reinforcing steel systems for high-rise concrete structures.
Design Software at our website.
Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems
ITW Red Head Phone: 800-999-5099
Phone: 630-694-4780 Email: web@strongtie.com
Email: Erin.Haberman@itw-redhead.com Web: www.simpsonanchors.com
Web: www.itwredhead.com Product: Strong-Bolt™ 2 Wedge Anchor for
Product: Overhead Trubolt+ Cracked Concrete
Description: Overhead Trubolt+ is the ONLY U.S. Description: The Strong-Bolt 2 by Simpson Strong-Tie
manufactured complete overhead anchoring system for rod Anchor Systems is an innovative, new wedge anchor that
hanging. This product is ICC-ES listed (2427) and achieves includes a ⅜-inch diameter anchor for 3¼-inch thick concrete.
high performance values using shallow embedments. As a Category 1 anchor, Strong-Bolt 2 offers increased reliability
in adverse conditions, including cracked concrete under static
Powers Fasteners and seismic loading. ICC-ES code-listed (ESR-3037).
Phone: 985-807-6666
Email: jzenor@powers.com Williams Form Engineering Corp.
Web: www.powers.com Phone: 616-866-0815
Product: Construction Fasteners Email: williams@williamsform.com
Description: FREE – anchor design software – POWERS Web: www.williamsform.com
DESIGN ASSIST (PDA). Download from the Powers Product: Anchor Systems
website. Will help designers deal with ACI 318 APPENDIX Description: Williams Form Engineering Corporation has
D. NEW...16 new anchor/fastener Code Compliance ICC been providing threaded steel bars and accessories for rock
ES Reports! anchors, soil anchors, high capacity concrete anchors, micro
piles, tie rods, tie backs, strand anchors, hollow bar anchors,
RISA Technologies post tensioning systems, and concrete forming hardware
Phone: 949-951-5815 systems in the construction industry for over 85 years.
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com
Product: RISABase
Description: When accuracy counts, RISABase delivers.
RISABase uses an automated finite element solution to All Resource Guides and Updates for the 2011
provide exact bearing pressures, plate stresses, and anchor Editorial Calendar are now available on the website,
bolt pull out capacities, eliminating the guess work of www.STRUCTUREmag.org. Listings are provided
hand methods. Define bi-axial loads and eccentric column as a courtesy. STRUCTURE® magazine is not
locations. Choose from several connection types and specify responsible for errors.
custom bolt locations.

STRUCTURE magazine 50 January 2011


The New DC: The Atrium at 300 New Jersey Avenue
By Azer Kehnemui, D. Sc., P.E., Hakan Onel P.E., S.E. and Rupa M. Patel
Smislova, Kehnemui and Associates, P.A. received an Outstanding Project Award for the 300 New
Jersey Avenue project in the 2010 NCSEA Annual Excellence in Structural Engineering awards
program (Category – New Buildings $10M to $30M)
V
eiled in the shadow of the U.S.
Capitol, the atrium at 300 New
Jersey Avenue displays one of the
most contemporary integrations
of architectural vision and engineering cre-
ativity in Washington, DC. The expansive,
full-height atrium was designed and con-
structed as part of a new, 10-story concrete
office building and six-story below grade park-
ing garage. It is the first commercial office
building to be designed and built in the
United States by the world renowned archi-
tectural firm, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners
(formerly the Richard Rogers Partnership),
who collaborated with Smislova, Kehnemui
and Associates, P.A. (SK&A), the structural
engineer of record and HKS Architects, the
project architect and architect of record, to
create one of the most unique structures in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area. Hakan
Onel, P.E., S.E., an associate at SK&A, led
the structural design of the atrium and Tolga
Cubukcu, now retired, was responsible for
the office building portion of the project.
Azer Kehnemui, D.Sc., P.E., principal and
co-founder of SK&A, served as the principal
in charge of the entire project, leading both
design teams and coordinating efforts between
the engineers, architects, and owner.
The LEED GOLD certified 270,000 SF
office building is constructed adjacent to an
existing historic 1935 office building and
its 1953 addition. The atrium is the proj-
ect’s most notable feature and serves as the
common convergence space between the
three buildings–blending past and present
in a three-dimensional cascade of glass and
steel. Linked by the canopy of a skylight and
a full-height hanging glass facade in front, the
buildings come together in a series of glass
walkways and platforms that extend out from
the main “tree” structure in the center of the
space. Supporting the skylight is a complex,
bright yellow boomerang truss that extends
the length of the atrium and is punctuated
at each end with two lattice columns that, at
first glance, appear to be sculptures placed for
aesthetic appeal.
The luminous glass curtain wall at the
entrance of the atrium falls about one
STRUCTURE magazine
award winners and outstanding projects Spotlight
hundred feet from cantilevered beams at the
top floor of the building. Steel cables extend
from the top level of the structure to support
the hanging wall against vertical and lateral
forces. Lateral movement is also restricted
by horizontal kipper trusses at each level,
and springs at the bottom of the wall and
at the attachment to the existing building
prevent loads from being transferred to the
glazing system below the curtain wall and to
the existing building.
The boomerang truss, seemingly hovering
over the length of the atrium, is offset from
the supporting tree structure with tie-back
rods that help support it at mid-span. The
truss has a tapered triangular section with
circular chord and web members. The depth sheave beams supported on a dedicated steel
of the truss tapers from eight feet to zero at cage system, which itself is supported on
the ends. A noteworthy feature of the support atrium tree beams and the main truss at the
system for the truss is the tension rods that top. The guide rails are laterally supported by
support it and its stair platforms. These tie slender steel forks attached to the tree beam
rods are pre-tensioned so that they remain members. The stair treads are Z-shaped bent
tensioned during all phases of construction plate sections that were specifically designed
and provide initial camber to the steel truss. to provide lateral stiffness to the stair frame.
The two steel lattice columns supporting the Steel bridges extend from the main atrium
truss at each end are constructed of steel HSS tree structure, spanning each level between the
pipe sections in compression and pre-ten- two historic buildings and the new contem-
sioned cables with roller pins at each outrigger porary structure. The bridges are framed with
to allow for zero loss in pre-tensioning fric- stiff kink post truss structures with slender
tion. Structural redundancy in the columns members and walking platforms composed
has been provided using double cables at each of multilayer laminated glass panels.
of the three lines of cables around the main Residents and tourists alike are now witness
pipe section. to a timeless vision of engineering and archi-
The skylight covering the atrium is com- tectural ingenuity that punctuates a sleepy
posed of ladder frames that were assembled morning commute or casual stroll through
off-site and transported to the project site. The Capitol Hill. This part futuristic, part whim-
frames are constructed of steel channels and sical atrium structure is a welcome contrast
HSS tube steel sections that were field bolted to the stern, conservative personality of the
together on-site to create the framework that traditional DC skyline, introducing a truly
supports the glass panels of the skylight. spectacular integration of art and ability.▪
The atrium tree is the primary structural
steel moment frame tower that supports the Azer Kehnemui, D. Sc., P.E., Consulting
skylight, the boomerang truss, and the eleva- Structural Engineer, is Founding
tor shaft and platforms. The 18-inch diameter Principal of Smislova, Kehnemui &
steel HSS round columns that make up the Associates, PA (SK&A).
tree structure’s vertical members had to be
Hakan Onel P.E., S.E. is an Associate
filled with concrete and designed as composite
of SK&A.
columns in order to carry the high axial loads.
The elevator support cage and transparent Rupa M. Patel is a project engineer at SK&A.
elevator shaft are constructed with elevator
51 January 2011
 NaTioNal CoUNCil of STRUCTURal ENgiNEERS aSSoCiaTioNS
2011 WiNTER iNSTiTUTE fEbRUaRy 25-26, 2011

Deferred Submittals:
News form the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

What the EOR Needs

to Know and Show
from Design to Construction
Omni Amelia Island Plantation Resort

Friday, February 25 8.0 Professional Development Hours

Deferred Submittals Gone Wrong
Introduction of topic and personal experiences. Ben Nelson, Martin/Martin, Inc., Lakewood, CO, Tom DiBlasi, DiBlasi Associates,
P.C., Monroe, CT, and Tom Grogan, Haskell, Jacksonville, FL.

Building Officials Have Their Say

Can SE’s get themselves into trouble by improperly dealing with deferred submittals? No question, according to these building
officials. Take this opportunity to gain a better understanding of the permitting process using deferred submissions. Ron Lynn,
Clark County, NV, and Jim Schock, Jacksonville, FL.

Non-Standard Steel Joists

What are the responsibilities of the project registered design professional and the joist manufacturer for non-standard steel
joists? What do you know about steel joist calculation submittals? Tim Holtermann, Canam Steel Corporation, Washington, MO.

Design Responsibility for Engineered Precast Systems

How do you divide design responsibilities when specifying precast concrete components and systems? Discussion will
include how best to convey necessary design information in the contract documents and how to deal with issues related
to precast concrete lateral load resisting systems, as well as approaches to avoid RFIs and design omissions. Tim Salmons,
Salmons, P.C., Albuquerque, NM.

Moderated tours of the Canam Steel Joist Facility

and the Gate Concrete Products Facility, Jacksonville, FL

Saturday, February 26 7.5 Professional Development Hours

NCSEA News

Specifying Wood and Cold-Formed Steel Trusses –

Avoiding Pitfalls and Unnecessary Liability
Pre-manufactured trusses: Who is responsible for what, when it comes to the SER, the truss industry, contractors, and the building
department? What are some of the pitfalls of specifying pre-manufactured trusses? Ed Huston, Smith and Huston, Inc., Seattle, WA.

Cold-Formed Steel Submittals – Expectations and Performance

of Structural and Specialty Engineers
While some cold formed steel (CFS) products require specialty engineering, others do not.  What are the responsibilities of all
members of the construction team, particularly the Structural Engineer of Record and the Specialty Structural Engineer? Who
assumes liability for design? Steve Walker, Light Gauge Steel Engineering Group, Inc., Oakland, Florida.

Current Trends in Professional Liability & Risk Management

What are the duties and limitations when providing construction phase services? Which contract provisions are frequently the
subject of difficult negotiations? How can poorly worded provisions impact the design professional? Brian Hadar, Suncoast
Insurance, and Colleen Palmer, Beazley Insurance.

STRUCTURE magazine 52 January 2011

 NCSEA News
Ron Lynn Jim Schock Tim Holtermann Tim Salmons Ed Huston Steve Walker

Lunch Presentation
Sponsored by Fyfe Company
How do you avoid deferred submittal problems when specifying
fiber reinforced polymer for the structural upgrade of concrete?
Scott Arnold, P.E.

Deferred Submittal Documentation –

What You Really Need to Show
Regarding Deferred Submittals Brian Hader Colleen Palmer C. Ben Nelson
Why is it important to clearly identify, in the contract documents,
what scope is covered by the EOR and what scope requires design by a specialty engineer?
How can you avoid unnecessary risks? C. Ben Nelson, Martin/Martin, Inc., Lakewood, CO.
Register at

News from the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations

Deferred Submittals – Panel Discussion of Lessons Learned www.ncsea.com
Problem prevention, pre-engineered metal buildings, incorrectly-prescribed foundations,
inordinate numbers of changes, and more.

Networking Opportunities: Accommodations:

Reception Thursday evening, February 24, 6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. Omni Amelia Island Plantation Resort
Reception Friday evening, February 25, 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Amelia Island, FL 32035
sponsored by the Florida Structural Engineers Association NCSEA Winter Institute rate until February 9: $149
Reservations: 1-888-261-6165
Cost and Registration: Group number: 022011NCSEAWINT or National
Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Breakfast, lunch, breaks and receptions included in price:
Free roundtrip airport transportation to/from Jacksonville
$350 per day, or $595 for both days
airport, provided you reserve 72 hours in advance.

January 25, 2011: Heavy Timber Connections: Mistakes and Lessons Learned – Ben Brungraber
February 10, 2011: Detailing of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Structures to Minimize the Effects
of Restraint to Shortening – Bryan Allred
March 1, 2011: Building Information Modeling in Structural Engineering Practice Today –
Upcoming David J. Odeh
NCSEA March 10, 2011: Post-Tensioned Slabs on Ground Design – Bryan Allred
Webinars: April 19, 2011: Code Issues in Existing Buildings: Archaic and Obsolete Structures –
Donald Friedman
May 17, 2011: AISC T.R. Higgins Lecture–The AISC Seismic Design Provisions:
Past, Present and Future – James O. Malley

NCSEA/Kaplan Structural Engineering Exam Review Course

Obtain two weekends (12 hours each) of targeted review, sitting in front of your computer, with 24/7 playback. Review
anytime. Instructors are knowledgeable, hand-picked and recommended by your peers:
January 29-30: Vertical Forces Review.
February 12-13: Lateral Forces Review.
Visit www.ncsea.com and follow the “Hot Topics” link for the NCSEA/Kaplan SE Exam Review Course, to register and
for more information on the course and the instructors.

STRUCTURE magazine 53 January 2011

 Spring 2011 Fazlur R. Khan Distinguished Lecture Series
at Lehigh University
The Fazlur Rahman Khan Distinguished Lecture Series honors Dr. Fazlur Rahman Khan’s legacy of excellence in structural
engineering and architecture. Initiated and organized by: Dan M. Frangopol, Fazlur Rahman Khan Endowed Chair of Structural
Engineering and Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ATLSS Center, Lehigh University.
The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

1st Lecture: David Scott, Arup, America’s Building Practice Leader, Past Chairman, CTBUH, New York, NY
“Extreme Engineering” – Friday, February 18, 2011 – 4:10 pm

2nd Lecture: Masayoshi Nakashima, Kyoto University, Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto, and
E-Defense, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, Kyoto, Japan
“Safeguarding Quality of Life: the Role of Large-Scale Testing” – Friday, March 25, 2011 – 4:10 pm

3rd Lecture: Chris D. Poland, Chairman & CEO, Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, CA
“Building Disaster Resilient Communities” – Friday, April 8, 2011 – 4:10 pm
For more information about the lecture series, see the Lehigh University website at www.lehigh.edu/frkseries.

Call for New Members Upcoming Conference

ASCE/SEI Athletic Field Lighting
Structures Standards Committee
The Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of ASCE is seeking
members for the newly forming Athletic Field Lighting Structures
Standards Committee. The committee is developing a national
consensus guideline for the proper specification, design, installa-
tion, and on-going maintenance of athletic field, or other similar
large area lighting system support structures. Membership on
SEI/ASCE standard committees is open to all those who might
reasonably be expected to be or who indicate they are directly
affected by the activity without dominance by any single inter-
est group: Producer, Consumer and General Interest, including
Regulatory. Those interested in serving on the committee should
apply online at www.seinstitute.org/committees/codeform.cfm.
For more information, please contact Lee Kusek, ASCE Standards
Administrator, at lkusek@asce.org or 703-295-6176.
Structural Columns
SEWC 2011 – April 4-6, 2011
Villa Erba, Lake Como, Italy
The Structural Engineers World Congress (SEWC) is an inter-
national conference with worldwide participation by structural
engineers. The primary purpose of SEWC2011 is to focus on
the overall practice of structural engineering for both technical
and theoretical aspects, including materials, actions, design,
construction, research and tests. The conference will address
the practical needs of structural engineering world-wide, and
improve co-operation among persons who share the same
interests. For more information, see the conference website:
http://sewc-worldwide.org/index.php/sewc2011-italy.

Online Game is Part of

ASCEville’s Green Makeover www.asceville.org
Solar panels. Mixed use development. Permeable pavement. If you haven’t been to ASCEville lately you’re in for a surprise.
Visitors to ASCE’s kids Website will find these features and more on the new home page, which features new graphics, new video
content, and a fun, scavenger hunt game highlighting themes of sustainability. Kids, parents, teachers and, yes, even engineers
will love learning how civil engineers are making local communities more livable. See if you can find all 20 features and discover
how civil engineering contributes to healthier built and natural environments!
Teachers, especially, will find the site useful in supporting their lessons on sustainability topics. A FREE companion poster,
What makes ASCEville Greenville?, is available for classroom use. All 20 features of the scavenger hunt are visible on the poster.
The poster back also contains two classroom activities to jump start explorations of water management and recycling, and a
profile of a young engineer who is having a positive impact on the world through his work as a bike trails designer. To order the
poster, email outreach@asce.org. Write ASCEville goes GREEN in the subject line.

2012 SEI/ASCE Student Structural Design Competition

The Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE is sponsoring a structural design competition for
universities. Innovative projects demonstrating excellence in structural engineering are invited for
submission. Awards include cash prizes and an opportunity to present their designs at the 2012
SEI Structures Congress in Chicago, IL. Deadline for Submissions: June 30, 2011
For competition guidelines, entry form and a poster to promote the competition, visit
http://content.seinstitute.org/StudentStructuralDesignCompetition.html. The 2010 winning team from
Villanova University

STRUCTURE magazine 54 January 2011

 Structural Columns
REgiSTRaTion iS opEn
for the 2011 Structures Congress
Green Valley Ranch Resort and Spa Las Vegas, Nevada
April 14-16, 2011
Register early to take advantage of reduced rates-see the SEI Website for
more details: www.SEInstitute.org

Earn more than 16 PDHs!

Structural Engineers from around the country will be gathering at the
Green Valley Ranch Resort in Las Vegas from April 14-16 for the 2011 SEI
Structures Congress to learn, share and network among friends and col-
leagues. Opening bright and early on Thursday, April 14th the Congress is
packed with 2½ days of technical sessions, committee meetings, fascinating
keynote and plenary speakers, concluding with a closing plenary technical
session after lunch on Saturday – an opportunity to earn more than 16
PDHs during one mega-event!
More than 100 different technical sessions on
such topics as:
• Seismic Strengthening of Buildings
• SEI/ASCE Chile Earthquake Assessment
Team Report

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

• New Provisions of ASCE 7-10
• Lateral Systems of Buildings
• How the Future of Structural Engineering
sees the Future of Structural Engineering
• Lessons Learned from Arbitration,
Mediation and Litigation
• Vulnerability Assessments of Bridges
and Tunnels
• and Masonry, Concrete, Steel, Wood, Blast,
Wind and much, much more!
Special events will include the opening plenary
speaker F. Dave Zanetell, P.E., PMP, the Federal
Highway Administration’s project manager of the
HOUSING Room Rates*:
brand new $240 million Hoover Dam Bypass
Green Valley Ranch Resort • Single: $135.00
Bridge. On Saturday, the plenary speaker will be
2300 Paseo Verde Parkway • Double: $135.00
Ron Lynn, the Director/Building Official for Clark
Henderson, NV 89052 • Triple: $165.00
County Department of Development Services
www.greenvalleyranchresort.com/ • Quad: $195.00
and immediate Past-President of ICC, who will
discuss some of the unique challenges of building
Reservations: 702-617-7777
in Las Vegas.
Toll free: 866-782-9487
You won’t want to miss the Grand Opening
When registering refer to ASCE Code: GCIASCE
Reception on Thursday and be certain to attend
Friday’s special Evening at the Hoover Dam
This magnificent Las Vegas hotel, resort and spa attends to its guests with
with exclusive tours, savory and appetizing hors’
unmatched special touches and an impeccable service philosophy. The elegant
d’oeuvres, and refreshments.
decor and hotel accommodations, world-class cuisine and lively entertain-
ment create an exciting experience for the senses. They have combined these
Errata standards and amenities with the grandeur of their grounds and facilities to
make GVR the choice in luxury hotels in Las Vegas.
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our Reservation Cutoff Deadline: Friday, March 11, 2011
publications at www.SEInstitute.org. Click on
* The group rate has been extended for three (3) days before and three (3) days
“Publications” on our menu, and select “Errata.”
after the conference dates, on a space availability basis.
If you have any errata that you would like
to submit, please email it to Paul Sgambati at Visit the SEI Website for more information about Conference Registration
psgambati@asce.org. and housing: www.SEInstitute.org.

STRUCTURE magazine 55 January 2011

 SAVE THE DATE! CASE Winter Planning Meeting Scheduled for February
The CASE Winter Planning Meeting will take place on
Wednesday and Thursday, February 23-24, 2011, at the Amelia
Island Plantation, Florida in conjunction with the NCSEA
Winter Institute. On Wednesday afternoon, the CASE Executive
Committee will meet and set the agenda for the next day’s com-
mittee planning sessions. The committee breakout meetings will
take place on Thursday for the National Guidelines, Contracts,
The Newsletter of the Council of American Structural Engineers
Programs & Communications, and Toolkit Committees to
continue work on their respective assignments.
CASE Risk Management Convocation
in Las Vegas Next Spring
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held in
conjunction with the Structures Congress at the Green Valley
Ranch Resort in Las Vegas, NV, April 14–16, 2011. For more
information and updates go to www.seinstitute.org.
The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to
take place on Friday, April 15:
8:30 AM – 10:00 AM
How Structural Engineers Can Work Effectively
with Architects Who Use AIA C401
Speaker: William Geisen, Esq.,
Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP
If your firm works as a sub-consultant to architects, come
examine CASE’s Commentary on AIA Document C401, the
Standard Form of Agreement Between Architect and Consultant.
AIA Contract Document C401 incorporates by reference AIA
Contract Document B101, the Standard Form of Agreement
Between Owner and Architect. The interplay between C401 and
B101 cannot be over-emphasized. Using C401 without under-
standing fully the interrelationships with B101 is a recipe for
disaster. This presentation will cover how the engineer’s rights
and obligations are impacted by these two agreements, and
CASE’s recommended provisions to include in your contract
with the architect. Understanding and using B101 effectively
CASE in Point
can give you more leverage in collecting fees, getting paid for
Additional Services and collecting more reimbursable expenses.
10:30 AM – 12 Noon
The Changing Face of Indemnity:
Meaner and Uglier!
Speaker: Brian Stewart, Esq.,
Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart
This program will present an overview of some recent
California cases having received national attention, which
could present potentially disastrous results for the engineering
community. The discussion will center on how and why the
cases were decided the way they were, and what is being done
as a result of the holdings in those cases. The program will
conclude with a description of some legislative and practical
efforts to defend against this unfortunate tide.
STRUCTURE magazine 56
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 CASE’s activities.  For more information on the
CASE committees and CASE in general, visit their website at
www.acec.org/CASE.
1:30 PM – 3:00 PM
New Tools for Managing Risk
and Project Implementation
Speakers: Stacy Bartoletti, President and COO,
Degenkolb Engineers
Nils V. Ericson III, Project Manager,
The Di Salvo Ericson Group
John Aniol, Vice President, Thornton Tomasetti
Brent White, President, ARW Engineers
The CASE Tool Kit Committee has developed a number of
new tools that will be presented in this session. Developing
a Culture of Quality provides a white paper and PowerPoint
presentation used to engage firm leaders in a discussion about
their firm culture and key aspects that contribute to quality. A
new tool on staffing projections provides a method for firms
to project future revenues and staffing demands based on
contract values and potential work. Project Work Plans set the
stage early for project success and a new work plan template
will be presented. Finally, a new tool titled Managing Computer
Software Use will be presented. This tool provides a white paper
on key aspects and responsibilities of the project manager and
principal in charge relative to software use on projects.
3:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Lessons Learned from Arbitration,
Mediation and Litigation
Speakers: John O. Woods, Jr., P.E., President,
WOODS PEACOCK Engineering
Consultants, Inc.,
Bruce E. Titus, Esq., Principal Rees Broome, PC
Charles Vonderheid CBIZ
This panel discussion will focus on applying lessons learned
from the speakers’ involvement with arbitration, mediation
and litigation. The speakers, who are a practicing structural
engineer & arbitrator, an attorney specializing in construction
law, and a professional liability insurance agent, will share
some of their own lessons learned and anecdotes.
January 2011

Looking for a few good people!
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
each committee 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.
ACEC Education Information
2011 ACEC Convention Offers Political
Insights, Business Opportunities
Leaders of the new Congress, noted jour-
nalist Bob Woodward and procurement
officials from more than a dozen federal
agencies will highlight the 2011 Annual
Convention and Legislative Summit,
March 30-April 2, in Washington, D.C.
Incoming Speaker of the House
John Boehner (invited), new House
Transportation and Infrastructure Investigative Journalist
Committee Chairman John Mica Bob Woodward will
(invited), and former U.S. Representative provide an “Insider
Tom Davis will brief attendees on the View of the Presidency.”
dynamics of the new Congress and what they mean for the
engineering industry.
Attendees will also get the inside track on new market opportu-
nities with federal agencies including GSA, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Department of Energy, and Homeland Security.
ACEC Urges Senate to Approve
9/11 Liability Reform Bill
ACEC and major contractor organizations are lobbying Senate
leaders to act on key 9/11 liability reform legislation.
H.R. 847, which passed the House in September, provides
liability relief for engineering firms and contractors involved
in the response and cleanup of the Ground Zero site following
the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
A settlement accepted by more than 95 percent of Ground
Zero first responders requires that they drop their lawsuits. The
passage of H.R. 847 by the Senate would help in resolving the
remaining lawsuits.
STRUCTURE magazine
CASE in Point
Contracts Committee – Responsible for developing and
maintaining all CASE contracts to assist practicing engineers
with risk management.
Guidelines Committee – Responsible for developing and main-
taining national guidelines of practice for structural engineers.
Toolkit Committee – Responsible for developing and main-
taining all risk management tools.
Expanding Sustainability Markets
and Methods
CASE is a part of the American Council of Engineering Companies
A faculty of leading practitioners and A/E industry experts
with diverse perspectives presents an in-depth exploration of
the expanding markets for sustainable design and construc-
tion in ACEC’s first course of 2011: Green Infrastructure and
Sustainable Communities: Opportunities in Expanding Markets,
set for February 1-4, San Antonio, TX.
Course curriculum examines key environmental planning and
design processes, and showcases applications of sustainable engi-
neering. A special San Antonio-area field trip visits real world
sustainable projects. Topics to be covered include • Sustainability
as Business Strategy • The Business Case for Delivering Sustainable
Projects • Current Techniques and Innovation in Sustainable
Design • Infrastructure Project Rating Systems • Application
of BIM Software in Sustainability • Sustainable Urban Water
Management, Transportation and Buildings Projects.
Get agenda highlights, browse the course brochure, and register
at advance best-price:
www.acec.org/education/eventDetails.cfm?eventID=1232.
ACEC Government Affairs
Congress Continues ACEC-Backed
Effort to Repeal 1099 Filing Mandate
Senate attempts to repeal a new federal IRS Form 1099
filing mandate fell short in November 2010, but supporters in
Congress vow to continue the repeal effort.
Under the new law, which takes effect in 2012, business pur-
chases of goods and services valued at more than $600 annually
from any vendor must be reported to the IRS.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) has
announced his intent to repeal the mandate. His repeal amend-
ment, as well as similar legislation offered by Senator Mike Johanns
(R-NE), faltered over differences in how to pay for the repeal.
ACEC and coalition allies will continue working with Baucus and
other lawmakers to include a repeal provision in other legislation.
57 January 2011
Structural Forum
For the Love of the Profession
By Robert H. Lyon, P.E.
S
tructural engineers consistently rank
high in levels of job satisfaction and
public respect. Through the experi-
ences and testimonies of practicing
engineers, both past and present, this series of
articles celebrates the joys and satisfactions of
our profession. From this collection of personal
accounts, sources of career satisfaction are identi-
fied and examined. Obstacles are also identified
which can impede our level of job satisfaction.
These observations are used to formulate keys for
improving, advancing and uplifting the struc-
tural engineering profession and its personal
rewards. Whether an idealistic young profes-
sional, or an experienced engineer in need of
a career re-charge, reclaim the pleasures that
make structural engineering a great profession!
Part One – My Story
My father was a structural engineer. My
grandfather was a public works engineer.
In several small towns of Iowa you can find
plaques on bridges that bear Granddad’s
name, Harold Lyon. Engineering is a Lyon
family tradition. It is in my blood.
As a child, I loved visiting my dad’s office.
What impacted me the most was not necessarily
my fascination with the projects. More than
that, I relished the work environment and the
camaraderie of professionals.
My dad served alongside my granddad in
World War II with a Seabees unit in the South
Pacific. The Seabee motto shows them to be
the consummate engineers: “The difficult we
do immediately; the impossible takes a little
longer”. When he returned to civilian life, Dad
enrolled at Iowa State University and received
his bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering. He
then worked two years designing bridges for
the Iowa Highway Department. One day, he
and a colleague took time off work and went
up to Chicago to “pound the pavement” in
hopes of landing a consulting job.
Dad joined the firm DeLeuw Cather and
spent his first ten years there designing and
managing various bridge and highway proj-
ects. While working on a major highway
project in the Washington, D.C. area, the
organization was being formed that would
Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and
construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA,
®
CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE magazine Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE magazine
opinions on topics of current importance to structural engineers
have responsibility for planning, designing
and constructing the Metrorail system. My
dad saw this as an opportunity of a lifetime
and moved our family from Chicago to DC
halfway through my kindergarten year.
Growing up, I enjoyed learning – not just math
and the sciences, but in all areas. After complet-
ing high school, I enrolled at the University of
Virginia as a student of Civil Engineering. In
retrospect, I am sure that my choice of major
stemmed first and foremost from my admiration
for my dad and his colleagues.
Upon graduation, I half-heartedly inter-
viewed with one or two engineering firms
but decided that school was still too much
fun! So I enrolled to study law at The George
Washington University. One month before
classes were to start, while browsing the uni-
versity bookstore, I abruptly changed my
plans and decided to pursue a master’s degree
in structural engineering instead. These were
two wonderfully interesting, satisfying and
fun years.
With a master’s, I was much better prepared
for a practicing bridge engineering position.
Once again my dad came into the picture,
advising that I interview with a consulting
firm that he held in high esteem. He arranged
for an interview with the office leader and,
although the Washington office was not
hiring, he suggested that a young fellow want-
ing to learn the bridge business should go and
interview at the home office in Kansas City.
I was not excited. Although I did not object
strongly to the idea, I had not envisioned
moving halfway across the country for a job.
However, this was a friend of my dad’s, and
I felt an obligation to consider it. I agreed
to interview.
I lugged my heavy suitcase through Kansas
City that morning, wondering why I was
there. But when I arrived in the firm’s bridge
department, it was a “déjà vu” moment. I
tingled with childhood memories of my
dad’s office. The competence, professional-
ism, collegiality and warmth in that office
convinced me that this was where I wanted
to spend my career. It had a wonderful mix
of thirty-year design professionals, along with
a large group of talented, recent graduates.
58 January 2011
The combination made for a tremendously
invigorating, exciting work place! I also met
and married the travel agent that handled
the firm’s business… but that is a story for
another time.
Although the professional road has been
winding, and at times rocky, 31 years later my
firm remains the same kind of place. When
an opportunity came for my family to serve as
missionaries in Russia, my supervisors granted
me a year’s leave of absence with their bless-
ing. Several years later, when an unexpected
victory landed me in the state legislature, my
firm once again allowed me a series of leaves of
absence to serve my term. Although the politi-
cal experience was interesting, I chose not to
seek reelection, primarily because I missed the
structural engineering environment.
Having served as a part-time adjunct pro-
fessor for a number of years, I have recently
transitioned to a full-time teaching position at
the University of Kansas. Once again, I enjoy
the company of numerous distinguished, pro-
fessional colleagues, and I continue to work
part-time with the firm where I started my
career. I do not know what the future holds
for me professionally. I only hope that it will
be possible for me to continue doing exactly
what I am doing, because this is a great pro-
fession and I love it.
The point of this autobiography is to suggest
that nothing is terribly unique about my pro-
fessional experience. Every structural engineer
has a story to tell, and such accounts can serve
as a basis for identifying and fostering the
tremendous sources of career satisfaction that
are ours as structural engineers. In my case, it
begins with being in a profession with men
and women that I respect, admire and enjoy.
In my next article, I will explore the lives of
other, more notable structural engineers, and
discover what sources of joy undergirded their
professional careers.▪
Robert H. Lyon, P.E. (blyon@ku.edu), is
a lecturer in the Civil, Environmental and
Architectural Engineering Department at the
University of Kansas and a structural engineer
at HNTB in Kansas City, Missouri.