Professional Documents
Culture Documents
July 2010
Concrete
For further clarity on this important change, visit www.powers.com/icc.pdf in regards to this topic, they make it crystal clear.
Powers Fasteners, Inc. www.powers.com 2 Powers Lane P: (914) 235-6300 Brewster, NY 10509 F: (914) 576-6483
CONTENTS
Features
20 Barton Creek Bridge
By Mark W. Holmberg, P.E.
Rising eighty feet above the Barton Creek streambed, this three-span fin-back bridge was recommended as the most economical alternate that met unique geometric and environmental constraints, and provided a novel gateway for the subdivision it served. The fin-back name derives from the central fins, or walls, which rise from the triangular box to peak over each intermediate pier.
Columns
5 Editorial 7 InFocus
What Business Are You In?
By John A. Mercer Jr, P.E.
Departments
26 InSights
Curved Steel: Means and Methods
By Erin J. Gachne Conaway, P.E., LEED AP and Jacinda L. Collins, P.E.
12
8 Guest Column
In every Issue
6 Advertiser Index 27 Resource Guide (Pre-Cast Concrete) 28 NCSEA News 30 SEI Structural Columns 32 CASE in Point 20
the
12 Structural Design
16 Structural Practices
Sea Wall Systems
By Vitaly B. Feygin, P.E.
STRUCTURE
22 Building Blocks
on
Cover
Publication of any article, image, or advertisement in STRUCTURE magazine does not constitute endorsement by NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C 3 Ink, or the Editorial Board. Authors, contributors, and advertisers retain sole responsibility for the content of their submissions.
34 Structural Forum
July 2010
Concrete
Erratum
IRVINE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
C.V. Chelapati, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE Est. 1973
SE License Seminars | Webcast | Nationwide-Worldwide Offers 4 Courses for SE License | Credit or CEUs 24 hours each | 8 Thursday evenings | Live offsite | Archived Other license programs PE (Civil), PEME, PEEE, SE I, Seismic and Surveying
Ph: (949) 585-9137 www.irvine-institute.org
In the Education Special Section of the May 2010 issue of STRUCTURE magazine, there was an error in the table highlighting courses available at schools not offering the full curriculum. Texas A&M University does offer, and exceeds minimum course offering requirements for, the Analysis portion of the Basic Education Requirements. A red check mark should have been printed in the Analysis column for Texas A&M (page 20). We apologize for this error.
STRUCTURE magazine
By Zachery I. Smith, P.E., Scott F. Arnold, P.E., and Guijun Xian, Ph.D.
The underside of Barton Creek Bridge with struts and water lines on overhang and twin shaft piers in the distance. An analysis of this bridge can be seen on page 20 of this issue.
July 2010
Editorial
What Business Are You In?
By John A. Mercer Jr, P.E. CASE Chair Authors Note: Because of a change in employment and subsequent resignation by Doug Ashcraft, I have recently assumed the chair position of CASE. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his past committee participation and leadership on CASE RMP committees and as Chair of the CASE Executive Committee, and wish him well in his new endeavors. The CASE Executive Committee encourages Doug to stay engaged in our sister organizations, NCSEA and SEI, as time allows. Looking forward as CASE Chair, I will continue to rely upon the active leadership and participation of CASE members to share their time, energy, ingenuity, and expertise with our fellow structural engineers in CASE, NCSEA, and SEI when it comes to Risk Management and Business Practices. As we continue to move forward, we are reminded constantly that todays economy has presented a daunting challenge to all of our countrys companies, corporations, and individuals, not the least of which includes our structural engineering firms. Firms have had to take a hard look at themselves in structure, staff, and markets to assess their survival potential until there is a turn around in the recent downward financial trends. Traditionally, firms have been grown around Finders, Minders, and Grinders. In the past growing economy, there was a shortage of each, stimulating acquisitions to fill the gaps to grab market share. Finders are typically the firm principals responsible to feed a firms hungry appetite for work. Minders are those few engineers that have moved up to a project management role to maintain contact with the client, manage firm resources including staff, and keep a project on schedule and hopefully under budget. Finally, grinders include the staff engineers and support staff that turn out the work of engineering analysis and design, document preparation, and construction services support. They typically include entry level engineering staff, itching to design something. This scenario should be familiar to you. But why is it important? Financially, a firm must be at minimum, break-even, and profitable by design when possible. Firm CFOs are challenged with keeping overhead rates in line using project multipliers as gauges to evaluate the performance of the firms staff, project type, and client. When the economic environment declines as we have recently experienced, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate how you define and practice your business. Buggy whip manufacturers experienced this sort of situation when Henry Ford automated the auto manufacturing business. What are we missing in todays picture? Who or what is it that is consuming our revenues and profits? I would suggest we need to take a look at the internal and external line items comprising our overhead. Internally, we can include our IT needs. We depend on computers and software just as our predecessors relied upon the pencil and eventually calculators. But computers and software cost more than pencils. The basis of our overhead is impacted by these types of cost increases. Some of us have in-house IT departments while others outsource this capability, maximizing cost efficiency. We can make a list of our overhead line items to include equipment, software, IT staff, communications systems, cell phones, Internet bandwidth, heat, lights, STRUCTURE magazine
rent, vehicles, supplies, advertising, non-billable staff time and the list can go on and on. One outside influence impacting our firms today is the illusion that BIM, perpetrated on our engineering community by the software industry, is the ultimate answer in document preparation. BIM can actually be a Trojan horse that will eventually erode the quality of our work product and increase firm risk, if we continue to allow this myth to become an unchecked part of our Culture. BIM is only a tool. BIM causes restructuring of our production departments and puts firms behind a new learning curve. We need to ask if it will it make firms money or increase our risk? Another external influence is LEED certification. LEED was created by architects with intentions to provide our society with energy saving buildings and sustainable developments. We need to evaluate the real cost to firms and our clients. It has become another way for a few to extort money out of us and our clients, as overseers of a perceived greater good. It is my intent that this editorial be the first in a series that will introduce the concept of creating profit centers out of our overhead items while maintaining multipliers for government audit purposes. What if you could save just one STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING job in your firm? Could it be yours? INSTITUTE Just what business are you in?
July 2010
FYFE
Over 20 years ago we created the industry... today we set the standard
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE Executive Director 312-649-4600 execdir@ncsea.com Heather Talbert Coalitions Director 202-682-4377 htalbert@acec.org
Structural Strengthening FRP Installation Seismic Upgrade Blast Mitigation Concrete Retrot Specialty Gunite Underwater & Coastal Repairs Expansion & Seismic Joints Pipe Repair and Renewal Large and Small Diameter PCCP, RCP, Steel Structural Repairs Carbon Fiber Structural Liners Concrete Restoration Epoxy Crack Injection Spall Repair Corrosion Protection Advanced Fire Protection
NSF
R
Tel: 858.642.0694
Certied to NSF/ANSI 61
2010 NCSEA
Chuck Minor
Eastern Sales 847-854-1666
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE Editor Associate Editor Graphic Designer Web Developer Christine M. Sloat, P.E. Nikki Alger
execdir@ncsea.com publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Rob Fullmer
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
William Radig
Advertiser Index
Computers & Structures, Inc. ................. 36 CTP Inc. ................................................. 27 CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.......... 10 Fyfe Co. LLC ............................................ 6 Integrated Engineering Software, Inc....... 23 Irvine Institute of Technology.................... 4 ITW Red Head ....................................... 13 KPFF Consulting Engineers .................... 17 National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) ...... 19
STRUCTURE (Volume 17, Number 7). ISSN 1536-4283. Publications Agreement No. 40675118. Owned by the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations and published in cooperation with CASE and SEI monthly by C3 Ink. The publication is distributed free of charge to members of NCSEA, CASE and SEI; the non-member subscription rate is $65/yr domestic; $35/yr student; $125/yr foreign (including Canada). For change of address or duplicate copies, contact your member organization(s). Any opinions expressed in STRUCTURE magazine are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C3 Ink, or the STRUCTURE Editorial Board. STRUCTURE is a registered trademark of National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). Articles may not be
Published By:
C3 Ink
C3 Ink
A Division of Copper Creek Companies, Inc. 148 Vine St., Reedsburg WI 53959 P-608-524-1397 F-608-524-4432 publisher@STRUCTUREmag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at Visit Visit STRUCTURE STRUCTURE magazine magazine on-line online at at www.structuremag.org www.structuremag.org www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE magazine
July 2010
InFocus
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
YOUR
Editorial Board
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB Burns & McDonnell Kansas City, MO chair@structuremag.org
Chair
Craig E. Barnes, P.E., SECB CBI Consulting, Inc. Boston, MA Richard Hess, S.E., SECB Hess Engineering Inc. Los Alamitos, CA Mark W. Holmberg, P.E. Heath & Lineback Engineers, Inc. Marietta, GA
Brian J. Leshko, P.E. HDR Engineering, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA John A. Mercer, P.E. Mercer Engineering, PC Minot, ND Brian W. Miller AISC Davis, CA
Mike C. Mota, P.E. CRSI Williamstown, NJ Evans Mountzouris, P.E. The DiSalvo Ericson Group Ridgeeld, CT Matthew Salveson, Ph.D., P.E. Dokken Engineering Folsom, CA
Greg Schindler, P.E., S.E. KPFF Consulting Engineers Seattle, WA Stephen P. Schneider, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. BergerABAM Vancouver, WA John Buddy Showalter, P.E. AF & PA/American Wood Council Washington, DC
Executive Editor
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE NCSEA Chicago, IL execdir@ncsea.com
STRUCTURE magazine
July 2010
Guest Column
STRUCTURE magazine
July 2010
The actual performance of an integrated ramp structure may not match the ductile behavior upon which seismic factors, such as the R factor, were based. Ramps can change the stiffness and deflection patterns of the building and change the distribution of loads to the designated seismic resisting elements, in some cases attracting a significant percentage of the force. For example, the R factor in ASCE 7-05 or the 2006 International Building Code for a special moment resisting-frame (SMRF) is 8. For comparison, the R factor for a special shear wall in a building frame system is 6. In other words, the base shear for a SMRF building is permitted to be 75% of that of a shear wall building because of the relative implied ductility (6/8) for the two systems by the code. If a ramp in a SMRF parking structure stiffens up the building, reducing the true flexibility and altering the hinge formation mechanism, then the use of R = 8 in this case is non-conservative.
Table 1: Building code changes since 1994 affecting concrete parking structures.
Intent of Code Change Specified the minimum thickness of topping slabs. Limited the spacing and bar size at lap splices for force transfer
ASCE 7-05
ASCE 12.10.2
Prestress Tendons
Excluded the use of prestressing tendons in boundary and collector elements, except for the precompression from unbonded tendons Reduced from 0.85 to 0.60 for the design of reinforcement used for diaphragm chords and collectors placed in topping slabs over precast Added requirements for precast concrete gravity frames for improved beam to column connections Prescriptive requirements for transverse reinforcement for frame members not proportioned to resist seismicinduced forces
ACI 21.9.5.2
Strength Factor,
ACI 9.3.4
ACI 21.11.4
Advantages of SuperLaminate
One size fits all Stronger than fiber wrap ISO-9000 certified plant Up to 80% faster construction time Material properties known before installation You can learn more about these products by visiting www.SuperLaminate.com www.QuakeWrap.com www.PipeMedic.com www.PileMedic.com PLEASE CALL US FOR AN EVALUATION BY ONE OF OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (520) 791-7000 OR (866) QuakeWrap [782-5397]
Strengthening of concrete & masonry walls Retrofit of beams, slabs & columns Field-manufactured cylindrical shell around square columns Repair of underwater piles without the need for costly divers (PileMedic.com)
Repair of columns below grade without the need for costly excavation (PileMedic.com)
STRUCTURE magazine
July 2010
have been raised pertaining to the discussion of highly flexible diaphragms with perimeteronly lateral restraint systems. Stiff ramps also can alter the balance of lateral resisting components, causing secondary torsion effects that redistribute the story forces, potentially increasing loads to specific seismic resisting elements.
Design Approaches
It is common practice to release ramps at grade, but to provide positive connections at the elevated parking decks. This may result in soft and/or weak story performance in areas of high seismicity. The shift from connected to disconnected levels can cause a local redistribution of the shear forces, causing the second story diaphragm to act like a transfer slab with substantial load demands. This is more critical for moment frame structures than for other structures. In some configurations, the toplevel floor may have shear-resisting elements on three sides only, and thus relies on cantilever diaphragm rotation to distribute seismic forces at that level. The horizontal irregularity types noted in the building code lack guidelines to limit cantilever diaphragm distance. It is common in the industry to neglect the interconnectivity of the story levels in the analysis stage of design. A less common approach, due to its impracticality, is to design the ramp with a physical release at each level, using expansion joints to change the structure to match the code. While analytically possible, this construction approach is impractical as the lateral seismic loads imposed by the sloped ramps, which are connected to the horizontal diaphragms on one side only, contribute to undesirable torsional effects. Additionally, the added initial cost, ongoing maintenance, and the added aesthetic drawbacks of the expansion joints further undermine this approach. Some practitioners believe that interconnecting sloped floors provide for structural toughness, judging that a well tied-together building is inherently more robust. While it is valid to assert that connected ramps provide reserve stiffness or redundancy to a building, it also is true that concurrent load paths are inherently unpredictable. Secondary systems can inadvertently absorb a disproportionate share of the load, even functioning as primary load paths. For example, stiff non-ductile ramps can dominate a moment-frame system, shortcircuiting the ductile members that are designed to dissipate the energy. Many practitioners prefer to include shear walls in the direction of the ramps, while maintaining more flexible moment-resisting
frames in the orthogonal direction. This practice allows less seismic deformation along the sloped ramps and reduces seismic loads imposed on short columns. In any event, it should be noted that ramps have two different characteristics: orthogonal and longitudinal. In the longitudinal direction, ramps act as truss elements transmitting axial forces. The concern in the orthogonal direction is the aspect ratio of the diaphragm and the deformation associated with it. Designers should properly account for these issues. In the absence of published guidelines, the best approach currently being used to study these effects is project-specific computer analysis, with each unique building being modeled to evaluate the effects of the particular ramping configuration. Todays computational tools permit more complex analysis, including flexibility of diaphragms, and more complex definitions of deck levels, including sloped ones. However, the current computer output is even more difficult to correlate with the prescribed design approach specified in the building code because seismic loads are resisted by other members of the structure such as the ramps, not just the designated lateral force-resisting system recognized by the code.
Summary
Parking structures have a number of unique characteristics, compared to conventional concrete buildings, which affect their seismic performance. While this article has focused specifically on issues regarding ramps, additional topics are addressed in the full SEAOC Blue Book article. Ramps will impact the seismic behavior of parking structures to varying degrees, depending on the interconnectivity of the ramps and the primary seismic forceresisting system. An appropriate level of analytical sophistication is required to identify and properly design for these effects. A threedimensional computer analysis, which includes consideration of the ramps, is an effective tool to capture the behavior and is highly recommended. The challenge, and responsibility, of the structural designer of a parking structure is to overcome the disparity between the configuration of the structure and the current code procedures, and to demonstrate and detail a rational load path through the structure. Mehran Pourzanjani, Chair of the Seismology Committee of the Structural Engineers Association of California, mehran@sbise.com.
STRUCTURE magazine
10
July 2010
Cracked-Concrete Solutions
IBC
2006
ICC-ES
Since the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) has been adopted by the majority of the states, choosing concrete anchors has become more complicated. Some applications now require anchors to perform in cracked concrete, while others may not. Look to Simpson Strong-Tie for the products that meet both types of anchoring challenges. Our Titen HD screw anchor, Strong-Bolt wedge anchor and SET-XP anchoring adhesive are all ICC-ES code listed for use in cracked and uncracked-concrete applications. And we still offer a full line of traditional wedge, sleeve and drop-in anchors for almost any anchoring project. When you have questions, look to us for answers. For more information visit www.simpsonanchors.com/cc or call (800) 999-5099.
Titen HD Strong-Bolt SET-XP
ICC-ES ESR-2713
ICC-ES ESR-1771
ICC-ES ESR-2508
2010 Simpson
Structural DeSign
the slab and essentially stay at this general position across the entire foundation. Chairs or dobies are typically placed at 4-foot centers to support the tendons (Figure 2); any vertical discontinuity in the strand is typically due to a missing or incorrect chair. Anchors that are located near penetrations should be adjusted to avoid blow outs. Provided the number of tendons installed matches the permitted plans, adjusting the location of a specific strand should not affect the performance; however, the tendons should not be placed more than 6 feet apart. If a gap larger than 6 feet is required, additional rebar or localized tendons may be required. Each tendon will be loaded to approximately 33,000 pounds during stressing, and a discontinuity near the anchor can cause cracking or a blow out. If the anchor or the penetration cannot be adjusted, schedule 40 steel sleeves have been successfully used in the past. The observer should also verify that any rebar placed in the bottom of the footings is clear of dirt or debris. Due to the foot traffic of the contractors, its common to have soil fall into the trench and cover the rebar. In addition to decreasing the footing depth, the soil can reduce the rebar-to-concrete bond, which will minimize its effectiveness.
Inspection
During the stressing operation, a licensed inspector is required to observe the jacking procedure and record the resulting elongations. The elongation record is the primary tool for the engineer and owner to verify permitted structural drawings have been implemented correctly. The elongation record should be sent to the engineer for review prior to removing the stressing tails. If the elongations are within 10% of the calculated value, the stressing is considered acceptable and the tails can be removed. Having the inspector list the elongation out of tolerance percentage will speed up the review process. If the elongation is outside of this tolerance, the engineer should evaluate the situation and make appropriate modifications. The author recommends taking the overall concrete section into consideration rather than focusing on a single strand. A specific tendon only has a localized affect on the concrete for the first few feet away from the anchor, until the precompression spreads into the larger foundation area. Subgrade friction is at a minimum near the slab edge, so any reduction in the tendon force should have a negligible effect on the foundation. As
Placement of Tendons
During a structural observation, the location and path of travel of the tendons should be reviewed. Localized vertical and horizontal kinks in the strands should be removed, especially if these occur near the anchor. Unless specifically detailed, the tendons should run at the center of
STRUCTURE magazine
12
July 2010
the precompression force disperses into the whole foundation, the concrete isnt able to determine what strands have a low force and which ones have a high force. The concrete only feels the total load applied by the strands. Provided the overall precompression is achieved, the as-built construction satisfies the drawings and no remedial work is required. If the engineer requires the tendons to restressed, they will have to be de-tensioned by removing the wedges, releasing all the elongation and repeating the stressing procedure. De-tensioning can be dangerous and should only be done after careful consideration by qualified personnel. If the elongation errors are more systematic (generally high or low), the engineer may want to verify that the jack and the pressure gauge were calibrated together. The stressing unit should be treated as a complete system and not as separate pieces.
Concrete Strength
The concrete used in a post-tensioned slab on ground is the same as conventionally reinforced foundations. The concrete will typically have a compressive strength of 2,500 to 4,500 psi. The 4,500 psi concrete is typically used STRUCTURE magazine
13
July 2010
to resist severe sulfates or is used on highly expansive sites where the higher strength can aid in satisfying allowable stresses. Some large tract home builders will require a minimum of 4,000 psi concrete with type V cement, since it provides moderate sulfate protection and sulfates have been an issue in home owner association litigation against developers and contractors. The use of higher strength concrete is typically useful for a post-tensioned foundation since the minimum compressive value to begin stressing will be achieved in a shorter time. The sooner the tendons are stressed, the sooner the primary reinforcement is added to the system which should minimize shrinkage cracks. Some engineers and contractors will perform a partial pre-stress to place some precompression in the system in an attempt to minimize cracking. The typical practice is to stress each strand to approximately 20% of the full value the day after the foundation was poured. The author would recommend caution for new posttensioning engineers in specifying partial pre-stressing. The more times the jack is applied to the system, the greater the chance of damaging the strand, anchor, wedges or the concrete. In addition, this practice is primarily used on slab-on-ground construction and is rarely performed on elevated post-tensioned systems even though the anchors, wedges, strands and concrete are exactly the same.
continue through the joint and use shear keys with rebar dowels to connect the adjacent slabs. Ribbed foundations will typically have a center slab dowel while the thicker mat foundations will use top and bottom bars. The joints are limited to a spacing of around 100 feet which is the typical maximum length of a singled ended pull. In addition, review of the hold downs bolts and plumbing penetrations should be taken into consideration prior to selecting a joint location. Placing a joint directly adjacent to a large uplift/post load or splitting a penetration is not recommended. Delay strips are typically three feet wide open spaces between slab pours so the tendons from each pour can be stressed. The rebar is lapped for the full width of the pour strip but should not extend into the adjacent slab. Any rebar extending from one pour to the other will act as a tension tie and eliminate any independent movement of the slabs. The time the delay strip is poured is at the engineers discretion, but is typically around 30 to 45 days to allow the adjacent pours to shrink as a smaller unit rather than be part of a larger plate. Near the end of the project, the concrete sub-contractor will often request to place the delay strip before the recommended time as occurred. From a structural point of view, there is minimal downside since the strength is not affected; however, its important that owner and architect understand additional shrinkage cracking may occur.
cracking the slab. For smaller slab areas, rebar is recommended instead of using short tendons. The maximum length of a tendon is typically around 200 feet, due to stressing limitations and realistic pour sizes. While its possible to use longer tendons, the buildup of subgrade friction and increased shrinkage crack potential usually makes this practice uneconomical. Tendons longer than 100 feet often require double ended pulls, unless specifically designed otherwise. Double ended pulls require stressing at each end of the strand, but the stressing is not done simultaneously. The stressing system (Figure 4) is placed on one end while the wedges are hammered into the opposite anchor to resist the stressing force. The jack will be fully elongated at the one end and will generate the vast majority of the required elongation. After the wedges are installed on the first stressing end, the jack is removed and placed on the other end of the tendon. The jack is loaded to the same pressure as the first stressing, but a very small elongation is expected. This second stressing is referred to as a lift off , and is primarily intended to relieve any slack or extra friction in the strand and to seat the wedges to correct gauge pressure. A double ended pull is typically indicated by arrow heads on both ends of the strand. If the tendon location and stressing is left up to the contractor or supplier, notes requiring double ended pulls for tendons beyond a certain length are recommended. For these larger foundations, it is recommended that the designer consult the concrete sub contractor to determine their preferred pour size and stressing abilities. Unlike rebar only foundations, the pour size and stressing locations should be determine during the design process so the appropriate number of tendons are specified.
Tendon Length
Tendons can be manufactured to effectively any length desired but practically range from 20 to 200 feet long. Tendons less than 20 feet long will have a very small elongation and this increases the chance of over extending the jack, over loading the tendon and possibly
STRUCTURE magazine
14
July 2010
Structural PracticeS
The uplift force imposed by wave action is an important factor that is frequently neglected by design professionals, that leads to instability and undermines the longevity of the Sea Wall structure. Many existing waterfront properties around the country, including both East and West Coast shorelines as well as shorelines of the Great Lakes, were designed using a simple bulkhead approach that neglected wave forces. As a result, many waterfront properties suffered substantial structural damage and incurred costly maintenance problems.
Relies heavily upon the weight of the wall when that weight significantly decreases due to buoyancy effect. Requires a very stiff base that can prevent wall settlement, tilting or heavy toe scour that affects wall integrity and stability. Unviable option when bedrock elevation or elevation of other suitable base significantly varies along the wall length. System B: L-Shaped Wall with Buttresses A type of wall that is more economical than a Gravity Wall and easier to construct. Buttress of the wall serves as a stiffening element for the wall itself, and allows some force redistribution in the wall based upon the stiffness of the tapered buttress element. L-Shaped wall faces exactly the same design stability issues as a Gravity Wall: Significant wave generated uplift force. Heavy reliance on soil surcharge on the hill of the wall at the time when that weight significantly decreases due to buoyancy. Requirement for very stiff base and possibility of heavy scour that can affect wall stability.
STRUCTURE magazine
16
July 2010
Wall stability is dependent upon the drilled caisson capacity to resist uplift and the effect of horizontal loads. Lack of uplift pressure on the wall base or heel, as the Diaphragm system does not have a heel. Effective span moment redistribution allowed by constant stiffness of the Deep Beam Diaphragm fixed at the wall base. Horizontally spun continuous wall supported by Deep Beam Diaphragms. Wall Diaphragm provides support for loads applied in both directions. System E: Soldier Pile System with Horizontally Spun Wall and Tie Back Anchors (Modified Bulkhead Approach) A type of wall system that is also easy to construct. The front of the wall is somewhat similar to the front wall of the diaphragm system; however, design of this wall is based on a different philosophy, as the wall derives its resistance from different elements, depending on direction of load application. Benefits of this system include: Lower cost of construction and higher adaptability of the system, as compared to the same features of traditional designs. Wall stability is not dependent on the gravity load of backfill. Low effect of soil scour in front of the wall on wall system distress. Easy maintenance.
System C: L-Shaped Wall with Buttresses Supported by Piles A type of wall, a modification of System B, that has a significant advantage over System B. Does not rely, or relies much less, on the gravity of the heel surcharge. Less susceptible to distress due to scour problem. Stability of the wall depends upon the pile capacity to resist uplift and the effect of horizontal load. Variable stiffness of the buttress T-section does not allow effective span moment redistribution, particularly when resultant of the horizontal force shifts towards the top of the wall as happens in the case of wave load or Monotobe - Okabe seismic soil wedge retained by the wall. Price of the wall can be prohibitive. System D: Diaphragm Wall System with Horizontally Spun Wall A type of wall system that is easy to construct. The wall system provides a new design philosophy for Sea Wall construction. Benefits of the system include: Lower cost of construction and more flexibility of the system, as compared to the same features of traditional designs. Wall stability is not dependent on the gravity load of backfill. Wall stability is independent of gravity of the surcharge. Low effect of soil scour in front of the wall on wall system distress. Easy maintenance.
Wall stability is dependent upon the drilled caisson capacity to resist the effect of horizontal load, and capacity of the soil anchors to resist the load in a seaward direction. Ability of elastic foundation (Caisson socket and granular soil backfill behind the composite width of the wall column) to resist the wave load in landward direction. Elastic foundation reaction in that case, is compared to the lateral capacity of mobilized passive
STRUCTURE magazine
17
July 2010
pressure. The designer must distinguish the difference between maximum possible soil passive resistance and mobilized passive pressure, as mobilized passive pressure frequently is only a fraction of maximum passive pressure resistance. Quite often, mobilized passive pressure does not exceed the pressure equivalent of the pressure exerted by the active pressure wedge. Lack of uplift pressure on the wall base. System effective span moment redistribution in both seaward and landward direction. Stiffness of the soil anchors and stiffness of specially modified backfill allows for the design of the retaining wall as a continuously spun horizontally slab. Attractive price of the wall. Wall Systems A, B and C are well-known and well-described in many sources. A general
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
concept of the Diaphragm Sea Wall, Wall System D, is represented in Figures 1 (page 16), 2 (page 17) and 3 (page 17). Wall System E is shown in Figures 4 and 5. Wall Systems D and E, however, have a common requirement for behind the wall backfill. This requirement compensates for lack of wall embedment or entrenchment into the rock or beach soil. The bottom 2-3 feet of the backfill consists of 3 to 4 inches of stone aggregate overtopped by a 2-foot thick layer of filter stone or overlaid by Geotextile filter fabric in order to prevent backfill erosion. The final advantage of Wall System D and E is derived from the fact that erosion of the soil around the front pile can be easily remedied by the use of flowable fly ash fill that can easily restore eroded soil around the pile to a preexisting or better condition. Erosion of the soil in front of the wall itself is almost never critical and does not require urgent attention. Soil in front of the wall can be restored during normal beach nourishment operations. Quite often, high flexural moments are exerted on the front piles of the Wall System E. Sometimes it is more economical to design front piles of that system as columns and not as beams. In that case, front pile should be designed with a post-tensioned rock anchor exerting compression force predetermined by wall designer. The stiffness of the Deep Beam Diaphragms fixed at the base, and a very rigid spring value of such support, allows the horizontally span retaining wall (14) to be designed as a multispan continuous horizontal slab. The Author recommends a fairly conservative three-span approach for the wall design and a five-span approach for determining the wall support reactions. To design the wall properly, the designer must check the support spring values for each set of loads in order to assure the validity of the support stiffness assumption.
The easiest to use software for calculating wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on these codes ($195.00). Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00). Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists ($100.00). Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00). Demos at: www.struware.com
2) During the wall system selection process, the Designer should understand that every flexible wall system that allows force redistribution in the horizontal direction should be designed using a set of spring values for each wall support. Each support spring value should be determined for each load combination at the level of the Horizontal Resultant force. The design should use a 3 or 5 span continuity approach, assuming pin connections at the ends of the 3 or 5 span wall. Some savings can be achieved if the designer uses spring supports only for the dynamic portion of the load. Remember that static load redistribution is a one time event causing permanent plastic deformations. 3) It is prudent to assume only half of the wave or seismic load in the mid span or alternate spans to verify the impact of the load on the supports differential movements. 4) The Designer, Owner and Contractor should collectively select the most economical Wall System. Consideration should be given to availability of materials and availability of skilled labor force. Vitaly B. Feygin, P.E. is a Marine Structural Engineer. He is a Principal Structural Engineer with Marine and Industrial Consultants , Baltimore and Tampa offices. He is an author of two patents related to Sea Walls, Composite Cofferdams, Bridge Fenders and Port Structures. Mr. Feygin can be contacted at vfeygin.mic@gmail.com.
18
July 2010
An NCEES Record is invaluable to every licensed engineer and surveyor on the go. NCEES Records are recognized nationwide. Once yours is established, you can quickly and easily have it electronically transmitted to any state licensing board to expedite the comity licensure process. Let an NCEES Record keep track of what youve accomplished, so youre free to work on whats ahead.
The three-span n-back bridge was ultimately recommended because it was the most economical alternate, limited disturbance of the creek ood plain due to balanced cantilever construction, accommodated the required unsymmetrical span arrangement, and provided a novel gateway for the subdivision.
Design
The central location of the main pre-stress force presents design challenges for the n-back bridge. Conventional hollow box sections require internal struts to carry loads to the center web/n. This is a similar design situation for cable-stayed bridges with a single plane of stays, such as the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa, Florida. To overcome the internal strut issue that would complicate cast-in-place segmental construction, the Barton Creek Bridge designers developed a constant depth triangular section with external struts supporting transverse ribs, which in turn supported an eight-inch slab spanning between the ribs (Figure 2). The triangular section allowed the central n to start at the apex of the triangular section. This junction also provided a sufcient area in which to anchor the pair of main post-tension tendons required for each segment. The bridge was designed to be built as a cast-in-place balanced cantilever using a form traveler. A typical segment length of 11feet 4 inches was selected to accommodate a reasonable size form traveler. The deck ribs and struts were located near the leading edge of each segment, again primarily for support of the form traveler. A unique aspect of the design is that the n was raised as a series of lifts above the deck. The initial lift made by the form traveler included starter bars for the n. As balanced cantilever construction advanced, the n was raised following completion of three pairs of segments. Longitudinal analysis of the superstructure indicated that shear lag, or concentration of post-tensioning force at the center of the section, was a concern during initial stages of construction. To overcome this
Project History
During 1983, the developer of The Estates of Barton Creek, Barnes Connelly Investments, negotiated with Travis County for permission to build a new road, including a landmark bridge that would minimize visual and environmental impacts to the steep slopes and ood plain of the Barton Creek gorge. The primary need for the road and bridge was to provide the shortest route from the subdivision to downtown Austin. In May 1984, the developer hired engineers, including Atlanta based Tony Gee + Quandel, Inc., to study a cost effective solution for the bridge. The developer and engineer were aware of problems and expense experienced by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in 1981 during construction of a multi-span pre-stressed concrete (PSC) girder bridge over Barton Creek, approximately six miles downstream from the proposed crossing. Due to environmental constraints, the TxDOT contractor was required to use over-the-top methods for erection of the PSC girders. This required a costly girder launching gantry in order to place the PSC girders from above. The developer and Travis County wanted to minimize the number of piers in the area near the creek. The following alternates were considered: Single-span cable-stay bridge Single-span suspension bridge Three-span cable-stay bridge Three-span conventional variable depth box girder bridge Three-span concrete n-back bridge
STRUCTURE magazine
20
July 2010
Figure 4: Underside of Barton Creek Bridge with Struts and Water Lines on Overhang and Twin Shaft Piers in the Distance. Figure 3: Barton Creek Bridge Deck and Fins Condition.
situation, a high strength post-tensioning bar was added to a beam/ parapet at the exterior edges of the deck. This progressively coupled bar was stressed following casting of each segment. To overcome the tension created by the strut geometry, the ribs were post-tensioned transversely with a four 0.6-inch strand tendon, and the main triangular webs were post-tensioned with two high strength bars located at the struts. The bridge substructure consists of two abutments and two main piers comprised of pairs of exible rectangular shafts, 3 feet thick and 11feet 4 inches apart to match the superstructure segment length. The shafts are integral with the superstructure. The twin shaft design supported out-of-balance construction loads in addition to nal wind, live loads, and shrinkage and creep forces anticipated during the life of the structure. Foundations for the abutments and piers consist of drilled shafts founded in sound limestone. Abutments are supported on four 36-inch diameter shafts between 15 to 25 feet deep. Each pier is supported on six 60-inch diameter drilled shafts, approximately 30 feet deep. Following completion of the design and contract documents in late 1984, Travis County hired HNTB to perform a design review of the unusual project. No major comments resulted from this review and the project was advertised to a group of pre-qualied contractors. Three bids were received for the bridge, with the successful contractor being Prescon Corporation, a subsidiary of a large French contractor, Campenon Bernard. The bid price was $3.6-million.
separated and moved independent of one another. The travelers were anchored to each rib by means of high strength post-tensioning bars placed in small deck block-outs. There were two disadvantages of the external ribs and struts. The rst involved the distance required for dropping the deck forms to clear the just-cast segment. The nal form traveler developed by the contractor combined partial disassembly of web, rib, and strut forms and lowering of the deck to clear all obstructions. The second disadvantage involved casting and consolidating concrete in the relatively long, slender struts. To overcome this potential problem, the designer allowed a pre-cast strut option, which the contractor ultimately chose to use for all pier table and segment struts.
Construction
Following execution for the construction contract in October 1985, the contractor immediately began design of the form traveler system. Foundation construction began in November 1985. Superstructure construction began in March of 1986 with construction of the east pier table. Following construction of the pier table, the form travelers were erected. Due to the limited length of the pier table (34 feet) the travelers were linked together to provide out-of-balance stability for the rst two pairs of segments on each side of the pier table. Following posttensioning of the rst two pairs of segments, the form travelers were STRUCTURE magazine
Acknowledgements
Owner: Travis County Engineer of Record: Tony Gee, P.E., Tony Gee + Quandel Engineers Contractor: Prescon Corporation
21
July 2010
Building Blocks
past. This is further complicated with retrofit designs. Therefore, designers need to educate themselves and be conscientious of the structural elements, parameters and factors that affect an FRP retrofit design. Over the past twenty years, externally bonded FRP systems have been used to repair and retrofit a variety of structures for a variety of reasons. FRP systems bring great qualities for retrofit designs including non-corrosive properties, lightweight, low-profile, and high strength-to-weight ratios. When properly designed, FRP can add shear strength, ductility, confinement, flexural strength and tensile capacity to exiting walls, beams, slabs and columns There are numerous factors to consider when designing an FRP system to enULS
sure the retrofit meets or exceeds the intended service life. However, there are two questions any engineer should ask before commencing with an FRP design alternative: 1) is it feasible and, 2) how difficult is obtaining building permits for the specific application and municipality? Feasibility depends on life safety and economics, an FRP solution should not be considered if failure of the FRP system would result in a catastrophic failure of the structure. Economics naturally weighs in on any design alternative, but FRPs are often prematurely eliminated as cost prohibitive before all the factors are considered. For example, the logistical advantages including ease and speed of installation often outweigh the increased price per unit price of FRP. And, with
8.0 Log (Service Life in years) 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0 -4.0 -6.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Design Strain/Tensile Breakage Strain
25
STRUCTURE magazine
22
July 2010
owners becoming sophisticated with their capital investments, the first costs versus the life-time costs of an FRP system often well outweigh a cheaper traditional solution that will require regular maintenance over the life of the repair. Now, assuming the project is feasible and the application is within the current industry practice to pull a permit, what are some of the many factors that impact the service life of an FRP system? Is the FRP supporting sustained loads or intermittent live loads, what are the environmental exposure conditions, what is the application for shear, flexure, etc., will coatings be applied? Below, each one of these topics has been elaborated to help engineers with the engineering judgment required when designing FRP retrofits and their relative service lives.
will it have load. Active structural strengthen- sustained stress. The viscolestic nature of the ing will see loading on a regular basis. This polymer matrix under sustained loads needs includes retrofitting bridges and buildings to to be properly addressed. Short term experiincrease their load carrying capacity, such as mental tests, that have traditionally been used heavier vehicles on a bridge or the change of in the aerospace industry, can be used to quickly use in a building. Some of these applications evaluate the creep behavior of the system. will be for intermittent loads such as vehicular One example is the Reiner-Weissenberg critetraffic or for long term sustained loads, such as rion. This demonstrates that higher sustained high density files placed on top of a slab ret- stresses leading to associated strains closer to rofitted with FRP. The different types of fibers the composites ultimate strain significantly behave differently under these types of loading reduce the service life. This is illustrated in the conditions. Glass fibers are the most susceptible log graph in Figure 2 and Table 1. to creep rupture, and carbon fibers are the least affected. ACI 440.2R-08 addresses this issue Environmental Conditions by placing limits on the ultimate allowable Environmental conditions play an important stress that can be used in design. This is done 1 6/2/2010 3:51:26 PM role in the service life of an FRP. Temperature, to ensure aIES-Structure-July-3rd-Pg-4C.pdf safe long term application under
CM
MY
CY
CMY
STRUCTURE magazine
23
July 2010
freeze-thaw, UV radiation and humidity can all affect the performance of both the resin and fibers. To address this issue, design guidelines use a reduction factor based on both environment and fiber type. ACI 440.2R-08 has reduction factors listed in Table 9.1 of that standard; those factors range from 0.95 for carbon FRPs with interior exposure to 0.50 for glass FRPs used in an aggressive environment. These reduction factors are used for both the ultimate tensile strength and ultimate strain. It is not applied to the modulus, which is typically unaffected by the environment. In the final design equations, it is the modulus that is used along with the calculated design strain. So the reduction factors ensure a factor of safety by providing upper bounds on the strain and stress. This ensures the long term performance of the FRP, and indirectly the service life.
could not be reached of the cause, so it was decided that proof testing would be completed to establish the existing capacity. FRP composite was used to make the difference between demand and capacity. Since there was some uncertainty of the existing double-tees capacity, the FRP was considered primary reinforcement and would require a fire protection system. The design service life of the project will be conservative considering the interior application, final coating, and low stress that the FRP composite was designed for.
Conclusions
Service life of structures has a long way to go before it is treated as scientifically as the rest of the structure by the engineering profession. The very use of FRP systems to retrofit structures and extend their service lives inherently complicates the process. Thus, it will continue to depend on engineering judgment to tabulate and assess all of the parameters and factors that contribute to a structurally durable FRP retrofit. The sustained stress should not exceed set limits to avoid creep rupture, coatings should be considered in order to protect against UV degradation, exposure to fire must be considered, and so on. With so many parameters influencing FRP service life, engineers should be careful to choose a system that has been validated by both structural and environmental durability testing. However, when properly designed, an FRP retrofit can add significant service life to a structure and be one of the best design alternatives to our aging infrastructure. Zachery I. Smith, P.E., is a Regional Manager for Fyfe Co. LLC and can be reached at (zach@fyfeco.com), Scott F. Arnold, P.E., is a Vice President for Fyfe Co. LLC and can be reached at (scott@fyfeco.com), and Guijun Xian is a Material Scientist for Fyfe Co. LLC.
Coatings
Coatings can provide significant protection to the FRP, and increase the performance and service life. Due to the variety of coatings available for the different FRP systems, the design should ensure that any coating that is used has been tested with the FRP System. This will ensure that the coating will stay well adhered and provide protection from the environment. It should also be noted that the FRP itself provides environmental protection to the reinforced concrete member to which it is bonded. There have been several studies demonstrating that the use of FRP can reduce rates of corrosion and extend the service life of a structure. It is also important to consider coatings and how they relate to loading type. FRP installations that are designed to carry long-term sustained load must consider if a fire rating is required. Other installations designed as passive members might require a flame and smoke spread rating. It is important to check the local requirements and properly coat the FRP if required.
STRUCTURE magazine
24
July 2010
Finite element analysis & design of reinforced, precast ICF & tilt-up concrete walls
Analysis, design & investigation of reinforced concrete beams & one-way slab systems
Design & investigation of rectangular, round & irregularly shaped concrete column sections
Analysis, design & investigation of reinforced concrete beams & slab systems
Finite element analysis & design of reinforced concrete foundations, combined footings or slabs on grade
StructurePoints suite of productivity tools are so easy to learn and simple to use that youll be able to start saving time and money almost immediately. And when you use StructurePoint software, youre also taking advantage of the Portland Cement Associations more than 90 years of experience, expertise, and technical support in concrete design and construction.
Visit StructurePoint.org to download your trial copy of our software products. For more information on licensing and pricing options please call 847.966.4357 or e-mail info@StructurePoint.org.
STR 6-09
InSIghtS
new trends, new techniques and current industry issues
Process Distinction(s)
Produces very tight radii (typically limited to 180 degree of bend)
The typical method of curving steel for construction Usually the most economical for rolling members with tighter radii Typically bent to larger radii than the rotary draw/ compression bending This is the typical method used for cambering beams Good for larger sections bent to larger radii A patented process performed by only one bender in the US Typically this method allows for tighter radii with better levels of distortion control when compared to Point Bending / Gag Pressing Expensive and rarely used as an initial bending method unless other methods cannot be used Allows for members to be bent very tight with low levels of distortion
Profile rolls for bending in the 8D and above range (capable of 360 degree of bend)
Repair applications
All shapes
Induction Bending
Not commonly used and can be expensive Produces curved steel with little distortion Applies principles of both Rotary draw and Heat Bending, but allows the bending of larger members to very tight radii
Situations that require larger diameter shapes with heavy wall thicknesses to have a smaller, tighter radius
Erin J. Gachne Conaway, P.E., LEED AP is the Intermountain West Regional Engineer with the American Institute of Steel Construction. Erin may be contacted at conaway@aisc.org. Jacinda L. Collins, P.E. is an AISC Steel Solutions Center advisor. Jacinda may be contacted at collins@aisc.org. The online version of this article contains references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
STRUCTURE magazine
26
July 2010
Not listed? Please contact STRUCTURE magazine at guides@STRUCTUREmag.org with your company information. Listings are provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE magazine is not responsible for errors.
Company
ADAPT Corporation Phone: 650-306-2400 Email: info@adaptsoft.com Web: www.adaptsoft.com AltusGroup Phone: 866-462-5887 Email: info@altusprecast.com Web: www.altusprecast.com
Product
ADAPT-PT 201
Description
ADAPT-PT is easy-to-use and versatile software for the design of prestressed beams, beam frames, oneway and two-way oor systems. It handles pre-cast, pre-stressed as well as cast-in place, post-tensioned members. Carries out full code checks and calculation of required reinforcement. Insulated Architectural Cladding offers weight reductions of about 40% compared to solid, 6-inch thick precast concrete wall panels; engineered to deliver insulation values of R-8 or more in addition to a lower carbon footprint. High Performance Insulated Wall Panels use C-GRID carbon ber grid as a shear connector between inner and outer wythes of concrete. Rapid Set is a brand of fast-setting cement products used in concrete applications requiring the highest durability and fastest strength gain, achieving structural or drive-on strength in one hour. Applications include structural, architectural, and ornamental precast, concrete repairs, and smoothing. With a unique wedge design, reduced requirements for edge distance and anchor spacing, Hilti KwikBolt (KB) or KB-TZ Expansion Anchors can be used for many applications including pre-cast and tilt-wall construction. The Hilti Kwik-Bolt TZ Anchor is qualied with ACI 355.2 and ACI 193 for use in seismic design environments. iLevel offers a single source for quality concrete forming materials, including TimberStrand LSL form boards, along with rebar, remesh, anchor bolts, wire and steel construction stakes. Technical representatives are available to assist with component selection, transporting to multiple job sites upon request and just-in-time delivery. RISA-3D is the premiere choice for the design of concrete beams and columns. With nite element analysis, the design of both conventional and unconventional framing layouts is possible. T-Beam design, biaxial column design, custom rebar layouts, and 11 different design codes all combine to make RISA3D your most exible solution. Upgraded to ACI 318-08, PCAs concrete design suite is now: spSlab, spColumn, spMats, spWall, spBeam & spFrame.
CarbonCast Insulated Architectural Cladding and High Performance Insulated Wall Panels Rapid Set Cement Products
Hilti Phone: 800-879-8000 Email: custserv@us.hilti.com Web: www.us.hilti.com iLevel by Weyerhaeuser Phone: 888-453-8358 Email: ilevel@weyerhaeuser.com Web: www.iLevel.com
Expansion Anchors
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815 Email: info@risatech.com Web: www.risa.com RISA-3D
STRUCTUREPOINT
Phone: 847-966-4357 Email: info@structurepoint.org Web: www.StructurePoint.org Tendon Systems, LLC Phone: 678-835-1100 Email: Brad@TendonLLC.com Web: www.TendonLLC.com
Tendon Systems provides and installs post-tensioning systems, Shearail shear stud reinforcement and barrier cable to vehicular restraint.
SA VE THE W ALL!
Helical Wall Tie System for Stabilizing Veneers and Crack Repair
Strengthen and stabilize masonry faades while adding veneer stiffness for added decades of protection and comfort. CTP has engineered anchor performance solutions for claddings of brick and stone. A selection of corrosion resistant products are available to re-anchor brick to wood, concrete, steel, block, brick, metal stud, or tile back-ups.
CTP Stitch-Tie
Mechanical Anchors for Stabilizing Stone Panel Veneers
CTP Grip-Max
For Brick Additions or Replacement; and for Brick Veneer Stud Cavity Wall Construction. Veneer Anchoring System That Keeps the Air Barrier Intact and the Veneer in Place.
CTP CT-16
Construction Tie Products, Inc. is committed to supplying the highest quality masonry tie and construction systems in North America and satisfying all stringent national codes and standards for today's building structures. CTP, Inc. promises to be a reliable product source along with on-time business integrity for all demanding builders.
ANOTHER ORIGINAL!
CTP
NEW!
CTP GRIP-MAX*
* Patent Pending
a Multifunctional Triangle Wall Tie That Can be Used in Standard or Seismic Veneer Anchoring Applications
CTP Grip-Tie
Mechanical Repair Anchors for Stabilizing Veneers
Contact our Technical Services Team with your repair application needs for a cost effective and performance targeted veneer stabilizing solution.
7974 W. Orchard Drive Michigan City, Indiana 46360-9390 USA Phone: (219) 878-1427 Contact: Steve Getz, BSCE www.ctpanchors.com
Engineered Anchoring Solutions Provider
STRUCTURE magazine
27
July 2010
Exhibitors:
American Institute of Steel Construction Azz Galvanizing Services CMC Steel Products Construction Tie Products ConXtech, Inc. CSC Inc DESIGN DATA Fabreeka International Inc. FYFE COMPANY, LLC Grace Construction Products Hardy Frames, Inc. Hilti ITW Red Head LINDAPTER NORTH AMERICA, INC. Singer Nelson Charlmers Powers Fasteners RedBuilt, LLC RISA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC SidePlate Systems, Inc. Simpson Strong-Tie TurnaSure LLC Valmont Industries Vector Corrosion Technologies
Visit the NCSEA website (www.ncsea.com) to view the limited number of exhibitor booth spaces still available, or contact Emile Troup steelstruk@aol.com.
Sponsors:
ACEC New York Bentley Systems, Incorporated Cives Steel Company Concrete Industry Board, Inc. Girder-Slab Technologies, LLC ITW Red Head Nicholson & Galloway Powers Fasteners Simpson Strong-Tie Skyline Steel West NY Restoration of CT Wheeling Corrugating
Register at www.ncsea.com.
NCSEA News
To become a sponsor of this event, please contact Erica Fischer ericafischer@gmail.com or Melissa Melissa@ncsea.com.
STRUCTURE magazine
28
July 2010
NCSEA News
Wind Load Design for Storm Shelters and Critical Facilities, Marc Levitan Wind Load Design for Industrial Structures and Appurtenances, Marc Levitan Wood and Cold-Formed Steel Trusses, Ed Huston ATC-58, Ron Hamburger Design Considerations for Ponding Loads on Roofs, Tom Wallace
STRUCTURE magazine
29
July 2010
Structural Columns
30
July 2010
Structural Columns
2010 Award Recipients, left to right: Roberto Leon, Wesley J. Oliphant, Mike Ritter, Joseph Yura, Donald White, Todd Helwig, Gustavo ParraMontesinos, Chong Zhou, Jon Peterka, and Reagan Herman.
Ed DePaola, P.E., M. ASCE is President/CEO of Severud Assoc. Consulting Engineers PC, New York. Over the past 30 years, he has designed many projects including high-rise buildings, long-span facilities and special structures requiring innovative structural solutions. He has a B.S. in Civil Engineering and M.S. in Structural Engineering from the Univ. of Notre Dame, and a J.D. from Seton Hall School of Law. He is one of the Founding Members and Past President of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), Chairman of the ASCE Tensile Membrane Structure Standards Committee, and a professor at NYU School of Continuing Education. He is Co-Chair of the Building Departments New York City Model Code Program for the adoption of the structural portions of the IBC Building Code. He was Principal-in-charge of the American Airlines Terminal Redevelopment Project at JFK International Airport, and the roof and enclosure structures at the Denver International Airport. Currently, he is Principal-in-Charge of One Bryant Park, the 1,200-foot tall office building nearing completion in midtown Manhattan. It is the second tallest building in NYC and will be the first high-rise office structure in the world to receive a LEED Platinum rating. Full Name:
(Please print)
Return postmarked no later than July 31, 2010 to: SEI Board Election, 1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Reston VA 20191.
Pat McCormick SEI 2010 Write-in vote:_______________________________ Board of Governors Election Codes and Standards Activities Division Ofcial Ballot Ed DePaola Write-in vote:_______________________________
STRUCTURE magazine
31
July 2010
CASE Spring Risk Management Convocation in Orlando Scores Big with Attendees!
The CASE Spring Risk Management Convocation took place on May 14th during the first-ever combined NASCC/Structures Congress in Orlando, Florida. All of the CASE sessions were well received and had considerable attendance, including the CASE Breakfast which featured David Ratterman, AISC Secretary and General Counsel. His talk centered on the AISC Code of Standard Practice. Other CASE sessions held during the afternoon included Steel Design Dos and Donts, A Project Managers Day, and Managing Expectations and Risk during the Steel Detailing Process. Next year the CASE Spring Convocation will be held in conjunction with the Structures Congress in Las Vegas, NV, April 14-16, 2011.
an innovative trade show, a full complement of tours, and entertaining networking events. The Conference will address industry trends, markets, and business practices in a continued challenging economy. For more details and to pre-register go to www.acec.org/conferences/fall-10/registration.cfm. You will receive a discounted registration price if you pre-register prior to July 31st so dont delay!
CASE in Point
STRUCTURE magazine
32
July 2010
CASE in Point
STRUCTURE magazine
33
July 2010
similar approach, except for the additional complexity involved in the calculations. In this formulation, even though overall system design is consequence-based, the design of individual members is still probability-based and all requirements in current codes would still apply, with the additional proviso for consequence factors.
Benefits
An advantage of the system-based approach is the possibility of optimizing robustness to prevent minor damages from causing disproportionately large consequences. Robustness, a subset of structural integrity, is an important property about the form and/or connectedness of the structure and a major governing factor in system behavior, but has been neglected in modern codes due to a lack of theoretical understanding of its contribution to capacity. It provides a measure of the quality of system configuration and may be obtained by separating geometrical/topological properties from material properties through decomposition of the stiffness matrix K. This approach provides a tool to optimize the assembly of members through innovative configurations, resulting in new designs limited only by the creativity of the designer. It is also possible to use memberbased, probability-oriented design for service requirements and high-likelihood environmental events, while using consequence-oriented, system-based design for low-likelihood events (e.g., multihazard occurrence) to leverage the robustness property of configurations. This can reduce the design cost without compromising overall safety. The system-based approach is also appropriate for brittle materials like glass, which fail suddenly without prior warning, or for temporary structures with limited service life. Finally, the consideration of failure consequences at the design stage helps to mitigate the impact of building misuse, or design and construction errors. Avinash M. Nafday, Ph.D, M.B.A., P.E., is with the California State Lands Commission, Marine Facilities Division, Long Beach, California. He can be reached at nafday@yahoo.com. The online version of this article contains references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
System-Based Design
Structural design for natural and manmade hazards or specified loads has two components: the likelihood of the postulated hazard or load event (probabilistic aspect) and what happens when such an event actually occurs (consequences). Risk is determined by the combination of these factors. System-based design would necessarily be secondary. In the primary stage, the structure would be proportioned using the current probability-inspired, member-based code provisions, including appropriate minimum joint resistance and continuity. Thereafter, the members would be examined and, if necessary, re-designed to ensure adequate structural system integrity, based on their role and importance in contributing to adverse system consequences. These consequences can be characterized in terms of collapse or any other pre-defined performance criterion. The level of modification for a member is identified through the Member Consequence Factor, Cf, which accounts for its contribution to the undesirable system response. The consequence factor for the ith structural member is defined as the ratio of | KNi | to | KN |, where KNi is the normalized stiffness matrix after removal of the ith member from the system. These consequence factors for all n members range from 0 to 1; the lower the factor, the more critical the member is for system safety. A consequence factor of 0 indicates that removal of the member results in immediate structural failure. Cf can be used as an additional partial safety factor on the resistance side of the memberbased code equations for implementation of system-based structural design. It is also possible to investigate various failure strings comprised of multiple member failures (with Cf still in range 0-1) with a
Structural Forum
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
34
July 2010