Structure201001 PDF

A
J
o
i
n
t

P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
C
S
E
A

|

C
A
S
E

|

S
E
I
S

T

R

U

C

T

U

R

E
January 2010
Concrete
Special Section
Anchors, Piers,
Foundations, and
Underground
Construction
Jan10 cover saddle stitch.indd 1 12/18/2009 8:45:44 AM
Powers Fasteners, Inc.
2 Powers Lane
Brewster, NY 10509
www.powers.com
P: (914) 235-6300
F: (914) 576-6483
Keep on top of the latest building code changes now
requiring code listed and compliant anchors in all states.
Powers has the products, the tools and the information you
need to help you specify compliant anchors.
Powers currently has the most code compliant anchors on the market*,
satisfying a range of needs including mechanical and adhesive anchors.
Our FREE PDA software is an anchor design interface
that puts technical data into a real-time environment
to help you visualize, consider
and specify anchors with our tabbed Design
feature, pull-down menu options, interactive
3-D graphics and anchor information bar.
Understanding the newcode is vital. Powers
makes information about compliancy a
priority, offering informational pieces,
and a hotline to connect you one-to-one with an expert who can help
answer your questions.
Get Compliant with Powers.
* AS OF DECEMBER 2009, 46 STATES INTHE USAHAVEADOPTEDEITHERTHE 2003 OR 2006
INTERNATIONAL BUILDINGCODE.
Powers can help you
make the change efficiently.
Blank.indd 1 12/11/2009 4:45:36 PM
X5-1/2 ft. Panels of
PRE-CUT FLEXIBLE FLASHING
1
All main components
are factory-assembled
onto easy-to-mount
fashing panels.
ZBuilt-In
TERMINATION BARS
with pre-drilled holes, allow quick,
one-man installation.
YBuilt-In
NO-CLOG DRAINAGE MATTE
lets water pass, unobstructed to Weep Tabs.
\Clearly Specifed
LAP JOINTS
enforce complete
secure coverage.
[Built-In
EDGE DAM
directs
moisture
out of
building.
^Built-In
NO-CLOG
WEEP TABS
deliver
moisture to
the outside
of the
building.
]Built-In
STAINLESS STEEL
DRIP EDGE
releases moisture
away from building.
18
PreFormed
Corner
Boots,
Stainless
Steel
Corners
& End
Dams are
available,
for perfect
corners
every time
Every modern moisture-control element has been built right
into each lightweight, easy-to-use panel of pre-cut, 40-mil ashing,
so everything you need arrives in one order. You just open the
carton and start installing total protection! (Available in sizes for
restoration, renovation, or remediation, too.)
ONE Mason Can Install
TOTALFLASH In 1/3
RD
THE TIME
It Takes For TWO Masons To Install
Ordinary Flashing Elements!
Thats right--one-third the time, meaning
one-third the labor costs! See for yourself:
go to www.MortarNet.com and watch
the exciting TOTALFLASH CHALLENGE
competition, held at 2008s World of
Concrete convention.
All Screws & Adhesive Tubes
included in
each box of
TOTALFLASH
1
Standard height is 18; 12, 15, and custom heights and confgurations are avail-
able for restoration work, windows, doors, etc. Uses 40-mil polymeric, reinforced,
UV stable fashing membrane, incorporating DuPonts Elvaloy KEE polymer.
Blank.indd 1 12/14/2009 8:51:59 AM
Blank.indd 1 11/5/2009 10:07:48 AM
STRUCTURE magazine January 2010
C O N T E N T S
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.
32
24
10
1300 arbitrarily arranged
openings and a diagonal
structural grid exoskeleton
sculpt a unique tower in the
UAE. O-14 brings together
inspired rhythms in concrete
and innovative structural solutions to create
a new icon for the Dubai skyline. Read more
about this structure on page 30 of this issue.
A Joint Publication of NCSEA | CASE | SEI
S

T

R

U

C

T

U

R

E
January 2010
Concrete
Special Section
Anchors, Piers,
Foundations, and
Underground
Construction
FEATURES
IN EVERY ISSUE
ON THE COVER
5
30 O-14: Elegant Rhythms in Concrete
By Jaime M. Ocampo
A truly unique and iconic structure on the Dubai skyline, O-14s perforated concrete
exterior shell is its main architectural feature and also its primary structural system.
This exoskeleton-sunscreen wall features more than 1,300 openings of different sizes,
arranged in an apparently random pattern.
32 Avalon Tower
By Sheila Bacon Cain
At the new Avalon Towers residential project in downtown Bellevue, WA, designers
have streamlined traditional ways of designing structural systems and steel placement
to make construction quicker and more economically efcient. This is the rst
construction project in the U.S. to use a high-strength, 90 ksi rebar product in the
structures columns and shear walls.
34 Special Section Anchors, Piers, Foundations, and Underground Construction
By Larry Kahaner
Navigating through the current economic downturn is tough for foundation and
foundation-related businesses. Many of the most successful rms are weathering the
storm by keeping their debt low, expanding markets, increasing offerings, responding
to trends and helping their customers to save money.
COLUMNS
DEPARTMENTS
7 Editorial
The Right to Petition the Government
By Douglas Ashcraft, P.E., S.E.
9 InFocus
Engineers Are Persons, Too
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
10 Building Blocks
General Considerations for Post-
Tensioned Slabs on Ground
By Bryan Allred, S.E.
14 Education Issues
Alternatives to Matrix Methods
By Marc Hoit, Ph.D.
16 Technology
What Computers Might Be Able to Do
By William M. Bulleit, Ph.D., P.E.
18 Structural Design
Post-Yield Stiffness Effects on
Moment Redistribution in Continuous
Reinforced Concrete Beams
By Pedro Silva, Ph.D., P.E.
22 Structural Sustainability
Extraordinary Sustainable Thinking
for Ordinary Projects
By Ruben Aya-Welland, P.E., S.E.,
LEED AP
24 Engineers Notebook
Antiquated Structural Systems Series
Part 10
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E.,
F. ASCE, SECB
45 Risk Management
Management Guidelines
By James Lefter, P.E., M. ASCE
48 Business Practices
Digital Signatures
By Dr. Gadi Aharoni
50 Legal Perspectives
Cost Estimates, Project Budgets,
and the Structural Engineer
By David J. Hatem, Esq. and
David M. Ponte, P.E.
44 Resource Guide
(Anchor Updates)
52 NCSEA News
54 SEI Structural Columns
56 CASE in Point
58 Advertiser Index
TOC-Jan10.indd 1 12/22/2009 9:25:09 AM
CRSIs nationwide Region Manager network focuses on
local marketing, technical and membership support.
VISIT US AT BOOTH #N2837 DURING
WORLD OF CONCRETE 2010!
Visit www.crsi.org or call 847-517-1200 for membership information and to view
our entire selection of popular publications, software and technical resources.
The Complete Source
Reinforcing Bars: Anchorages and Splices (5th edition) contains complete information on development and
splicing of reinforcing bars. Features technical data on mechanical splices including load tests for Type 1 and
Type 2 splices. Includes extensive tables of development and lap splice lengths for uncoated and epoxy-coated
reinforcing bars. Also includes expanded information on headed bars. Based on ACI 318-08 and AASHTO
bridge specifications.
Industry Standards for Reinforced Concrete Construction
The 28th edition of the Manual of Standard Practice contains information on recommended industry practices
for estimating, detailing, fabricating, and placing reinforcing steel for reinforced concrete construction. New
material includes a list of specific information on structural drawings that is required by the ACI 318 Building
Code and updated illustrations of the markings on Grade 60 and Grade 75 reinforcing bars.
The NEW Must Have Design Resource
The CRSI Design Handbook has been the reference book for cast-in-place reinforced concrete design since
1952. The 10th edition provides the necessary information needed for common rein forced concrete structural
members such as columns, beams, footings, pile caps, retaining walls, and floor systems. The entire Hand-
book is updated to include the Unified Design concepts presented in ACI 318-08, Section 10.3 and
load factors in Section 9.2.
INDUSTRY-TRUSTED PUBLICATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONALS
The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) is the authoritative resource for all items related to concrete construction using reinforcing steel.
CRSI serves architects, engineers, contractors and other construction professionals through our design manuals, technical publications,
educational seminars and membership opportunities. Since 1924, CRSI has worked to increase the use of reinforcing steel in concrete
construction projects from residential and commercial buildings to highways and bridges.
CRSI membership consists of two classifications. Corporate Members are industry-affiliated businesses including concrete contractors,
fabricators, producers and placers. Professional Members are architects, engineers and other professions closely related to the industry.
Together, they form a complete network of vital industry information and support related to steel reinforced concrete construction.
The reinforcing steel industry is a specialized division of concrete construction. Through involvement in CRSI, our members:
Enjoy priority access to technical support and industry resources
Are supported through targeted marketing promotions of reinforced concrete at a National, Regional and Local level
Participate in valuable forecasting, peer discussions, benchmarking and business development events
Receive timely industry and market reports and substantial discounts on all CRSI publications and software
A Definitive Resource
CRSIs unique and popular Placing Reinforcing Bars presents the best accepted current field practices in placing
reinforcing bars. It is written for apprentices, journeymen ironworkers and inspectors. Definitive resource for
preparing provisions in project specifications. Eighteen heavily illustrated chapters cover topics such as materials,
handling bars at the jobsite, general principles for bar placing, splicing, and tying; placing bars in footings, walls,
columns, floors, roofs, pavements and highway structures; and epoxy-coated reinforcing bars.
Blank.indd 1 12/7/2009 2:07:37 PM
Editorial
7
The Right to Petition the Government
By Douglas Ashcraft, P.E., S.E.
Chair, Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE)
William E. Simon, the former Secretary of the Treasury under the
Nixon and Ford administrations, discussing voter apathy, said, Bad
politicians are sent to Washington by good people who dont vote.
It is easy to believe that the things that are happening in politics are
beyond our control and there is no reason to get involved. We have a
constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of
grievances. We should not give back that right simply by not availing
ourselves of it.
There are many issues that ACEC and CASE are tracking at the
federal and state levels that have a direct effect on the business of
structural engineering. ACEC and the various practice coalitions, like
CASE, form one of the largest lobbying groups in the nation and are
very effective in presenting the views of the engineering community to
Congress and the state legislatures.
The reason why structural engineers must petition the government
can be seen in these four issues; The 3 percent withholding mandate,
Qualications Based Selection, resisting efforts of government to do
design work in-house, and funding for programs that will aid the public
through better design. Let us explore these issues in detail.
Set to take effect in 2012, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation
Act of 2005 mandates that all federal, state and local governments
withhold three percent from fees paid to engineering rms for goods
and services, ostensibly to prevent tax evasion. Instead of providing
greater enforcement against tax cheats, this bill would penalize all
engineering rms doing business with all levels of government. There
are many unintended consequences to this bill. The cost to government
just to implement this requirement is estimated to run into the billions
of dollars. Cash ow issues may affect rms as they try to complete the
project with only 97% of the negotiated fee, and rms may be required
to increase billing rates to make up for this requirement. Firms that
sub-contract to other design rms may feel pressure from their clients
to reduce fees to ameliorate its effect on the Prime rm.
Fortunately, the complaints of ACEC to this bill has led over 200
House and Senate members to co-sponsor HR 275 and S. 292 that
would repeal this mandate. All engineering rms that do business
with government should pay close attention to these corrective pieces
of legislation.
Qualications Based Selection of design work has been in the federal
law via the Brooks Act since 1972 and is required in 46 states. QBS
requires that engineering rms be selected based on their qualications
to effectively do the job with fees negotiated after selection. Opponents
of QBS believe that the cheapest rm can perform just as well as a more
qualied one. QBS protects the public welfare by ensuring that design
of the public infrastructure is only done by qualied rms. Smaller rms
that have experience in a niche market are protected by QBS from larger
rms that can underbid in a fee-shopping environment. QBS enhances
the design outcome by putting qualied and experienced designers on
the job that can bring innovative and time and cost-saving ideas to the
project. For public work, the taxpayer is best served by design rms that
are selected by qualications rather than price.
ACEC and the state member organizations are constantly on the
lookout for legislation that tries to limit this procurement approach.
This year, Texas saw just such an attempt by a mis-guided legislator.
With the help of Texas CEC, and other engineering and architecture
organizations, this attempt was defeated. Some federal agencies are
not as aware of this law as they should be. If your rm is asked
by an agency to provide fee quotes along with your qualications
proposal, you should immediately remind them of the Brooks Act
and ask ACEC for help.
Another procurement issue that affects engineering rms is the tendency
of some federal and state agencies to engage in commercial activities that
are traditionally done by the private sector. The present administration
seems to be leaning toward restricting the ability of agencies to contract
out for services by issuing restrictive regulations that place additional
requirements on contracts, making them more expensive to oversee.
This view overlooks the wide range of experience in the private sector
that, by its competitive nature, brings down the cost of design and
construction of projects. Agencies that contract out can quickly adapt
to changing workloads by contracting only for services needed at the
time. Agencies that try to keep more work in house lose all of those
advantages, often leading to inefcient use of the work force and the
stiing of innovation. The press often reports the cost differential
between private sector work and work done by government employees
by comparing the billing rate of the private sector rm to the raw salary
costs of the government. This ignores the indirect costs that also affect
the government, but are hidden in another budget.
The FAIR Act sets forth the principle that the government should
not compete against it citizens by providing design services within the
government. ACEC lobbies against any legislation or executive order
that violates this principle.
Funding for research projects is limited. The structural engineering
community should lobby for funds for research in such elds as seismic
design, green construction, and hurricane hazard mitigation and many
others. The squeaky wheel gets the grease is an apropos phrase that
suits this issue. Congress needs to
know the issues that affect the pub-
lic safety and welfare, and where
research dollars could be most effec-
tively spent to achieve this aim.
Please go to ACEC.org and click
on Advocacy to read more about
these and many other issues that
affect the broader engineering com-
munity. Those that are not members
of ACEC and CASE should con-
sider joining to add your voice to
those already lobbying on your
behalf. Get involved in politics at
the local, state or national level and
make a difference.
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
Index-Ed-InFoc-Jan10.indd 1 12/22/2009 9:26:52 AM
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org
Visit STRUCTURE magazine on-line at
www.structuremag.org
of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Visit STRUCTURE magazine online at
www.STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURE
(Volume 17, Number 1). 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 C
3
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, C
3
Ink, or the
STRUCTURE Editorial Board.
STRUCTURE
is a registered trademark of
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA).
Published By:
C
3
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
C
3
Ink
ADVERTISING ACCOUNT MANAGER
Interactive Sales Associates
Chuck Minor Dick Railton
Eastern Sales Western Sales
847-854-1666 951-587-2982
sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
EDITORIAL STAFF
Executive Editor Jeanne Vogelzang, JD, CAE
execdir@ncsea.com
Editor Christine M. Sloat, P.E.
Associate Editor Nikki Alger
Graphic Designer Rob Fullmer
graphics@STRUCTUREmag.org
Web Developer William Radig
webmaster@STRUCTUREmag.org
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
National Council of Structural
Engineers Associations
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
Executive Director
312-649-4600
execdir@ncsea.com
Council of American Structural Engineers
David Bixby
Director, Coalitions
202-347-7474
case@STRUCTUREmag.org
Structural Engineering Institute
John E. Durrant, P.E.
Manager
ASCE Engineering Programs
703-295-6360
sei@STRUCTUREmag.org
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE
8

A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
www.quakewrap.com www.pipemedic.com www.superlaminate.com www.pilemedic.com
SuperLaminate
- Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System

Introducing the Next Generation of FRP
* * * * *
T
wenty years ago, in a landmark
arcle published in Concrete
Internaonal, QuakeWrap President,
Professor Mo Ehsani introduced a radi-
cal idea to the construcon industry,
namely strengthening of structures by
epoxy bonding of FRP products. In the
following years, we received the rst
U.S. Naonal Science Foundaon grants
to study Seismic Behavior of Columns
and Masonry Walls retroed with
FRP. These pioneering eorts laid the
foundaon for a world-wide accepted
technique for repair and retrot of
structures. Today we lead this industry
again by introducing SuperLaminate,
the next generaon of FRP products.
SuperLaminate is a pre-cured FRP
sheet manufactured in our ISO-9000
cered plant oering endless com-
binaons of strength and sness in
dierent direcons. The thin semi-
exible sheets are supplied in 300 feet
(90 m) long rolls that can be as wide as
50 inches (1270 mm) and oer major
cost-savings for many construcon
projects. A single roll can be used to
construct innite numbers of cylindri-
cal shells with diameters larger than 8
inches (200 mm). You can learn more
about these products by vising
www.superlaminate.com.
Advantages:
One size ts all
Stronger than ber wrap
ISO-9000 cered plant
Up to 80% faster construcon me
Material properes known before
installaon
Strengthening
of concrete &
masonry walls
Retrot of
beams, slabs
and columns
Repair of un-
derwater piles
without the
need for costly
divers
Repair of
columns below
grade without
the need for
costly excavaon
Trenchless
repair of pipes
and culverts,
including spot
repair
Blast retrot
of structures
Field-manufac-
tured cylindrical
shell around
square columns
(PipeMedic.com) (PileMedic.com)
(PileMedic.com)
PLEASE CALL US FOR A FREE EVALUATION BY ONE OF OUR STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERS. (520) 791-7000 OR (866) QuakeWrap [782-5397]

A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
Have you viewed the online,
digital version of STRUCTURE?
See the October thru January issues, as well as
Trade Show in Print, at www.structuremag.org.
Links and web addresses are live.
NCSEA News is video-enhanced
(November and December).
Chair
Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
Burns & McDonnell
Kansas City, MO
chair@structuremag.org
Executive Editor
Jeanne M. Vogelzang, JD, CAE
NCSEA
Chicago, IL
execdir@ncsea.com
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
Editorial Board
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.
Kramer Gehlen & Associates, Inc.
Vancouver, WA
John Buddy Showalter, P.E.
AF & PA/American Wood Council
Washington, DC
InFocus
thoughts from a member of the Editorial Board
9
Engineers Are Persons, Too
By Jon A. Schmidt, P.E., SECB
In my last two columns, I discussed Bernard Lonergans cognitional
theory (How We Know and What It Means, September 2009) and
Hubert Dreyfuss critique of articial intelligence (What Computers
Cant Do, November 2009). This time, I would like to draw from both
of those perspectives to contemplate what it means to be a person, guided
by complementary notions derived from the writings of J. P. Moreland,
and note how this is integral to what it means to be an engineer.
In my view, each individual is a unique, irreducible, and enduring
self who possesses active power, an essential ability that has three
important qualities:
It is original I can exert it to bring about that which would not
happen otherwise.
It is categorical I can exert it or refrain from exerting it at my
sole discretion.
It is teleological I can exert it for the sake of specic ends
or purposes.
We routinely and consciously use this faculty in ve different modes of
personal agency, each of which addresses a particular kind of mental state:
1) As a perceptual agent, I notice sensations.
2) As an intellectual agent, I entertain thoughts.
3) As a rational agent, I adopt beliefs.
4) As a moral agent, I weigh desires.
5) As a volitional agent, I make choices.
As it turns out, these correspond rather nicely to Lonergans transcen-
dental precepts (TPs) if we split the fourth one into two separate levels:
1) Experience Being attentive in examining the data presented.
2) Understanding Being intelligent in envisaging
possible explanations.
3) Judgment Being reasonable in evaluating which is most likely.
4) Deliberation Being considerate in exploring potential courses
of action.
5) Decision Being responsible in electing to proceed accordingly.
This requires a similar adjustment to the question types:
1) Descriptive What do I observe? How do I feel?
2) Interpretive What is it? How and why is it so?
3) Reective Is it really so? Do I have it right?
4) Prescriptive What should I do? How and why should I do so?
5) Normative Should I really do so? Would it be worthwhile?
We can also delineate two more categories of insights:
Conjectural Postulating a plausible account of a given state
of affairs.
Conditional Ascertaining the circumstances under which it
would obtain.
Conrming Determining whether
those exigencies are indeed satised.
Contextual Identifying next steps that
are compatible with the situation.
Consequential Anticipating the probable
positive and negative ramications.
Conforming Discerning whether motives are sound and plans
are virtuous.
Descriptive questions help us to clarify and organize the raw input
that we receive from the environment and via introspection. Interpre-
tive questions stimulate conjectural and conditional insights, while
prescriptive questions occasion contextual and consequential insights.
Reective and normative questions always elicit a simple yes or no, a
verdict that is reached on the basis of a conrming or conforming
insight; it is only at this point that knowing has occurred.
Beyond this, as non-compulsory inner demands, the TPs also call for
willing; especially the last two, which require not only apprehending an
obligation, but also striving to fulll it setting priorities and selecting
the best way forward from among multiple options. Assistance is
provided by a tender and well-informed conscience, disciplined through
habitual exercise of the TPs, which will consistently evoke attraction to
the good or the better, and repulsion from the bad or the worse.
As Dreyfus notes, this aspect of people is critical our interests and
concerns naturally organize the eld of our existence and shape our
intentions, but a computer merely has access to raw data and a list of
objectives that are dictated by its programmers. We are situated within
the world, constantly confronting open-structured problems that
can only be solved once we gure out which facts are possibly relevant,
which of these are actually relevant, and which of those are truly
indispensable all using criteria that cannot be established in advance
(i.e., heuristics).
In light of all of this, I nd myself even more convinced that machines
will never be able to emulate, much less duplicate, human behavior - let
alone our engineering prowess. Design procedures, for the most part,
do not involve the mechanical execution of deterministic algorithms;
rather, they call for responsible decisions, triggered by considerate
deliberation, based on reasonable judgment, applied to intelligent
understanding, grounded in attentive experience.
Do you agree or disagree with the characterization of humans
as personal agents with active power? Why? What role do the
will and conscience play in your daily practice of engineer-
ing? Please submit your responses and see what others have had to say by
clicking on the Your Turn button at www.STRUCTUREmag.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.
Your
Turn
u
p
d
a
t
e
s

a
n
d

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G

B
L
O
C
K
S
10
General Considerations for Post-
Tensioned Slabs on Ground
By Bryan Allred, S.E.
Post-tensioned slabs on ground have
been successfully used for decades, and are
typically associated with the foundation
system for one and two story wood struc-
tures. If you live in the southwestern part
of the United States and bought a house
in the last twenty years, there is a very
good chance you live on a post-tensioned
foundation. In addition to residential
construction, the use of post-tensioned
foundations has expanded to support 4
and 5 story wood structures, steel and
wood commercial buildings and concrete
tilt ups. Post-tensioned slabs on ground
have also been used for industrial oors
where levelness is critical for sensitive in-
dustrial machinery to function properly.
Aside from supporting larger loads, the
size of commercial foundations can easily
increase to the point where pour strips
or construction joints are required.
While post-tensioned slabs on ground
have been used for decades, there are
numerous misconceptions about these
types of foundations that have confused
engineers, inspectors and building ofcial
alike. Understanding what a post-tensioned
slab on grade can accomplish is critical
to designing a well performing and code
compliant foundation.
The Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) has
developed a methodology over the years
for resisting the moments and shears devel-
oped from expansive and compressive soil.
The PTI method has been a part of the
previous editions of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) and the current version of
the International Building Code (IBC) in
section 1805.8.2. The PTI method was
originally developed for buildings with
the majority of the structure supported
by perimeter walls having loads
up to 1500 pounds per lin-
ear foot (plf ). Post-tensioned
foundations have been success-
fully used for structures having
2,500 plf perimeter loads, but
engineering judgment should
be always be used for buildings
that have loads larger than
1,500 plf. Even though these
foundations are supporting the weight
of the structure, they are not considered
structural members in that they dont
need to conform to the requirements of
ACI 318. This is stated in ACI 318-08
Section 1.1.7 and R1.1.7. The primary
post-tensioning difference between slabs
on ground and structural slabs is that
these foundations are required to have a
minimum of 50 pounds per square inch
(psi) of pre-compression after losses and
subgrade friction. This pre-compression
value is substantially less than the 100
and 125 psi minimums required in el-
evated one and two way slabs respectively.
In addition, there is no ultimate strength
design for slabs on grade. The entire design
is based upon an allowable stress and
serviceability approach.
Post-tensioned slabs on ground typically
use -inch diameter, 7-wire strands that
have an ultimate strength of 270 kips per
square inch (ksi) (Figure 1). Each strand is
anchored with a ductile iron casting that
transfers the force from the strand into
the surrounding concrete. For proper
performance, it is critical that the concrete
adjacent to the anchor is well vibrated and
free of obstructions. Each tendon will be
loaded to approximately 33,000 pounds
at stressing. Slab cracking or blow outs
can occur if rock pockets, honeycombs
or discontinuities in the concrete exist
that prevent the foundation from resist-
ing this large concentrated load. A PTI
method foundation is either designed as a
ribbed system or a uniform thickness mat
(Figures 2 and 3). The ribbed system uses
a relatively thin slab with interior footings
to add strength and stiffness. The slab is
typically about 5 inches thick, with the
footings spaced in each direction at approx-
imately 12 feet on center. The footings are
typically between 18 to 24 inches deep
and are often aligned with the columns,
bearing walls or the lateral system. The
tendons are spaced between 3 to 4 feet on
center in each direction, which essentially
eliminates conicts with plumbing and
other penetrations.
The uniform thickness mat uses the code
compliant ribbed design and converts it
into a thicker slab that matches the section
properties of the ribbed system. The mat
slab will typically be in the 8- to 12-inch
thickness range. The uniform thickness mat
will have more concrete than a ribbed sys-
tem, so a tighter spacing of the tendons
should be expected. Even though it is not
considered in the conversion calculation,
the mat will have a perimeter footing that
can be used to resist vertical and lateral
Figure 1: Standard Post-Tensioning 7 Wire
Strand and Anchor.
Figure 2: Post-Tensioned Ribbed Foundation.
Figure 3: Uniform Thickness Mat Foundation.
C-BuildingBlocks-Allred-Jan10.in1 1 12/18/2009 8:55:12 AM
11
loads, but will also provide some protection
for water intrusion under the structure. De-
pending on the mat slab thickness, localized
interior footings may be required under heav-
ily loaded shear walls or columns.
For both systems, a vapor retarder is typically
placed beneath the concrete to minimize mois-
ture intrusion into the structure. Depending
on the recommendations of the geotechnical
engineer, layers of sand or gravel can be
placed below or above the vapor retarder. In
most applications, a single layer of 6 or 10 mil
visqueen is used as the vapor retarder.
Unlike elevated slabs and beams where the
tendons are draped to push back against the
weight of the building, the tendons in a slab
on grade typically run at at the center of the
slab. The inspector, contractor and structural
observer should verify that no localized kinks
are occurring along the tendons path of travel.
When a kinked tendon is stressed, the draped
portion will try to straighten out and the up-
ward force may be large enough to crack or
push up the top of the slab. The tendons can
curve horizontally to miss penetration or other
embedded hardware, but the curve should
always be done in a gradual manner to prevent
kinks or sharp bends in the strand. In addition,
the curve should occur several feet away from
the anchor. To facilitate proper stressing, the
strand should extend straight into the anchor
to minimize any grinding against the steel that
could possibly damage the individual wires.
The main engineering benefit of post-
tensioning is the pre-compression that is used
to reduce the exural stresses (M/S +/- P/A)
created by the soil. Instead of increasing the
section modulus by adding concrete or using
a higher compressive strength mix, which will
typically increase the cost of the foundation,
the pre-compression can reduce the exural
stress to be within allowable limits. While the
pre-compression force is a useful design tool,
too much post-tensioning has the potential
to cause additional cracking and shrinkage
in the slab. A typical design pre-compression
range is between 60 to 100 psi, after losses
and subgrade friction. Anything substantially
over 100 psi may indicate your slab thickness,
footing depth or quantity of footings needs
to be re-evaluated. The primary benefit of
post-tensioning to the owner is cost savings.
A post-tensioned slab on ground will typically
be thinner and have less reinforcing steel than
a conventionally reinforced-only foundation
that has been code compliantly designed to
resist expansive soils.
While its not required to fully comprehend
the mechanics of expansive soils, it helps to
have a basic understanding of their nature to
better understand what the foundation is trying
to resist. Expansive soils have the potential to
expand or compress due to changes in water
content in the soil. During periods of large
rain fall, the soil can expand thereby pushing
up the edge of the structure. The majority
of the movement will occur near the edge of
the foundation where the increase in water
content is the largest. During periods of little
or no rain fall, the soil can compress and the
foundation will either drop with the soil or
cantilever off the soil that has not been affected.
Figure 4 demonstrates the action of the soils
and the resulting affects on the foundation for
the center lift and edge lift conditions that are
the basis for the PTI method. Edge lift applies
when the soil expands, while center lift occurs
when the soils dries and compresses. The main
cause of movement is the change in water
content. Typically areas that have clayey type
soils and large uctuations in water content
are most susceptible to movement. Areas that
have consistent rain fall all year long, whether
that is substantial or very little rain fall, have
minimal affects since the soil has essentially
a consistent moisture content through the
life of the structure. The most affected areas
have very dry months followed by very rainy
months. Texas typically experiences the largest
expansive soil movement due to their dry and
wet climates, coupled with their clayey type soil.
To design a post-tensioned slab on ground,
the geotechnical engineer needs to provide the
structural engineer with additional information
beyond bearing pressure and minimum embed
requirements. Values for Em and Ym are the
primary values used in the design. Em (Figure
4), edge moisture variation distance, is the
distance over which the moisture content of
the soil varies. Em is measured from the slab
edge into the structure. The further inside the
building you are, the less affect the climate
should have on the sites water content. The Em
value is typically in the 2- to 5-foot range. The
Ym value (Figure 4) is the expected amount of
differential soil movement due to the increase
in water content. The Ym is typically in the
0.5- to 3-inch range. For the PTI method, the
maximum value of Ym is 4 inches. For soils
that have a Ym value over 4 inches, another
foundation type or analysis system may need to
be considered. While the equations of the PTI
method can be used for any numerical value,
engineering judgment should be used when
PERIMETER
LOAD
PERIMETER
LOAD
INITIAL MOUND SHAPE
SLAB LENGTH
y
m
y
m
e
m
e
m
edge moisture
variation distance
CENTER LIFT
EDGE LIFT
P
UNIFORM LOAD
P
Figure 4: PTI Design Parameters.
12
the potential upward movement is above 4
inches. Both Em and Ym are measured off the
climate conditions alone and do not account
the propertys owner choice of landscaping or
irrigation. There is no realistic way a design
consultant can predict the actions of the owner
and the maintenance of the site. In addition to
the PTI values, the soils report should include
the suate and chloride/corrosive content of
the site. Per ACI 318-08 table 4.3.1, the sulfate
content affects the compressive strength of the
concrete, type of cement used and the water
cement ratio. A moderate or above chloride
content will determine if the tendons need to
be encapsulated. An encapsulated tendon uses
a thicker sheathing over the strand, and covers
the anchor with a plastic boot to isolate the
anchor and wedges from the environment and
possible corrosion.
Many of the rst rms to design post-tensioned
slabs on ground originated from the post-
tensioning supply or contracting industry. With
their particular experience, the rst p/t slab
on ground drawings were created as more of a
shop drawing than a typical design drawing.
A shop drawing version of a post-tensioned
foundation plan (Figure 5) will have each
strand located on plan, its length called out
including the tail(s) for stressing and a color
code that corresponds to its anticipated elon-
gation. With this conguration, the plan could
be sent to the supplier for fabrication without
involving the traditional shop drawings phase
of transforming the structural drawings into a
fabrication list. Without the need for separate
shop drawings, the inspector can use the struc-
tural drawings to determine if the tendons
layout and elongations meet the requirements
of the structural engineer. In addition, this
practice speeds up construction and minimizes
any errors in creating the shop drawings.
Some engineering rms have moved away
from this practice and simply indicate the total
number of strands that are required in each
direction, and leave the specic placement and
tendon lengths to the contractor. Depending
on the slab conguration, the tendons may
be grouped into parts of the foundation so a
different spacing can be used, but the plans
stop short of locating or identifying the strands.
This practice is similar to elevated slabs; how-
ever, it should be noted that listing the tendons
by a force is not recommended. Due to the
subgrade friction effect, the compression in
the concrete will signicantly vary between the
anchor and the midpoint of the slab. If a kips
per foot number is used (similar to elevated
slabs), it would be unclear if that reference
is relative to the nal effective force or the
stressing force. In addition, the tendon sup-
plier would essentially have to re-design the
foundation to determine the subgrade friction
and the affect on the strands. The primary
difference between the two systems is that
shop drawings will need to be created for
the latter and be reviewed by the structural
engineer. From the authors experience with
other engineers in different parts of the U.S.,
it seems that each region has developed their
own standard of practice for post-tensioned
slabs on ground; however the shop drawing
approach is more typically used.
The designs of post-tensioned slabs on ground
are often done by a specialty engineering rm
or a design build contractor that will most
likely not participate in the design of the super
structure. With two engineering rms involved,
there can be a potential issue involving where
one engineers responsibility ends and the other
begins. In the authors opinion, the super
structure engineer is required to provide the
vertical and lateral loads that the foundation
will support and the connection details that
are able to transfer the loads into the concrete.
With the loads and connections established,
the post-tensioning engineer is responsible
for providing a foundation that can resist
the entire vertical and lateral load from the
structure, in conjunction with the forces from
possible soil movement. The scope of work
between both structural engineers should be
clearly outlined prior to creating construction
documents to avoid any confusion on limits
of responsibility. The PTI method is based
solely on dead and live loads, and doesnt
contain a specic design for lateral forces. Post-
tensioning essentially provides no reduction in
the footing dimensions for satisfying allowable
soil pressure due to overturning forces.
This is the rst in a series of articles describing
the engineering and construction of post-
tensioned slabs on ground. Future articles will
explore some of the more specic engineering
and construction aspects such as structural
design and detailing, quality control, post-
construction maintenance/repair and how
to make modications to an existing post-
tensioned foundation.
Figure 5: Typical Post-Tensioned Slab on Ground Plan.
Bryan Allred is a license structural engineer
and Vice President of Seneca Structural
Engineering Inc. in Laguna Hills CA. He
specializes in post-tensioned slabs on grade,
reinforced concrete buildings and external
post-tensioning of existing structures. He can be
reached at Bryan@SenecaStructural.com
with any questions.
IN THE SPECS
ON THE JOB
AT YOUR SERVICE
Anchors that crack the code.

2010 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. THDSBSETXP09-S
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. Rest assured that Simpson Strong-Tie
has the products to 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 or call (800)999-5099.
|tc 00
8treq8e|t
8|KP
|00|8 |88tI18 |00|8 |881II1 |00|8 |88t508

Cracked-Concrete Solutions
Cracked&
Uncracked
CONCRETE
IBC
2006
ICC-ES
Listed
Blank.indd 1 12/10/2009 10:47:51 AM
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
r
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
g

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

i
s
s
u
e
s
E
D
U
C
A
T
I
O
N

I
S
S
U
E
S
STRUCTURE magazine STRUCTURE magazine January 2010
14
Alternatives to Matrix Methods
How to Teach Structural Behavior
By Marc Hoit, Ph.D.
Education versus Training
I would like to add my voice to what
Professor Graham Powell has stated in
his previous STRUCTURE
magazine
articles (November and December 2008):
the NCSEA denition of what is needed
in specic courses in order to educate a
structural engineer is misguided. In my
opinion, the detailed listing of specic
courses and outlines of the content of
each course is fundamentally in conict
with how to specify educational objectives
and what we want our educational insti-
tutions to achieve. What is needed is to
develop a set of educational objectives that
dene the skills and abilities of a graduate
in order to be a successful structural
engineer. It is not about which specic
method or formula a graduate needs to
know, but how to creatively solve a problem
using the mathematical, social, and engi-
neering tools at their disposal.
There is an inherent conict between what
a university should provide as education
and what an industry needs a graduate to
be able to accomplish in the workplace.
University education is about helping a
student build the knowledge, skills and,
most importantly, problem solving ability
to know how to attack and solve a problem
they have never seen before. In educational
theory, this is the highest level of learning;
the ability to compare, contrast and evalu-
ate the issues and come to a solution.
This is the type of individual we want to
educate so that they can continue to learn
and create throughout their career.
On the other hand, there is the need of
industry to have an employee be productive
and meet the demands of the current work-
place. In the modern structural engineering
workplace, this means being familiar with
analysis, concrete, steel and timber design,
including the codes and the specications
that allow them to create a nal design
which can be signed, sealed and built. AISC
performed a study a number of years ago
that found the average engineering com-
pany provided additional education for a
new graduate for 14 months before they
reached full productivity.
With our modern educational constraints
of reduced credit hours, increased general
educational requirements and the explosion
of information in all of the traditional
Civil Engineering disciplines, the conict
of how to teach both the educated mind
and the specic skills becomes untenable.
As one solution, ASCE has declared that the
rst professional degree be a BSE plus 30
hours through their Body of Knowledge.
ABET understood this problem over 10
years ago and developed their outcomes
assessment model of accreditation. This
model allows each program to create a
mission and a set of goals for their degree.
These goals are then met through their
individual curriculum and by developing
appropriate outcomes that each student
must achieve. The program must then
measure these outcomes for each student to
prove they are meeting the requirements.
We are also in an era where our students
have a different view of education and
learning. The millennial student comes with
a different set of expectations about how
to acquire information. They have grown
up with instant access to a Web full of
visual, interactive and highly customizable
information. They use technology to help
them multi-task their learning. This is a
fundamental change and must be accom-
modated if we are to reach a new generation
of engineers and provide them the tools
to compete globally in our industry.
A Possible Solution
So, we know the problem; but, what is
the solution? Professor Powells suggestion
is right on target, and from all educational
research and learning theory offers an
ideal solution. While I rmly believe that
is the case, I also understand that getting
there will require smaller and more varied
changes. Some of these changes are al-
ready happening. Many schools no longer
require a traditional computer program-
ming language (e.g., Fortran, C, Java),
but use things like Mathcad and MatLab
to teach structured problem solving us-
ing analytical tools. Other schools have
restructured their Indeterminate Structures
course to reduce the hand methods and
emphasize computer tools. However, we
have a long way to go in order to achieve
an ideal learning environment.
Many programs still teach a very detailed
Matrix Methods course at the undergradu-
ate level. I was guilty of this and wrote a
text book (now out of print) that covered
this material. If I re-wrote the book now,
I would take a larger step towards the ob-
jective of teaching structural behavior and
cover fewer of the details of how to form a
matrix and solve equations. While we clearly
need people to understand and do these
detailed matrix operations, it is the domain
of the software developers and researchers,
and more for the PhD level courses.
If I had to teach the course tomorrow,
what would I do? I would only teach
virtual work, and that would be for two
weeks as an introduction and refresher. I
would cover one week of matrix math and
stiffness operations in order to show the
connection between hand methods and
computer techniques. I would then spend
the rest of the time covering structural
behavior, and do that through assignments
using a structural analysis computer pro-
gram. I would craft my assignments in
much the way Professor Powell describes, by
giving structural problems and behavioral
questions to solve using a computer tool.
I would demand the students also validate
their answers by simplied analysis with
both hand methods (virtual work) and us-
ing computer tools with simplied models.
There is one denite step that is needed to
achieve these objectives: Organizations and
industries need to partner with universities
to help set the objectives for a graduate, and
then shoulder their share of the responsibil-
ity to provide part of the education towards
those goals. This is also an ABET require-
ment, so it should be an easy step once we
agree to share the educational effort.
Marc Hoit is Vice Chancellor for Information Technology at North Carolina State
University in Raleigh. He previously held numerous administrative positions at the
University of Florida. Dr. Hoit is also a Professor in the Civil, Construction and
Environmental Engineering Department. He is the Principal Investigator for the
development of DIGGS, an international XML schema for transferring transportation
information. Marcs current structural engineering research involves the computer program,
FB-MultiPier, which analyzes bridge pier, superstructure and pile foundations subjected to
dynamic loading. Dr. Hoit may be reached via email at marc_hoit@ncsu.edu.
This article is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and construction
process. Any opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the
STRUCTURE
magazine Editorial Board.

C-EducationIssues-Hoit-Jan10.ind1 1 12/22/2009 9:28:09 AM
WoodWorks is an initiative of the Wood Products Council, which includes all of the major North American wood associations.
CALI FORNI A GEORGI A I LLI NOI S MI NNESOTA NORTH CAROLI NA SOUTH CAROLI NA WI SCONSI N
Photo credit: APA The Engineered Wood Association (left and center), Arch Wood Protection (right).
Design and
building support for
the non-residential
marketplace
woodworks.org
WoodWorks provides free resources that can help
you design and build non-residential structures out
of wood more easily and at less cost.
Technical support Code issues, wind and seismic,
green building
and more
Online tools Help
desks, calculators,
product and design
guides
Educational events
Workshops, in-house
presentations, Wood
Solutions Fairs
Wood Design Awards
New at woodworks.org ...
Calendar of upcoming Wood Solutions
Fairs in Atlanta, Charlotte, Long Beach,
San Francisco, Minneapolisand free
online registration
Comprehensive training for the new RISA
software update featuring wood design
featuresat a special WoodWorks rate!
Monthly webinars
CAD/Revit drawings for wood buildings
Seminars and webinars qualify
participants for education credits.
Blank.indd 1 12/7/2009 2:01:43 PM
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

u
p
d
a
t
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
f

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

o
n

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
16
What Computers Might Be Able to Do
By William M. Bulleit, Ph.D., P.E.
I
n the November 2009 issue of STRUCTURE,
Jon Schmidts InFocus column discussed What
Computers Cant Do. In principle, I agree with his
major conclusion: engineering is and probably
always will be something that computers cant do.
However, just because computers appear unlikely to
emulate all human abilities does not mean that they
cannot do much more to enhance engineering design,
and possibly even appear intelligent as they do so.
engineer, who could then do the human
part. A GA, as described, might send out
possible designs that no one had ever
considered, and some of them might
prove to be excellent. The GA might even
appear to be an alien intelligence.
The next thing that computers might be
able to do is to learn from past decisions
and designs, and store that learning using
an articial neural network (ANN), rather
than something like a database. Your
brain resembles a giant neural network
with billions of tiny computational ele-
ments (neurons) communicating with each
other through trillions of connections
(synapses). ANNs simulate brain behavior,
using hardware or software.
Someday, for structural engineering, a
massive ANN may store a vast quantity
of past designs, in a way more like how
we remember things, and be more adept
at bringing those memories out for use
by the engineer. The difference from a
human is that the ANN will be dedicated
to remembering designs and will have
signicantly greater computational speed.
The combination of GAs with ANNs
could lead to long-term probing of design
spaces, and take structural engineering far
beyond what we can now do.
As a third example, in Jon Schmidts
InFocus column in the March 2007
issue of STRUCTURE, he wrote about
Risk-Based Design. He divided hazards
into three types, where the third included
malevolent hazards such as crime, sabotage,
and terrorism. These hazards are hard to
incorporate into design because devel-
opment of appropriate design criteria
is difcult. A possible solution is to use
agent-based modeling (ABM), a compu-
tational technique presently beginning to
show promise in social science simulations.
In ABM, living entities are modeled as
computational agents who interact with
an environment and with each other. In
the case of humans, the agents would
have to be complicated enough to model
the behaviors that are necessary to cause
them to produce the effects that are being
examined; e.g., terrorist attacks.
ABM has been used with fairly simple
agents to model civil violence and has
been used to examine human egress from
buildings in emergencies. The ability to
model and predict terrorist attacks or sab-
otage, at least for development of design
criteria, is not yet possible; but it likely
will be in the not-too-distant future.
Then we, as structural engineers presum-
ably in concert with social scientists, may
be able to develop design criteria for
malevolent hazards using a combination
of agent-based simulation and appropriate
data. Agent models may also be used in
scenario analysis where the simulation can
help decision-makers open their minds to
possible types of situations that they may
not have considered otherwise.
So, yes, there may be a number of human
behaviors that computers are unlikely
to be able to perform; but, there are a
number of situations where computers
almost certainly can perform better than
humans. I think that it would be advisable
for us to consider how computers can
help us perform more effectively as hu-
mans, rather than worry that computers
will outperform us.
William M. Bulleit, Ph.D., P.E.
(wmbullei@mtu.edu), is a professor
and the chair of the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering
at Michigan Technological University
in Houghton, Michigan.
Garry Kasparov reportedly said, after
losing to Deep Blue in chess, that he
felt at times that he was playing against
an alien intelligence. This is probably
because even though Deep Blue had a
signicant amount of chess knowledge
programmed into it, it also had the ability
to search deeper into the space of possible
moves than any human ever could. This
ability, due to its high computational
speed, allowed it to make moves that
appeared alien to Kasparov, because no
human would know to make them. Raw
computational speed is one area where
computers can do things that will never
be possible for humans to do.
When it comes to structural engineering,
the rst thing that computers might be
able to do is to search the design space,
the range of possible solutions, in a much
more complete manner than we humans
can. A computational method called a
genetic algorithm (GA) uses evolutionary
computing techniques to do this. The
potential options are placed into a math-
ematical chromosome, and then pairs of
chromosomes make new ones by combin-
ing parts of themselves in a process called
crossover. Although other evolutionary
mechanisms are used, the primary one
other than crossover is mutation.
A cost function is used to tell the GA
which regions of the design space are
most promising. The cost function can
include any information that can be
obtained from whatever type of analysis
is being performed. For instance, using
BIM, the GA could consider a wide range
of factors, including building topology.
The only real limitation is computational
speed. The GA could nd a set of prom-
ising designs and send them out to the
This article is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers
and other participants in the design and construction process. Any opinions expressed herein are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C
3
Ink, or the
STRUCTURE
magazine Editorial Board.

C-Technology-Bulleit-Jan10.indd 1 12/18/2009 8:56:55 AM
Dont let your plans
go sideways.
Strong Frame
ordinary moment frames

Anchor Tiedown System Wood and Steel Strong-Wall
shearwalls
Whether youre designing a custom home or a light-frame multi-story building, Simpson Strong-Tie has
the lateral-force resisting system to t your project and help hold it together during a wind or seismic event.
Our code-listed Wood and Steel Strong-Wall
shearwalls allow for narrow wall sections while providing

high loads. Our Anchor Tiedown Systems are restrained (tied off) at each oor level to provide the necessary
load capacity and overturning resistance for mid-rise buildings. And our new Strong Frame
ordinary
moment frames are engineered in 196 congurations to save you time and create larger wall openings.
Learn how our entire line of Lateral Systems can keep your projects standing tall and strong.
Visit www.strongtie.com/lateralsystems or call (800) 999-5099.
2009 Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. LATSYTM09-S
Blank.indd 1 8/6/2009 8:53:30 AM
d
e
s
i
g
n

i
s
s
u
e
s

f
o
r

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L

D
E
S
I
G
N
18
Post-Yield Stiffness Effects on Moment Redistribution in
Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams
By Pedro Silva, Ph.D., P.E.
R
einforced concrete (RC) beams
of the type shown in Figure 1
are commonly designed using
moment redistribution principles. RC
continuous beams or plane frames may
have any number of spans or boundary
restraints; the work presented in this ar-
ticle is for a simply supported, two-span,
continuous RC beam, but many of the
conclusions can be extrapolated to other
situations. In design, these continuous
members are typically assumed to dis-
play an elasto-plastic response, which
means that after yielding of the tension
steel any increase in stiffness due to
strain hardening is neglected. In reality,
beams subjected to large inelastic strain
levels may attain a signicant post-yield
stiffness, which has a strong effect on the
moment redistribution of continuous
RC beams.
In this article, the basics of moment
redistribution are discussed as a function
of curvature ductility capacity using nite
element subroutines. The author further
illustrates the principles of moment redis-
tribution in the design of a two-span RC
continuous beam, including the potential
effects of post-yield stiffness.
Basics of Moment
Redistribution
Sections 8.4.1 and 8.4.3 of ACI 318-
05 state that the level of moment re-
distribution (MR) that is permitted in a
continuous RC beam is:
7.5% MR=1000H
t
20% Equation 1
where H
t
is the level of strain in the ex-
treme tension reinforcement. As such,
this strain must be at least 0.0075 be-
fore MR is permitted. The permissible
levels of MR dened by Equation 1 are
conservative, and results derived from
this study show that strain levels will in
many cases fall signicantly below 0.005,
which violates the ACI 318-05 limit for
a tension-controlled design. Stipulated
by Equation 1, the amounts of MR that
can be allowed in the design of continu-
ous RC beams are only expressed as a
function of tensile strains. Because of its
generality, the work presented in this ar-
ticle will evaluate MR in RC structures
as a function of curvature ductility ca-
pacity. Previously the author has derived
an expression to obtain the curvature
ductility,
, as a function of tensile
strain. The relationships of MR in terms
of tensile strain and curvature ductility
are outlined in Figure 2.
Formulation of MR as a function of
curvature ductility capacity is presented
in terms of the moment curvature (M-)
relationships and the statically indeter-
minate beam shown in Figure 3, which
is a simplied version for the analysis of the
two-span beam shown in Figure 1. The
beam is uniformly loaded and is pinned
and xed at ends A and B, respectively.
Under an increasing load, the beam will
deform elastically up to yielding and then
plastically at end B.
For the nonlinear part of the analysis,
two released structures may be considered.
For Release 1 the beam is considered per-
fectly plastic at end B, and in Release 2
the beam can be considered restrained
by a plastic rotational spring with the
stiffness, , idealized in terms of the
post-yield stiffness, r; initial stiffness, EI;
and plastic hinge length as a function of
beam span length, L.
Modeling the inelastic response of the
beam in terms of Release 1 follows the
elasto-plastic idealization presented in
Figure 3(a). The beam is assumed to begin
deforming plastically at end B when the
moment and curvature reach M
n
and
y
, respectively. After this stage, the in-
cremental uniform applied load on the
beam will impose inelastic rotations and
curvatures at support B. The amount of
MR that the beam can sustain is computed
as follows:
1 3 1
1
1
+
=

MR
1 3 1
1
1
+ +
=
r
MR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Curvature Ductility, P
I
0
5
10
15
20
25
M
o
m
e
n
t
R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
Proposed
MRas a
function of P
I
0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Steel Strain,
t
0
5
10
15
20
25
M
o
m
e
n
t
R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
ACI 318
permissible
MR as a
function of
t
E
E
(a) (b)
Figure 1: Two-span continuous beam under uniform loads.
Figure 2: Moment redistribution (a) Function of H
t
, (b) Function of
.
Equation 2
Modeling the inelastic response of the
beam in terms of Release 2 follows the
bilinear M- relationship presented in
Figure 3(a). The beam begins to deform
plastically at end when the moment
and curvature reach M
y
, and
y
, respec-
tively. After this stage, the beam develops
plastic rotations and curvatures that include
the post-yield stiffness and plastic hinge
length. Following similar steps, in Release
2 the amount of MR that the beam can
sustain is computed as follows:
Equation 3
Equations 2 and 3 can be used to com-
pute the amount of MR that a beam can
sustain as a function of the plastic hinge
length, post-yield stiffness and curvature
L L
A B C
W
C-StructuralDesign-Silva-Jan10.i1 1 12/18/2009 8:58:19 AM
19
ductility capacity. Obviously, these principles
of MR capacity only apply to the beam geom-
etry presented in Figure 1.
The permissible levels of MR in two-span
continuous beams that correspond to the two
releases are depicted graphically in Figure 4.
The post-yield stiffness (r) and plastic hinge
length (L) have a marked effect on the MR
capacity of two-span continuous beams. It
is envisioned that this same observation will
also apply to other continuous structures.
Some other trends of the MR levels presented
in Figure 4 are as follows: (i) as the post-yield
stiffness ratio increases, so does MR; (ii) as the
plastic hinge length increases, so does MR;
(iii) the curve for r=0.00 and =0.01 follows
below the permissible MR curve computed
based on Equation 1, and depicted in Figure
2. The next section presents the effects that
these trends have on the actual performance
of beams designed using MR principles.
Design and
Performance Evaluation
As discussed, the levels of MR that can be
achieved in continuous beams depend strictly
on the plastic rotation capacity of members
at plastic hinges. In this section, a design ex-
ample has been established to investigate the
effects that post-yield stiffness has on MR.
Reflecting the parameters of Table 1,
design required a beam with the cross-section
dimensions and reinforcement layout shown
in Figure 5(a), which consists of 6-#5 (Grade
60) top and bottom bars. The moment-
curvature analysis for this section is presented
in Figure 5(b). The solid curve is the moment-
curvature section analysis that is used to
evaluate the performance of the two-span
continuous RC beam under Release 2 with
r=0.035. The dashed curve is for the same
evaluation under Release 1 with r=0. It is im-
portant to emphasize that in current practice,
r=0 is generally assumed for design.
From the moment-curvature analysis, the
curvature ductility capacity of the section is
nearly
6.5. From Figure 2(b) this ductility

capacity translates into a MR capacity of
15.7%. Comparatively, for Release 1 the MR
that the section can develop is 12.1%. On the
other hand, for Release 2 the two-span beam
can now develop a much greater MR=61.2%.
This simple example clearly shows that the
actual MR that the beam can develop is sig-
nicantly higher than what is allowed by ACI
318. Figure 6 (page 20) shows the moment
proles for three cases. One curve shows the
proles considering the elastic design condition,
another corresponds to r=0, and the third rep-
resents r=0.035. It is not apparent from these
curves the salient differences between a design
that considers r=0 and the actual response of
the beam with r=0.035.
I
/
y
I
u
M
o
m
e
n
t
Curvature, I
Bilinear
I
p
M
n
I
y
Elasto-
Plastic
EI
rEI
M
/
y
M
u
L
A
w
B Structural Model
Release 1: Perfectly Plastic
Release 2: Bilinear
T
p
T
p
dw
dw p
rEI L B =
(a) M-F Idealization (b) Uniform Load, w
MRPermissible
Release 1
Release 2
r = 0.00 & L = 0.01
r = 0.00 & L = 0.02
r = 0.00 & L = 0.04
r = 0.00 & L = 0.08
r = 0.05 & L = 0.01
r = 0.05 & L = 0.02
r = 0.05 & L = 0.04
r = 0.05 & L = 0.08
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
M
o
m
e
n
t
R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
%
)
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
I
Releas
Releas
Figure 3: Basics of moment redistribution.
Figure 4: Moment redistribution versus ductility.
Span length = 20 feet Steel bars required = 6-#5 (Grade 60)
Uniform dead load = 900 plf Uniform Live Load = 1400 plf
Dead load factor = 1.2 Live load factor = 1.6
Ultimate factored load = 3,320 plf MR per ACI (6-#5) = 15.7% for P
I
Release 1: With r=0, MR = 12.1% Release 2: With r=0.035, MR = 61.2%
Table 1: Design Parameters.
Figure 5: Cross Section Dimensions and
Capacity Analysis.
12 in.
2
1
.
6

i
n
.
2
4

i
n
.
#4 Stirrups
@ 6 in o.c.
#5 Top &
Bottom
(a) Beam Cross-Section
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I
0
40
80
120
160
200
M
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
i
p
s
-
f
t
)
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015
Curvature (1/in.)
Release 1: r =0.00
Release 2: r =0.035
(b) Moment - Curvature Relations
continued on next page
20
-100
0
100
200
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
(
k
i
p
s
-
f
t
)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Location from end A to B (x/L)
Elastic Design
Elasto-Plastic
Design (r =0)
r =0.035
M'y
Mu
Mn
M'y
Figure 6: Moment proles for end spans A-B. Figure 7: Ratio of Demand versus Capacity.
Pedro Silva, Ph.D., P.E.
(silvap@gwu.edu), is an
Associate Professor in the Civil
& Environmental Engineering
Department at The George
Washington University in
Washington DC. His research
interests include analysis and
design of structures subject to
seismic and blast loading.
Future Investigations
This article presented some of the basics of
moment redistribution principles and ap-
plied them to a two-span continuous RC
beam. Results show that post-yield stiffness
has a marked effect, an important observation
that should be investigated in further detail
for structures that have a higher order of in-
determinacy. Issues of moment redistribution
for continuous beams with a number of spans
greater than two and plane frames will be un-
dertaken in the future.
ADVERTISEMENT - For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
Figure 7 shows the ratio of the plastic rotation
and tensile strain demand versus capacity.
For r=0, demand exceeds the section plastic
rotation and tensile strain capacity by a ratio
of 1.02 and 1.3, respectively. For r=0.035,
there is a drastic decrease in the demand versus
capacity ratio to 0.10 and 0.25, indicating
that the degree of conservatism is on the
order of 10. These ratios show that post-yield
stiffness has a marked effect on the moment
redistribution of continuous RC beams.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
D
e
m
a
n
d
/
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Plastic Rotations Tension Strains
r = 0.00
r = 0.035
r = 0.035
r = 0.00
Blank.indd 1 11/27/2009 2:56:50 PM
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

t
h
e
y

p
e
r
t
a
i
n

t
o

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
A
L

S
U
S
T
A
I
N
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Raised Access Floor
Slab
Beam
Upturned Alternate
Typical Reinforced
Concrete Framing
22
Extraordinary Sustainable Thinking for Ordinary Projects
By Ruben Aya-Welland, P.E., S.E., LEED AP
It is not difcult to nd inspiring land-
mark building designs from around the
world that capitalize on the fundamental
principles of sustainable design. Such
examples include green buildings that uti-
lize intensive green roof constructions,
that integrate high-tech exterior curtain
wall systems, and that nd innovative uses
of recycled and reused materials and com-
ponents for building construction. Many
of these state-of-the-art green building
designs also implement extensive energy
modeling, and require engineering systems
commissioning to help validate original
design intentions. These high prole
sustainably designed building projects have
demonstrated the potential success that
comes with an integrated and multi-
disciplinary approach to sustainable design.
Very often these same projects have also
enjoyed enthusiasm and encouragement
from both the owner and the contractor,
most notably when it came to supporting
life cycle cost analysis considerations and
construction budget allowances for doing
things differently than the accepted norm.
But, what about the everyday buildings
that make-up the majority of our collec-
tive construction effort? What about
the projects that are typically driven to
be designed quickly and on a tight bud-
get? What if a detailed long-term life cycle
analysis is neither considered nor even
desired? What if LEED
(Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) certi-
cation is not even a topic of discussion?
Does this mean that sustainable thinking
is therefore not at all relevant to the design
process? Absolutely not. Sustainable design
practices should be part of any and every
building design process. Furthermore, with
the more modest budgets of our everyday
projects, sustainable design strategies can
be considered and implemented to maxi-
mize the passive energy potential of a given
building design.
Land Use and Siting
Proper site selection is rarely a decision
left to the structural engineer. When
analyzing site-specic project data, the
structural engineer is typically concerned
with review of the geotechnical engineering
report and subsequent recommendations
for foundation systems. Typical foundation
engineering challenges might include
mitigation of weak soils, interfacing with
existing infrastructure, and designing for
high water tables. But beyond providing
the engineering for more typical design
solutions, the structural engineer can also
be instrumental in helping his clients
better understand the tradeoffs involved in
choosing a particular site density strategy.
For example, foundations for shorter
buildings are generally less expensive due
to the relatively low structural loads in-
volved. But shorter buildings also require
more widespread site development to meet
predetermined square footage require-
ments. Furthermore, the more that a site
is built upon, the less of that site remains
available for permeable ground cover that
aids in storm water inltration. On the
other hand, although foundations for taller
buildings are generally more expensive
from a construction point of view, they
also allow for a smaller built site footprint.
But even with a smaller building foot-
print, native weak soils may still require
signicant and widespread soil improvement
measures. This can include generating a sig-
nicant amount of spoils and depositing
large amounts of concrete for foundation
elements. Efforts to minimize spoils on
site might favor the selection of displace-
ment installation methods for auger
pressure grouted piles, or the use of helical
pile techniques. For placing large amounts
of concrete, it should be relatively easy to
specify high percentages of recycled supple-
mental cementitious materials (SCMs) to
replace Portland cement in the concrete
mix designs for foundation elements. The
structural engineer might even consider
specifying a 56-day concrete strength for
foundations to account for slower setting
times with high y ash concrete mixes:
keep in mind that there are many instances
when the full concrete strength of a
foundation element may not actually be
needed until the entire superstructure has
been built.
By becoming much more involved with
site issues, the structural engineer can help
the design team nd that overall balance
of land use and density by helping evaluate
strategic options for building size, extent,
and location.
Daylighting
Options for land use and site selection
working in tandem with building program-
matic requirements can suggest design
options for building mass, shape, and
form. Daylighting is a sustainable design
strategy that tries to minimize the day-
time need for articial interior lighting.
Its relative success depends, to a large
degree, on the ratio of physical building
height to building width. Common oor
and roof framing systems of structural steel,
reinforced concrete, cold formed metal,
or wood can all be designed to accommo-
date virtually any shape or aspect ratio of
a building oor plate. But when working
with the architect, the structural engineer
can also be proactive and anticipate the
strengths and weaknesses of certain struc-
tural framing systems as they relate to
daylighting strategies.
For one story structures, if a buildings
plan dimensions become necessarily large
compared to the overall height, rooftop
skylights can be introduced fairly easily
that can help bring natural light to the
depths of the buildings interior footprint.
Rooftop openings for such structures are
already fairly common for accommodating
rooftop mechanical units and access
hatches; swapping in skylight elements can
therefore be a fairly simple and effective
strategy for increasing daylighting in such
warehouse type structures. For multi-
story structures, daylighting strategies can
be a combination of direct and indirect
or even reected daylighting.
Perimeter spandrel structural framing is
an important design element that can help
maximize the potential use of daylighting.
C-StructSust-Welland-Jan10.indd 1 12/18/2009 8:58:54 AM
23
The structural engineer needs to anticipate
spandrel depth constraints that the architect
will undoubtedly present, and he should help
provide design options that not only meet
the architects daylighting goals but also help
to control construction costs. If shallower
beam depths become unusually expensive in
order to control beam deections, a possible
solution could be to suggest that the architect
tighten up the perimeter column grid spacing.
Of course, this structural strategy may have
other less desirable consequences like requiring
more column footings, creating potentially
adverse effects to interior space planning along
the building perimeter, and inserting a greater
number of architecturally exposed columns
at the windows. If the superstructure is
of reinforced concrete, perhaps an upturned
spandrel solution would better integrate with
a daylighting design criteria.
Interior light wells and atriums are other design
features that help bring natural light into an in-
terior building space that would otherwise have
been cutoff from the exterior environment.
With all of these design options, there will
be potential trade offs with respect to reduced
square footage, increased construction cost,
or modied architectural appearance. The
emphasis here is that the structural engineer
can help the design team be better prepared
to compare design options for daylighting
when he can learn to anticipate opportunities
for using natural light, and understand how
daylighting in turn affects the structural system
selection and design.
Glazed vs Non-Glazed Exterior
Windows are no doubt a desirable building
design element; they not only allow natural
light to ood the interior space, they also
provide interesting visual connections between
indoor and outdoor activities. But if too many
windows are incorporated into the design,
the building engineering systems must then
work harder to counterbalance both heat loss
in the winter and heat gain in the summer.
These decisions obviously fall under the realm
of the architect, and the structural engineer
would typically provide framing solutions for
any given design intent. But here again, the
structural engineer can nd opportunities to
be proactive and promote sustainable design.
For example, when discussing architectural
design intentions for a fully glazed build-
ing exterior, the structural engineer can also
introduce ideas about the logical or economical
placement of solid shear walls, perforated
shear walls, or vertical bracing systems around
the building perimeter. These lateral bracing
systems are usually not desirable as exposed
architectural elements, thereby providing good
design rationales for incorporating less glaz-
ing into the faade of a building that would
otherwise suffer from a high amount of heat loss
or heat gain. Quite often, moment frames pro-
vide an ideal modular architectural solution
for integration of daylighting strategies with
perimeter windows or curtain wall systems.
But moment frames might normally prove
too expensive for the construction budgets of
larger scale buildings with moderate to high
levels of lateral loading. However, with smaller
buildings and their lighter lateral loads, trans-
parent, translucent, and even opaque exterior
modular cladding can be complemented by
structural moment frames systems without
necessarily incurring a substantial premium
for construction costs.
The structural engineer serves as a champion
for sustainable design when he can engage the
architect early enough in the design process to
help provide conceptual design feedback to
the proposed exterior envelope.
Roofs and Walls
The outer shell enclosure is an extremely
important aspect of any building design. It is
this barrier that resists the daily environmental
assaults from sun, wind, and water in the form
of rain, ice, and snow. Roofs and walls form
the basis for this environmental separation
between interior and exterior conditions.
Although it is the architect that dictates the
design of the typical exterior wall and roof
construction systems, the structural engineer
can once again rise to the occasion and propose
ideas that strive to enhance the sustainable
attributes of a building design.
For example, relatively simple and economical
extensive green roof systems are engineered
to be light and modular in nature. Structural
loads for extensive green roofs can be very
similar to normally assumed superimposed
dead, live, and snow loading, thereby having
a potentially minor overall effect to structural
steel tonnages and structural roof decking
gauges. If a green roof is simply not appropriate
for a given project, the roof plane should still
be treated as a surface that will receive plenty
of sunlight and water. The structural engineer
can propose sloped roof framing systems
that uses gravity fed drains for channeling
of storm water. For relatively large roof areas,
this strategy can greatly reduce the amount of
required tapered insulation that would have
been used to alternately build up roof slopes
for this purpose. Of course, this is not a new
strategy, but with more complex geometries
and roof framing systems, sloping steel may
sometimes seem more cumbersome than
simply allowing the architect to specify
thick tapered insulation.
Another roof strategy is to consider overhangs
as a means of providing sun shade during the
summer months. By anticipating overhangs
sooner, the structural engineer can propose
framing systems that achieve the necessary
cantilevered structure in a more economical
and constructible manner; this strategy can also
create opportunities for exposed architectural
expression of overhangs that would otherwise
not have been considered, especially if the
connection is a eld welded steel moment
connection where architectural weld quality
would have been too cost prohibitive.
Examples of sustainable wall strategies can
include concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls
that act as load-bearing and shear wall elements
while also providing thermal mass properties
to a building enclosure. With CMU walls,
close attention must be paid to type of block
and type of grout used, as this can have an
effect on the particular thermal strategy. Will
the building benet from increased insulation?
Will the building use its inherent thermal mass
in conjunction with the heating and cooling
systems? Building load-bearing and shear walls
can also be of site cast, tilt-up, or precast
concrete. If using concrete walls, do thermal
massing strategies benet if we provide thicker
walls than needed for structural strength and
stability? Using more materials than needed
from a structural perspective can sometimes
benet other sustainable design synergies.
Conclusion
According to its published Code of Ethics, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
states as its rst Fundamental Canon: Engi-
neers shall hold paramount the safety, health and
welfare of the public and shall strive to comply
with the principles of sustainable development
in the performance of their professional duties.
One of the prime directives of our profession is
to actively promote sustainable thinking into
our everyday practice. As sustainably minded
structural engineers, we must not be content
to sit on the sidelines as major project decisions
take shape. Instead, we need to be proactive
and remember that any project can benet
from a sustainable design mindset. Even if the
project budget, scope, or owner buy-in is
rather limited in its support for green building
practices, the rst principles of sustainable
design should still be an extremely valuable
tool for the design team when seeking green
design ideas for our more ordinary projects.
The better that structural engineers become at
speaking about a sustainable design ideology
for our everyday projects, the more credible we
will be to our clients as sustainable designers.
Ruben Aya-Welland, P.E., S.E., LEED AP
is an Associate with Hellmuth, Obata +
Kassabaum (HOK) in St. Louis, Missouri. He
is a member of the ASCE-SEI Sustainability
Committee. Ruben may be reached via email
at ruben.ayawelland@hok.com.
C-StructSust-Welland-Jan10.indd 2 12/18/2009 8:58:54 AM
a
i
d
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

t
o
o
l
b
o
x
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S

N
O
T
E
B
O
O
K
24
Antiquated Structural Systems Series
Part 10
By D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE, SECB
This article includes a compilation of
miscellaneous systems and information
for use by the practicing engineer. It
is hoped that this nal article along
with the previous nine has provided
a resource of information to structural
engineers involved with the renovation
of existing structural systems that are
capable of being adapted or reanalyzed
for safe reuse in the marketplace of today
and the future.
Additional Antiquated
Systems
Masonry
Masonry bearing walls were rarely, if
ever, designed for actual loading conditions.
However, analysis of a typical 8-inch,
double-wythe brick wall for a three- to
five-story building indicates that the
compressive stresses are well below the al-
lowable values that were common in the
20
th
Century.
Building codes in New
York City rst addressed
masonry walls in 1830. The
code provisions for brick
became more complicated
with each revision and, by
1892, the portion of the
code dealing with masonry
was its most complex part. The NYC
code, like many other codes from different
major cities, specied the minimum wall
thickness for varying heights of buildings.
The 1892 NYC code generally called for
an increase of 4 inches (i.e., one wythe
of brick) in wall thickness for each 15
feet down from the top of the building.
The minimum thickness for curtain
masonry brick walls was generally 4
inches less than that required for load-
bearing walls at the same height of the
building. As it is sometimes difcult to
ascertain the thickness of brick masonry
walls in existing buildings, a listing of
the various minimum wall thicknesses
is provided here (Table 1, page
26) for a number of major
cities from the 1920s.
Load-bearing brick masonry
walls were eventually replaced
by cage and skeleton wrought
iron and steel frame con-
struction, often using cast iron
columns. Cage construction
involved the use of brick faade
walls that were as thick as those
used for load-bearing construc-
tion; the only difference was
that the frame and supporting
columns, including those that
would eventually be embedded
in the brick masonry faade
wall, were rst erected ahead of
the masonry. Skeleton framing,
although partially embedded in the exterior
masonry walls, was only clad with what
amounted to a brick curtain wall. All three
of these forms of construction co-existed
between 1880 and 1900.
Floor Framing
Draped mesh slabs became popular in
the 1920s. Draped mesh construction
is a type of reinforced slab framing that
involves the use of wires that drape between
the tops of adjacent beams. The types of
mesh used included triangular wire mesh,
ordinary wire mesh, expanded metal
sheets, plain round and square rods and
twisted square rods. The use of wire mesh
was actually preceded by expanded metal
sheets. Welding of wires together to form
the mesh did not begin until the 1930s.
Prior to that, the wires were attached
at the intersection points by staples or
washers, or by wrapping the transverse
wires around the longitudinal wires.
In a draped mesh slab, the concrete
serves only as the wear surface and as the
mechanism by which the imposed loads
are transmitted to the mesh. The mesh
alone is what physically spans between
the beams by means of catenary action.
Because the concrete is not structurally
stressed in this type of system, the com-
position and quality of the concrete is not
as important as in a true exural slab. As a
result, it was common to use cinder con-
crete with compressive strengths under
20
th
Century Loadbearing Masonry Building.
Draped Mesh Floor.
For this series of articles, antiquated has been dened as meaning outmoded or discarded
for reasons of age. In reality, however, most of the systems that have been discussed are
no longer in use simply because they have been replaced by more innovative or more
economical methods of construction.
Web Resources
Additional information concerning draped mesh construction can be found
in the Practice Points archive of The Association for Preservation Technology
website. www.apti.org/publications/PP-archive/Friedman-PPs.pdf
C-EngineersNB-Stuart-Jan10.indd 1 12/18/2009 8:59:23 AM
25
Brick arch oor construction consisted of
a single arch of unmortared brick, typically
only one wythe or 4 inches thick, capable
of spanning 4 to 8 feet with a center rise of
approximately of the span. The spring
line of the arch was constructed on top of
the bottom ange of the supporting beams.
The space above the arch was lled in with
concrete, which sometimes had wood nailer
strips embedded in the top of the slab. Tie rods
were commonly placed about of the height
of the beam and were spaced from 4 to 6 feet
on center. The entire system had to be built
on formwork, which supported the brick. The
thrust (T) on the arch, in pounds per linear
foot, can be calculated as follows:
T = (1.5 x W x L
2
)/R
Where:
W = load on the arch in PSF
L = span length of the arch in feet
R = rise of the arch in inches
Other common oor systems included:
Fawcett System and Acme Floor-Arch
clay lateral cylindrical tile at-end
construction arch.
Rapp Floor and McCabe Floor gauge-steel
inverted tees spaced at approximately 8
inches on center, supporting a layer of brick
and upper cinder concrete slab spanning 4
feet between supporting beams.
BRICK FLOOR-ARCH
CONCRETE FINISHED FLOOR
TYPE (A)
TYPE (B)
TIE ROD
TERRA-COTTA
SKEW-BACK
FLANGE PROTECTION
WITHOUT SKEW-BACK
FLANGE PROTECTION
Brick Arch Floor.
The Kahn System.
A series of deformed bars.
Roebling Floor Arch arch of dense wire
mesh supported on the top of the bottom
anges of the beams covered with concrete.
Manhattan System and Expanded Metal
Company (EMC) Floor at and arched
(for EMC) expanded metal mesh covered
with concrete.
Multiplex Steel-Plate, Buckeye and Pencoyd
Corrugated Floor Riveted steel plates
supporting a concrete slab.
Thompson Floor Unreinforced concrete
slab spanning approximately 3.5 feet between
beams connected with tie rods.
Roebling Flat Slab Floor and Columbian Floor
System reinforced concrete slab.
Metropolitan System early draped mesh
oor system.
Plain round and square bars were typically
used in reinforced concrete buildings built
before 1920. Plain bars began to be phased out
during the 1910s and early 1920s in favor of
deformed bars. The two types of deformations
used at that time included longitudinal and
radial deformations. In addition, the Ransome
bar included deformations induced by twisting
square bars.
Other forms of longitudinally deformed bars
included: the Thatcher bar, which was a square
bar with cross-shaped deformations on each
face; the Lug bar, which was a square bar with
small round projections at the corners; the
Inland bar, which was a square bar with raised
stars on each face; the Herringbone, Monotype
and Elcannes bars, which included complex
cross-sections similar to radial deformed
bars, but with longitudinal deformations;
the Havemeyer bar, which included round,
square and at cross-sections with diamond-
plate-type deformations; the Rib bar, which
included a hexagonal cross-section with cup-
shaped deformations; the American bar with
square and round cross-sections and low
circumferential depressions; the Scoeld bar
with an oval cross-section and discontinuous
circumferential ribs; the Corrugated bar with
at, round and square cross-sections with
cup deformations; the Slant bar with a at
cross-section and low projecting diagonal ribs
on the at faces; the Cup bar with a round
cross-section and cup deformations; and the
Diamond bar with a round cross-section
and low circumferential ribs. The modern
designation of #3 to #8 round cup or diamond
deformed bars was established in 1924.
Reinforcing for concrete beams was also avail-
able in prefabricated trussed bar units. A truss
1,000 psi. The use of cinder concrete, how-
ever, due to the acidic nature of the clinker
(coal cinder) used as the aggregate, resulted in
the corrosion of the embedded iron beams and
reinforcing mesh. Catenary systems are also
vulnerable to collapse as a result of failure of
the wire anchorages.
26
bar is essentially a top bar at the ends of a beam
that is bent diagonally down to a bottom bar
position at midspan. Prefabricated assemblies
included the Kahn System, the Cumming
System, the Corr System, the Hennebique
System, the Pin-Connected System, the Luten
Truss and the Xpantruss System.
Conclusions
Engineers involved with renovation and re-
habilitation projects need to be aware of the
specics of antiquated structural systems in
order to develop non-destructive and unob-
trusive solutions. This approach enables the
project to be more economically viable because
of the extent of structural costs associated with
a typical renovation project. In other words,
without any knowledge of an existing structural
system, it is still possible to develop a structural
solution; however, this approach will always
be much more intrusive, and therefore more
costly, than if the engineer has a sound under-
standing of the system involved.
Information concerning antiquated structural
systems provided by this series of articles, and
the referenced source material, has been com-
piled and made available because the history
of structural systems is far less documented
than the history of architecture. This lack of
documentation can be traced to the general
publics lack of awareness about the hidden
structural components of a building, which
are typically enclosed after erection by the
architectural nishes and therefore of less in-
terest to a casual observer.
This general lack of readily available in-
formation on antiquated structural systems
has occurred despite the fact that most of the
methods of analysis and materials used in this
country, including steel and concrete, are not
much older than 100 years. At the same time
that new materials, technologies and methods
of analysis have become available and readily
embraced by design engineers and the con-
struction industry, previously used systems
were, more often than not, quickly discarded
and forgotten.
The information that has been presented
in this series is intended to represent the
knowledge that has been available at various
stages of different methods of construction
over the past century or so in the United
States. However, this information cannot be
used from a perspective in which any framing
system can be assumed to correspond precisely
to a specic system described in the material
presented. As is still the case now, the fact that
records indicate that a particular structural
component should be able to support a given
load does not mean that errors were not made
during the original construction or as a part of
the initial design.
Total
Stories
City
Floor
1
st
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
5
th
6
th
7
th
8
th
2
Boston 12 12
New York 12 12
Chicago 12 12
Philadelphia 13 13
Denver 12 12
San Francisco 17 13
3
Boston 12 12 12
New York 16 16 12
Chicago 16 12 12
Philadelphia 18 13 13
Denver 16 12 12
San Francisco 17 17 13
4
Boston 16 12 12 12
New York 16 16 16 12
Chicago 20 16 16 12
Philadelphia 18 18 13 13
Denver 16 16 12 12
San Francisco 17 17 17 13
5
Boston 16 16 12 12 12
New York 20 16 16 16 16
Chicago 20 20 16 16 16
Philadelphia 22 18 18 13 13
Denver 20 20 16 16 12
San Francisco 21 17 17 17 13
6
Boston 16 16 16 12 12 12
New York 24 20 20 16 16 16
Chicago 20 20 20 16 16 16
Philadelphia 22 22 18 18 13 13
Denver 20 20 20 16 16 12
San Francisco 21 21 17 17 17 13
7
Boston 20 16 16 16 12 12 12
New York 28 24 24 20 20 16 16
Chicago 20 20 20 20 16 16 16
Philadelphia 26 22 22 18 18 13 13
Denver 24 20 20 20 16 16 12
8
Boston 20 20 16 16 16 12 12 12
New York 32 28 24 24 20 20 16 16
Chicago 24 24 20 20 20 16 16 16
Philadelphia 26 26 22 22 18 18 13 13
Denver 24 24 20 20 20 16 16 12
Table 1: Minimum Building Code Thickness of Brick Masonry Walls Inches.
In addition, it is common to encounter
some overlap between a previous and more
recent method of construction, which has
resulted in a blending of two otherwise discrete
structural systems. Also, before ASTM began
to standardize construction materials in the
late 1890s, the quality of irons, steels and
cementious products varied greatly. Therefore,
when dealing with a building that predates
ASTM testing, samples of the existing structural
materials should be obtained and tested as a
part of the due diligence effort.
In the absence of existing drawings, the
methods of evaluating the properties of an
existing system include core samples for
cementious material strength, depth and/or
thickness; coupons to determine iron or steel
tensile strength; x-rays to determine internal
reinforcement; petrographic analysis to deter-
mine the quality, condition and consistency
of concrete; ground-penetrating radar (GPR);
profometer to determine the location of internal
reinforcement; Schmidt hammer to determine
in situ concrete compressive strength; explor-
atory demolition; and in situ load tests.
In some instances, it is not possible or not
practical to obtain material strength properties
of an existing system in order to complete an
analysis using current methods. However, if
the past performance of the structure has been
good (i.e., no signs of distress or signicant
deterioration), then it is very likely that the
system is adequate for the same use in the
future. In such situations, however, it is helpful
to try and determine what the likely original
live load designation was for comparison to
the planned current use.
If the engineer can determine what the likely
original use of the building was and has access
to copies of older building codes, it is some-
times possible to determine the original live
Minimum Building Code Live Load - PSF
Building Type New York Philadelphia Boston Chicago Denver San Francisco
1927 1929 1926 1928 1927 1928
Residential 40 40 50 40 40 & 60 40
Hotels, Hospitals 40 40 50 40 90 40
Ofce Buildings:
First Floor 100 100 125 125 125 125
Upper Floors 60 60 60 40 70 & 90 40
Classrooms 75 50 50 75 75 75
Public Seating:
Fixed Seats 100 60 100 75 90 75
Without Fixed Seats 100 100 100 125 120 125
Garages:
Public 120 100 150 100 150 100
Private 120 100 75 100 150 100
Warehouses 120 150 125-
250
125-
250
200 125-250
Manufacturing:
Heavy 120 200 250 250 250 250
Light 120 120 125 125 120 125
Stores:
Wholesale 120 110 250 250 120 125
Retail 120 110 125 125 120 100
Sidewalks 300 120 250 150 150 150
Table 2.
27
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
19
th
Century Train Station (30
th
Street Station,
Philadelphia, PA).
T y f o
F i br wr ap
S y s t e ms
FYFE
Co.
LLC
NSF FFR
Certied to NSF/ANSI 61
Over 20 years ago we created the industry...
today we set the standard
Structural Strengthening
FRP Installation
Seismic Upgrade
Blast Mitigation
Concrete Retrot
Specialty Gunite
Underwater & Coastal Repairs
Expansion & Seismic Joints
Pipe Repair and Renewal
Large and Small Diameter
PCCP, RCP, Steel Structural Repairs
Carbon Fiber Structural Liners
Concrete Restoration
Epoxy Crack Injection
Spall Repair
Corrosion Protection
Advanced Fire Protection
8380 Miralani Drive, San Diego, CA 92126
Tel: 858.642.0694
z
Fax: 858.444.2982
www.fyfeco.com
D. Matthew Stuart, P.E., S.E., F. ASCE,
SECB is licensed in 20 states. Matt
currently works as a Senior Project Manager
at the main ofce of CMX located in New
Jersey. Mr. Stuart may be contacted at
mstuart@CMXEngineering.com.
The online version of this article
contains reference/resource information.
Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
load for comparison to the proposed adaptive
reuse. Individual building codes were com-
monly developed by different cities before the
advent of national codes. These local codes
often reected different allowable strengths
for the same building materials and varying
degrees of minimum live loads. Table 2 (page
27) is an example of minimum live loads for a
number of major cities.
The original criteria for the design of antiquated
structural systems was a performance-based ap-
proach grounded in experience, both good and
bad (i.e., successes and failures). The transition
to the more recent analytical design approach
has come about through the development of
strength-based formulas derived from scientic
experimentation and tests. Structural engi-
neering of buildings as a separate discipline
did not exist as late as the 1840s. However,
the need for engineers began to grow in the
1850s with the advent of wrought iron beams,
which had to be mathematically designed be-
cause there was no craft tradition to provide
rules of thumb. In addition, the establishment
of ASCE in 1852 helped to promote the rapid
spread of technical information, such as re-
cords of experiments with cast and wrought
iron performed in England by Hodgkinson
and Fairbairn.
It should also be recognized that an existing
structural system can often be found to have
two different load-carrying capacities one
found using the original codes and methods
of analysis, and another using the current
GPR printout.
Current Day, Jim Thorpe, PA. Strengthening of existing slab (Slag Block System).
28
Early 20
th
Century Retail Arcade (Downtown Nashville Arcade).
codes and methods of analysis. The differences
between these two approaches can typically be
explained by the expansion of knowledge in
the eld of structural engineering. More often
than not, comparisons between the original
and more current methods of analysis will
reveal that the older design was conservative.
In any case, if the properties of the materials
can be substantiated, it is always possible to
analyze an older structure using the latest
methods of analysis and most current codes.
In most cases, in fact, the current building
code will mandate such an approach.
In situations in which it is conrmed that
the existing structural system does not have
sufcient capacity to support the new loads,
there are two basic methods that can be used
to rectify the condition: adding new framing
members, either to support the new loads inde-
pendently or to provide supplemental support
of the existing structure; and/or internally or
externally reinforcing the existing system.
Blank.indd 1 12/14/2009 3:44:22 PM
A
mong the assortment of iconic structures in Dubai, O-14 is truly unique. Its perforated concrete exterior
shell, which serves as an environmentally smart brise soleil, i.e. sunscreen that allows light, air and views, is its
main architectural feature and also its primary structural system. This exoskeleton-sunscreen wall (Figure 1) features
more than 1,300 openings of different sizes, arranged in an apparently random pattern. Far from being random,
however, the seemingly arbitrary arrangement of the openings in the wall creates a diagonal grid that enables its use
as a gravity and lateral supporting system. This design solution represents the use of concrete at its best.
O-14 is prominently located along the waterfront esplanade of the extension of
Dubai Creek. The 22-story tall commercial building is enclosed by a two-story
podium that is not attached to the tower. Five pedestrian bridges, each passing
through a wall opening, provide access between the tower and the podium.
O-14, named after its lot designation, stands on a site of 34,392 square feet,
while the building has a total area of 300,000 square feet, including four
levels of basement. The typical ofce oor area is 6,000 square feet.
With the exterior shell being a primary structural element, the architect,
Reiser + Umemoto (RUR) and the structural engineer, Ysrael A. Seinuk,
P.C. (YAS) collaborated closely in conguring the entire faade. The
sizes and locations of the openings were carefully coordinated in
order to make the wall effective in channeling both gravity
and lateral loads down to the base of the building. Several iterative analyses determined the
size and reinforcement of each solid shell element between the openings.
In order to allow for four levels of parking below grade, a continuous 4-foot deep
ring beam at the ground level supports the entire exterior wall (Figure 2). Vertical
loads from the exterior shell are transferred to (15) large garage columns that
the design team strategically located in order to maximize parking spaces.
Meanwhile, the lateral forces that accumulated in the wall are transferred
to the foundation walls and core shear walls in the basement levels
through the ground oor slab.
The shape of the exterior wall in plan is also an interesting feature
(Figure 3). It resembles a rectangle with curved corners and concave
sides. The core walls that are surrounding the main ofce stairs
and elevators, and the irregularly shaped exterior wall, constitute
the gravity and lateral supporting system of the building. The
central core is basically supporting gravity loads, until some
lateral loads are transferred to it at the ground level.
The building is free of interior columns; the oor slabs
span between the interior core and the exterior shell.
This allows future tenants to arrange a exible oor
space according to their individual needs.
A space nearly 40 inches wide exists between the
shell and the main enclosure. This gap creates
a space for hot air to rise, thereby effectively
cooling the surface of the glass windows
behind the concrete exterior shell. The
oor slabs connect to the exterior wall
(Figure 4) by crossing this gap with 16-
inch thick slab links to solid portions
of the wall. Because the openings
vary throughout the faade, the
slab connections are located at
different points at each level.
The oor system of O-14 is
a conventional at plate sys-
tem, with spans ranging
from approximately 22
to 35 feet. Slab thick-
nesses are 8 inches
and 12 inches at the
Figure 1: The O-14 Exterior Shell.
Courtesy of Reiser+Umemoto.
Figure 2: Continuous pick-up beam at the ground level picking up the
exterior wall. Courtesy of Reiser + Umemoto.
Figure 3: Floor Plan of O-14.
30
Elegant Rhythms
in Concrete
O-14
By Jaime M. Ocampo
F-O14-Ocampo-Jan10.indd 1 12/18/2009 9:01:56 AM
31
typical ofce oors, with 16-inch thick spandrel beams running along
the perimeter of the oor slabs. At the underground parking levels, the
oor slabs are 12 inches thick, with columns spaced at approximately
20 to 35 feet apart.
The podium encircling the tower is supported by a truss at the
north side and nine circular columns in its interior. At the east and
west property lines, it is supported by reinforced concrete walls. The
truss is approximately 165 feet in length and spans the entire width
of the site. The architect and the structural engineer developed a truss
conguration that blends with the entire structure and does not restrict
the views of the wide open exhibit spaces.
The entire structure is supported on drilled cast-in-place piles. The
lowest basement oor, at approximately 51 feet below grade, is a
pressure slab with a minimum thickness of 40 inches. The ground water
level is approximately 10 feet below ground. Lateral earth pressures
at the basement levels are resisted by thirty two-inch thick perimeter
diaphragm walls with tie-backs or earth anchors.
The Exterior Shell
From the ground oor to the top of the parapet wall, the total height
of the exterior shell is 347 feet. The wall thickness is 24 inches from
the ground to the 3
rd
level, and 16 inches from the 3
rd
level to the roof.
In the transition area, void forms (see Construction Methodology below)
were fabricated with a special detail utilizing extra foam pieces, which
were added to the forms on the interior face of the wall. For the entire
wall, normal weight concrete with a strength of 10 kips per square inch
was used.
Modeling and analyzing the shell of O-14 was one of the biggest
challenges of the design process. With coordination between RUR and
YAS, the analyses were conducted so that the nal shell design would
satisfy both architectural and structural requirements.
The design process began with RUR using Rhino (modeling software)
to generate a 3D model of the shell, which contained the preliminary
locations of the openings. The architect then converted it into a 3D
AutoCAD model, which YAS later imported into the SAP2000 soft-
ware for analysis. The engineer applied the gravity and lateral forces to
the shell, and then determined the stresses in the elements between the
openings. He identied the overstressed elements, and the design team
adjusted the sizes and locations of the openings, which resulted in a
slightly different grid pattern. YAS then sent the structural comments
to RUR in order for them to study the architectural implications of the
changes. The architect revised their model and returned it to the engi-
neer for another round of analysis. This disciplined process took sev-
eral iterations until the shell openings,
elements and grid pattern became ac-
ceptable to both the architect and the
structural engineer.
Another consideration in the layout
of the shell openings were the connec-
tion points of the interior slab to the
exterior shell, which occur at the solid
portions of the wall. Basically, the
widths of the openings at each level
dictated the lengths of the edge spans
of the interior slab. In some instances
where the spans became excessively
large because of a very wide opening,
adjustments were made to the size
and/or location of the opening.
Special attention was given to the
detailing of the reinforcement. Each
individual element had to mesh com-
pletely with the greater system to en-
sure adequate transfer of forces. The engineer determined the overlaps
and splice points based on embedment at each node location. In
designing the reinforcement, the engineer always considered the ease
of placement of concrete. Overall, the reinforcing requirements were
moderate and economical.
Construction Methodology
In order to create the perforated exoskeleton, the contractor of O-14
used the slip-form construction technique: modular steel forms
that move up along the building axis. This method prevented costly
dismantling and setup of complex shapes. Computer Numerically Cut
(CNC) polystyrene void forms were woven into the reinforcement
matrix of the shell, with the slip forms of the shell set to outline each
face of the wall. Concrete was then cast around the ne meshwork
of reinforcement and void forms. Once the concrete had cured, the
construction crew loosened the forms and moved them up the tower
to the next level, where the process began again. Dubai Contracting
Company worked closely with Beijing Aoyu Formwork Company
in systematizing the production of the foam pills on site, and in
streamlining the assembly process of the sheathing, steel reinforcement,
and foam pills prior to casting.
More About O-14
O-14s innovative design has generated extraordinary interest around
the world. It was featured in an hour-long documentary about Dubai
(Impossible City), which was produced by CBS News and shown on
the Discovery Channel in October, 2008. On May 14, 2009, the towers
concrete structure was completed (Figure 5), making it one of the rst
towers to appear in the skyline of Business Bay. O-14 is scheduled to
open in the spring of 2010.
Although meticulously designed, engineered and executed, O-14
displays the abilities of concrete design to achieve an elegantly rhythmic
structure. It truly epitomizes concrete at its best.
CONCRETE WALL
CLOSED
STIRRUPS
2T16 T&B
ADDITIONAL TOP
BARS SEE PLAN
FLOOR SLAB
SEE PLAN
400MM THICK SLAB
AT CONNECTION
T20 T&B
CONTINUOUS
KEY @ CONSTRUCTION
JOINT
50mm SEAT
FOR SLAB POUR
Figure 4: Slab connection to the exterior wall.
Figure 5: O-14 topped out.
Courtesy of Dubai Construction
Update ImreSolt.com 2009.
This article in part, has been published in the 2008 issue
of Concrete Technology Today (Singapore) and
is reprinted with permission.
Jaime M. Ocampo is a Senior Vice President with Ysrael A. Seinuk,
P.C. in New York, N.Y. Mr. Ocampo may be reached at
jocampo@yaseinuk.com.
F-O14-Ocampo-Jan10.indd 2 12/18/2009 9:02:07 AM
32
By Sheila Bacon Cain
The introduction of the new, stronger steel comes on the heels of the
completion of another Cary Kopczynski & Co. job: Escala. This 31-
story condominium tower, recently completed in downtown Seattle,
used 100 ksi steel for the rst time for seismic connement purposes.
Made by MMFX Technologies of Irvine, Calif., the 100 ksi steel had
been initially marketed to the industry as corrosion-resistant rebar most
appropriate for use in bridges, parking structures, industrial buildings,
and other applications in which water intrusion was a concern. It has
been used in mat foundations and bridge decks to add strength, but
its use in Escala was the steels rst in a seismic application in North
America. The materials chrome content, which provides corrosion
resistance, has made the material costly, however.
Nucors 90 ksi steel does not include the expensive and for seismic
connement purposes, unnecessary chrome. Instead, it uses added
vanadium and other materials to push up its strength. While the steel is
not as inexpensive as lower steel grades, its price is less than 100 ksi steel
and, when combined with 60 and 75 ksi steel in other areas, more cost
effective. The 90 ksi steel brings healthy competition to the growing
market of high-strength steel rebar.
New Steel Grade Brings Considerable Cost Savings
The switch to 90 ksi steel from the Grade 60 bar that had originally
been specied in the Avalon project has resulted in a savings of more
than $100,000 in steel costs, since less steel is used. Crews had already
placed Grade 60 ties in the basement columns and walls when the
project team made the transition. Had the decision to use the new steel
been made before construction started, the savings would have been
even more substantial. Most project teams can expect to save 20 to 25
percent on the cost of seismic connement steel by using 90 ksi steel in
place of Grade 60 bar. While the material cost is higher, overall project
cost is lower because signicantly less material is used.
The benets reach beyond the obvious cost savings. The use of stronger
steel means fewer ties are placed. This allows for increased spacing
between ties, a reduction of congestion in columns and shear walls and
less work for eld employees, who typically nd column tying tedious
and time consuming.
The decision to use 90 ksi steel on the Avalon project was nancially
driven, although some project owners may opt to use stronger steel
to facilitate greater height in high-rise towers. While use of high-
strength concrete may allow the height of concrete frame buildings to
rise, the amount of conventional column and shear wall steel needed
Avalon Towers includes 15 and 25 story buildings in downtown Bellevue, Washington.
Rebar ties with a 90 ksi yield strength substantially reduced congestion at columns
and shear wall boundaries.
Avalon Tower
New Residential Towers Employ High-Strength Rebar, Other Efciencies
In an economy where every penny counts, it only makes sense to
optimize construction materials and processes. At the new Avalon
Towers residential project in downtown Bellevue, WA, designers have
streamlined traditional ways of designing structural systems and steel
placement to make construction quicker and more economically
efcient. As a result, the developer of the $120 million, cast-in-place,
post-tensioned concrete project is realizing signicant labor and
material savings.
The two towers, rising 25 and 16 oors, are not only one of the
City of Bellevues rst high-rise apartment projects, but also the
rst construction job in the U.S. to use a high-strength, 90 ksi
rebar product in the structures columns and shear walls for seismic
connement purposes. Cary Kopczynski & Co. of Bellevue, WA, is
the jobs structural engineer.
The steel, developed by Nucor, is actually ASTM A 615 rebar with
enhanced ingredients that push its strength to 90 ksi. While it has yet
to be approved as such by ASTM, it was given the go-ahead by the City
of Bellevues building department for use on Avalon after considerable
research and product review.
The use of 90 ksi rebar allows structural engineers to more appropriately
assign steel strengths to particular structural elements. While most jobs
use only one steel grade, Avalon Towers incorporates a palate of choices
grade 60, 75, and 90 so design efciency is optimized.
SF-AvalonTower-Jan10.indd 1 12/18/2009 9:02:33 AM
33
to achieve sufcient seismic connement becomes too great, creating
signicant congestion in columns and shear wall boundary zones. The
use of 90 or 100 ksi steel frees up space and allows for construction
of taller buildings.
Boosting Productivity with Detailed Designs
Beyond the use of the stronger 90 ksi rebar, the design team worked
carefully to further drive down costs and increase jobsite productivity by
detailing pre-tied rebar cages. On jobs with considerable steel and heavily
reinforced columns and shear walls, the physical placement of steel is on
the jobs critical path of construction. In other words, other construction
activity cannot start until all steel is placed. Anything that can be done to
speed up rebar placement will help speed up the job as a whole. One of
the best ways to accomplish this is to detail the layout of the rebar to allow
as much of it as possible to be pre-tied and prefabricated.
Avalon designers detailed all steel-heavy shear wall boundary elements
so they could be prefabricated and brought to the jobsite in two pieces.
The two legs of each L-shaped unit at the corners of the towers cores are
tied together in the eld and spliced into the wall mats. This eliminates
time consuming rebar tying onsite.
Contractors are also able to take advantage of concrete formwork
designed to maximize productivity. Designers kept the layout of the
tower cores as simple as possible: essentially four straight walls with no
re-entrant corners. The simple design allows for use of off-the-shelf
forming systems. The oor layout is also standardized, minimizing
wandering columns by keeping as many columns as possible aligned
across the oorplate. Consciously simplifying layout of the core and
oorplates eliminates the need for custom formwork, which can increase
costs and slow production of the contractor.
A small design detail in the placement of post-tensioning cables at the
shear wall cores further speeds up construction productivity. In most
cases, the post-tensioning cable is pushed into the wall cage where it
meets the core. This requires threading the cable up through the heavy
mass of steel in the rebar cage. Much time can be saved if the post-
tensioning anchor is located outside the core walls, eliminating the need
to weave the cables into the dense rebar cages. Extensive testing and
prior use validates the faster and less expensive method.
Shear wall rebar was detailed to allow pre-tying of cages offsite. This minimized
eld labor and accelerated construction.
Slabs are typically 8-inch thick with a combination of post-tensioning and mild rebar.
Note that exhaust ducts were buried in the slabs, along with most electrical conduit.
Cooperation is Key
Design teams can have the best of intentions when detailing a structural
system to be quick and easy to build, but without early involvement
of the general contractor and subcontractors, few of these efciencies
can be realized. Avalon designers had the good fortune of a coopera-
tive developer and general contractor who was agreeable to hiring
subcontractors early. The design team was able to work closely with the
steel placers in the preconstruction phase to incorporate their input
before heading to the fabrication shop. This level of communication
and teamwork allowed the designers to create a plan that would cut
costs and speed construction.
Completion of Avalon Towers is scheduled for August 2010, one-and-
a-half months ahead of schedule.
Owner: Avalon Bay Communities Inc., Bellevue, WA
Architect: Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects, Seattle, WA
Structural Engineer: Cary Kopczynski & Co., Bellevue, WA
General Contractor: Avalon Bay Communities Inc., Bellevue, WA
Project Team
Sheila Bacon Cain is a Seattle-based writer for the architecture/
engineering/construction industry. She can be reached at
sheila@sheilabacon.com.
SF-AvalonTower-Jan10.indd 2 12/18/2009 9:02:38 AM
34
By Larry Kahaner
data to the ofce, where an engineer can give simple instructions to
the job crew on how to set up the instruments and sensors. She adds:
Were just starting to do this and offering it to our clients.
Jack Hayes, President of Gainesville, Florida-based Loadtest
(www.loadtest.com), says that his company is committed to helping
engineers lower their design factors through deep foundation testing,
using their O-Cell technology. He notes: We developed a way to apply
loads to deep foundations at depth and not at the surface because,
once you get over 1,000 tons of load, providing a reaction system at
the surface becomes difcult and very expensive. The O-Cell is a
hydraulically-driven, high-capacity, sacricial loading device installed
within the foundation unit. As the load is applied
to the O-cell, it begins working in opposite
directions: upward against upper side shear and
downward against base resistance and lower
side shear (if applicable). The advantage, says
Hayes, is that you get double the resistance for
half of the effort.
He adds: Conventional design usually is a
factor of three times because youre not sure if
your assumptions are going to pan out. Our goal
is to look at what costs are being squandered,
by designing to factors higher than 1 to 1.2.
No engineer would design that close to the
line, but thats what they should be thinking
about. If the savings are significant, then
spending just half of that would allow more
testing during construction, which would still
ensure more capacity than required. You might
save 20 to 30 percent and have a much more
stable foundation and higher quality. (See ad
on page 36.)
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
Special Section
FOUNDATION COMPANIES
Working Their Way Through the Downturn
Navigating through the current economic downturn is tough for
foundation, and foundation-related businesses (new installations,
repairing old foundations, testing and manufacturing); but many of
the most successful rms are weathering the storm by keeping their
debt low, expanding markets, increasing offerings, responding to
trends and helping their customers to save money.
For example, GRL Engineers (www.pile.com) in Cleveland, Ohio
took note of the trend in increased testing which allows engineers to
design for the actual pile capacity. If you do more testing, you can
design more aggressively, says Gina Beim, P.E., Senior Consulting
Engineer-Marketing. Because of that, were seeing more testing and
also a tightening of budgets for bridges and roads Were trying to
nd ways to save our customers money, and our response has been
to introduce remote testing. She notes that remote testing is more
common overseas, e.g., in Sweden and Australia. Were only sending
an instrument instead of an engineer to the project site. We save on
travel and other expenses. Beim says that they use the internet to send
F-Foundation-Advertorial-Jan10.i1 1 12/22/2009 9:29:29 AM
35
One company that prides itself on responding quickly to changing
trends is Foresight Products, LLC (www.earthanchor.com) head-
quartered in Commerce City, Colorado. President David Chandler says
that growing interest in erosion control is increasing demand for their
steel anchors. The company, founded over 20 years ago, developed an
earth anchor system for military use; and they have altered it over the
years to keep up with changing demands. The drive type anchor pulls
back and opens like a toggle, he says, which makes it ideal for quick
deployments. We started with the Duckbill, then went to a larger
system, the Manta Ray, with the same concept. Its commonly used
for holding utility poles, but it works well for everything from marine
anchoring to sea walls to retaining walls. Thats the growth market for
us, he adds.
Were kind of a niche player. Our line of larger anchors, the Mantra
Ray at 40,000 pounds and the Stingray at 100,000 pounds, are not
for extreme use. We cant hold up the Golden Gate Bridge with these
anchors. We fall into the category of rapid deployment anchoring,
which is about 80 percent of our market and includes retaining walls
up to 10 feet, he says. Were moving fast into the erosion control
market, revegetation on levees, for example. He notes that one of the
main advantages of their products is that they can be installed using
conventionally-available construction equipment.
Another company which makes a practice of responding to trends
is Grip-Tite (www.griptite.com) of Winterset, Iowa. Grip-Tite has
been manufacturing earth-anchoring products for over 88 years. In the
1920s and 30s, the companys anchors were used to secure highway
guard cables, then used extensively for guying oil well derricks and oil
pipelines. Following World War II, Grip-Tite developed anchors for the
rapidly-growing rural electrication network of overhead lines. Then, it
saw a need for an anchor that could, simply and effectively, secure and
stabilize cracked and bowing basement walls, without replacement of
the walls for the growing residential market. It developed and patented
the Grip-Tite Wall Anchor System. Now, things have changed again,
says Nick Farkas, Director of Dealer Development.
See us at
WOC 2010
Booth # S11711
Anchors, Piers, Foundations, and
Underground Construction
Drilled shaft foundations on the Schermerhorn House in Brooklyn, NY.
36
The residential market has slowed quite a bit. We see short and long
term opportunities in the commercial side of our business. Its a new
emphasis, says Farkas. We have a dealer in Minneapolis, for instance,
who is having great success using one of our newer products, a zero
degree bracket. Traditionally, anchors followed a two-degree incline to
accommodate the torque motor under a basement wall, for example.
You could not install an anchor perpendicular to the foundation. We
designed a bracket to take the eccentricity out, and its working well for
us. This particular project involves a retail space that is converting to
a hardware store, so they need fortication of the foundation to handle
higher loads of hardware stock. Farkas says there are 140 to 150 piers
going around the structure at zero degrees.
One trend that Farkas welcomes is the acceptance of helical and push
steel piering products; and, he credits the foundation industry for
working together with engineers to produce AC358. Were promoting
products as an industry, instead of each company doing their own
methodology and testing and putting their products in the best light.
Now we measure apples to apples. He adds: This will drive the quality
of products and move the reputation of the industry upwards There
used to be a reluctance to use our products in commercial construction.
With inclusion in the UBC, we will see more acceptance and use. (See
ad on page 40.)
Bill Bonekemper, Vice President of Magnum Piering of West Chester,
Ohio (www.magnumpiering.com), agrees. The company introduced
their helical pier in 2000 and has done very well with it. While the
stringent criteria that the industry helped set for AC358 may seem
tough to meet, Bonekemper expects that this will pay dividends in
the future.
To be honest, the foundation industry has never had helical piles,
he says. It has a very complex set of calculations with all the different
soils (clay, sand and bed rock); and the industry did make it difcult
on itself with guidance from engineers from ICC. They said: We wont
give you a passing grade without proper extensive testing. The group
decided it was worthwhile to produce a very stringent testing regimen
and approval process. In the end, we will all be better for it; and it will
keep out the also-rans with poor products, says Bonekemper.
The future for helical piers is bright, Bonekemper says, because they
are extremely versatile. They work well in many situations, such as
slopes along interstates. The utility industry uses them to hold down
big towers. The solar panel industry is looking at helical piers for huge
arrays, and so is the wind power generator business The industry has
done a good job of educating engineers, and its starting to pay off.
(See ad on page 38.)
continued on page 38
Special Section
Were promoting products as
an industry, instead of each
company doing their own
methodology and testing...
www.loadtest.com
Gainesville, FL
lonoon, U| - Dubo|, U^c
3|ngopo|e - 3eou|, |o|eo
World Leaders in Deep Foundation Load Testing
1-800-368-1138
loootest |s oeo|ooteo to p|omot|ng ono estob||sh|ng the
0ste|be|g Le|| 0Le||
J methoo ol ol |ooo test|ng o||||eo sholts

ono p||es os the p|em|e| methoo ol stot|o |ooo test|ng.
WWW.ABCHANCE.COM
EMAIL: CIVILCONSTRUCTION@HPS.HUBBELL.COM
01101
Cop]r||| 2010 luooe|| lrcorpora|ed

Visit
World of Concrete
BOOTH S11627
Link from abchance.com
Our products are
made with
90% Recycled Material
Down. Right. Solid.
GREEN.
Blank.indd 1 12/11/2009 10:55:14 AM
38
At A.B. Chance (www.abchance.com), a division of Hubbell Power
Systems, Business Unit Director John Bliven applauds AC358 and
notes: It is a very difcult standard We are fortunate that we have
a 41,000 sq foot research center. Its accredited, and we have been able
to perform most of the tests with 3
rd
party observation. Located in
Centralia, Missouri, the company traces its roots to 1912 when A.B.
Chance invented an earth anchor device after an ice storm knocked down
local telephone poles. Bliven promotes the versatility of current-day
helical anchors, and also sees opportunities in the solar industry and
government projects. For road building, the company offers products
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
for street lights and signage foundations. These are instant founda-
tions, and thats one of the biggest benets of helicals in my opinion. (See
ad on page 37.)
Managing the current downturn not only takes strong products
and services, but also a culture that enables
companies to bend without breaking. One-
hundred-year-old Subsurface Contractors
(www.subsurfaceconstructors.com), of St. Louis,
Missouri, suggests that its culture of change
allows them to stay current with customers
needs. Subsurface President Jim Morgan says,
Were always looking to be able to bring the
broadest amount of offerings to our clients, the
most economical, right-sized offering for what-
ever foundation project comes our way.
For example, they are leveraging the fact that
two of the three owners are military veterans to
help their customers win more contracts. We
are doing a library in Peoria and a Veterans
Hospital in Columbia, Missouri. We are trying
to reposition ourselves as a veteran-owned
small business, to help our clients who are
repositioning themselves to pursue government
work. The work that will be out there for
the next six months will mainly be public or
public-related.
In one project, they are using an auger cast pile,
despite the sandy soil. Thats a bit unusual
because, normally, in sandy soil youre going
to use a sheet pile; and, traditionally, if someone
used auger cast in sandy soil, they would all be
tangent to each other which makes it quite
expensive. He said the company came up with
a hybrid auger cast system where you dont put
them in tangentially, but where they are close
enough to retain the loose soils, yet separated
enough to reduce the number of piles. That
will make it competitive with steel sheet pile,
Morgan adds.
And while changing with the times and
coming up with innovative solutions has
helped the company survive the current re-
cession, Morgan also credits Subsurface Con-
structors conservative ethic: We have never
tried to grow too fast; so during this economic
downturn, were not overwhelmed by debt or
other liabilities. Were in a position to weather the
storm and, in fact, are making investments We
Special Section
Were always looking to be able
to bring the broadest amount
of offerings to our clients ...for
whatever foundation project
comes our way.
Blank.indd 1 12/11/2009 4:50:10 PM
40
Special
Section
just bought another ground improvement
machine to take advantage of the cheap
equipment market.
For the foreseeable future, until private sector
companies ramp up their construction spend-
ing, government-related projects will rule for
most foundation companies. We see large
projects on the horizon, says Dennis Poland,
Business Development Manager of Anderson
Drilling (www.andersondrilling.com),
which serves the Western United States
from Lakeside, California.
The public works sector is hot. Were fo-
cusing on large infrastructure projects in the
western US. One such project is the new,
elevated Light Rail Transit System, from
Qualcomm Stadium to near San Diego State
University in the San Diego Mission Valley.
The elevated section is supported by sixty-
seven 8-foot and 9-foot diameter shafts, drilled
70-105 feet deep. The subsurface is loose,
coarse sands and gravels, intermixed with
soft, ne-grained material, with occasional
boulders to 30 inches in diameter, overlying
dense sandstone bedrock. Anderson Drillings
service included placement of client-supplied
reinforcing cages, furnished and poured con-
crete to the drilled shaft cut-off, and on-site
stockpiling of drill spoils.
The spread of government-funded projects,
however, is spotty. Some areas are doing well,
spending stimulus monies, while others are
not spending the money or have not yet
received it, for shovel-ready projects.
The Monotube Pile Corporation, part
of the Davidson Group of Companies
(www.davidsonpipe.com), is dedicated to
manufacturing 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: Most of our business involves projects
that have government funding bridges,
government structures structures with lon-
gevity. Our products, the cast in place pile,
are seldom used in commercial applications;
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.
In the infrastructure space across America, its
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.
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 piles superior performance and its
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, were ready to
deliver solid economics.
Request our
Free Catalog
Monotube
Piles. Solid Economics

Put infrastructure spending
on a solid foundation.
Blank.indd 1 11/3/2009 1:42:27 PM
A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

-
F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
42
but the commercial business is null and void right now anyway. Were
doing some highway bridges, but most other projects are on hold
State highway departments are not spending at the rate they have in the
pastWe have not seen the effect of the stimulus. We hope to see it in
the 2
nd
and 3
rd
quarter of 2010. We wont see a signicant change until
then. (See ad on page 41.)
Doug Taylor, CEO of Taylor Devices in North Tonawanda, New York
(www.taylordevices.com), echoes Kosas sentiments with respect to the
government stimulus funds. A lot of projects that use our products
use a lot of government funding, and were not seeing a lot of signs of
the stimulus. Taylor Devices makes a host of shock control devices,
including Seismic Dampers and Seismic Protection Products. He adds:
The money is there. Its been received by a government organiza-
tion, but theyre not spending it. Theyre letting it sit. He notes that the
Governor of New York is talking about using stimulus funds slated for
2010 to balance the 2009 budget. Theyre not
going to use it for government projects, but to
pay salaries. Can they legally do that? Thats
what everyone is asking.
Jim Hussin, Director of Marketing at Hayward
Baker, Inc. (www.HaywardBaker.com), head-
quartered in Odenton, Maryland, does not see
a fast recovery in the U.S. commercial market
either. As everyone knows, the commercial
market has slowed down. Most of the work that
had been commonplace has pretty much dried
up. We are seeing a shift toward both direct
government work and sectors such as power,
ports, hospitals and schools areas where there
is more funding. The return of the commercial
market may take a couple of years.
SEISMIC PROTECTION
FROM TAYLOR DEVICES
Stand firm. Dont settle for less than the seismic protection
of Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers. As a world leader in
the science of shock isolation, we are the team you
want between your structure and the undeniable forces
of nature. Others agree. Taylor Fluid Viscous Dampers
are currently providing earthquake, wind, and motion
protection on more than 240 buildings and bridges.
From the historic Los Angeles City Hall to Mexicos
Torre Mayor and the new Shin-Yokohama High-speed
Train Station in Japan, owners, architects, engineers,
and contractors trust the proven
technology of Taylor Devices
Fluid Viscous Dampers.
YOU BUI LD I T.
WE LL PROTECT I T.
Taylor Devices Fluid Viscous Dampers give you the seismic protection
you need and the architectural freedom you want.
North Tonawanda, NY 14120- 0748
Phone: 716.694.0800 Fax: 716.695.6015
www. tayl ordevi ces. com
Special Section
We are seeing a shift toward
both direct government work
and sectors such as power, ports,
hospitals and schools...
ADVERTISING
OPPORTUNITIES
STRUCTURE
magazine is
planning several additional
SPECIAL ADVERTORIALS
in 2010.
To discuss advertising
opportunities, please contact
our ad sales representatives:
CHUCK MINOR
Phone: 847-854-1666
DICK RAILTON
Phone: 951-587-2982
Sales@STRUCTUREmag.org
.ORTH!MERICAS
,EADING'EOTECHNICAL
#ONSTRUCTION#ONTRACTOR
Blank.indd 1 12/3/2009 3:58:28 PM
STRUCTURE magazine
ANCHOR UPDATES
January 2010 44
Not listed? Visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org/guides.aspx and opt-in to our email reminder list. All Resource Guides and Updates for the
2010 Editorial Calendar, including the 2010 Trade Show in Print, are now available on the website, www.STRUCTUREmag.org under
Resource Guides. Sign up for any of the Guides today! Remember, your information is posted for an entire year on our website!
Listings are provided as a courtesy. STRUCTURE
magazine is not responsible for errors.

Company Product Description
A.B. Chance/Atlas
Phone: 573-682-8414
Email: civilconstruction@hps.hubbell.com
Web: www.abchance.com
Earth Anchoring Systems Underpinning, micropiles, soil nails, tiebacks, foundations, guying systems.
Foresight Products, LLC
Phone: 800-325-5360
Email: sales@earthanchor.com
Web: www.earthanchor.com
Manta Ray and
Stingray earthanchors
Proof tested driven tipping plate anchors for reaction of tensile loads. Used for foundation stabilization,
augmentation, shoring, retaining walls, and other tieback applications.
Halfen Anchoring Systems
Phone: 210-658-4671
Email: Halfen@MeadowBurke.com
Web: www.HalfenUSA.com
HALFEN
Adjustable anchoring systems for faade 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
Anchors
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
The Thermal Pos-I-Tie
The Thermal Pos-I-Tie
Brick Veneer Anchoring System features a proprietary plastic wing nut which
has very low thermal conductivity of over 100 times less than metals such as steel. This system has
been extensively tested for performance and longevity. The plastic wing nut is highly ame resistant
and non-corroding.
Hilti, Inc.
Phone: 800-879-8000
Email: custserv@us.hilti.com
Web: www.us.hilti.com
Hilti
Hilti has been in the post installed anchor industry for decades with many industry rsts, such as the
rst mechanical and adhesive anchor systems with independent approval for use in cracked concrete in
North America. In 2010, Hilti will introduce more innovation and another industry rst.
Lindapter North America
Phone: 888-724-2323
Email: inquires@lindapterna.com
Web: www.lindapterna.com
Hollo-Bolt
Reect Blind Hole and HSS Anchor. Guaranteed Tensile and Shear Values at a 5:1 Factor of
Safety. Superior clamping force for Slip Critical Connections.
Powers Fasteners
Phone: 985-807-6666
Email: jzenor@powers.com
Web: www.powers.com
Construction Fasteners
Free anchor design software POWERS DESIGN ASSIST (PDA). Download from the Powers
website or powersdesignassist.com. Will help designers deal with ACI 318 APPENDIX D. NOW...7
new anchor Code Compliance ICC ES Reports!
RISA Technologies
Phone: 949-951-5815
Email: info@risatech.com
Web: www.risa.com
RISABase
When accuracy counts, RISABase delivers. RISABase uses an automated nite element solution to
provide exact bearing pressures, plate stresses, and anchor bolt pull out capacities, eliminating the
guess work of hand methods. Dene bi-axial loads and eccentric column locations. Choose from
several connection types and specify custom bolt locations.
SAS Stressteel
Phone: 973-244-5995
Email: info@stressteel.com
Web: www.stressteel.com
Hot-Rolled Continuously
Threaded Bars
SAS Stressteels Thread Bar product line falls into many geotechnical and concrete structure applications,
offering steel grades 80, 97, 150 and select 160ksi. Check out our website to nd out more!
Simpson Strong-Tie
Phone: 925-560-9000
Email: slentz@strongtie.com
Web: www.strongtie.com
Simpson Strong-Tie
Anchor Systems
Solutions for
Cracked Concrete
The 2006 IBC requires engineers to determine if conditions exist that may cause concrete to crack and
select anchors accordingly. Simpson Strong-Tie Anchor Systems has several code-listed anchors for use
in cracked and uncracked concrete, including SET-XP
Epoxy-Tie
adhesive (ESR-2508), Titen HD
screw anchor (ESR-2713) and Strong-Bolt
wedge anchor (ESR-1771).

Williams Form Engineering Corp.
Phone: 616-866-0815
Email: williams@williamsform.com
Web: www.williamsform.com
Anchor Systems
Williams Form Engineering Corporation has been providing threaded steel bars and accessories for
rock anchors, soil anchors, high capacity concrete anchors, micro piles, tie rods, tie backs, strand
anchors, hollow bar anchors, post tensioning systems, and concrete forming hardware systems in the
construction industry for over 85 years.
Anchor Updates January 2010.indd1 1 12/18/2009 9:06:16 AM
RISK MANAGEMENT
risk management topics for structural engineers
45
Management Guidelines
Preventing/Mitigating Field Construction Problems
By James Lefter, P.E., M. ASCE
When teaching in the area of Construction
Engineering and Management, the author
presented Guidelines to help graduate students
learn how to prevent or mitigate eld construc-
tion problems. The Guidelines complemented
the essential technical and management skills
taught in the core curriculum.
Because errors at any stage of design and
construction may cause eld problems, the
Guidelines encompass the entire process.
Experienced construction managers and engi-
neers know these Guidelines, but enforcement
is often lax. Students found the Guidelines
deceptively easy to understand, with little new
technical expertise needed for implementation.
But, as a former student wrote in a plaintive
letter to the author, they are very difcult to
enforce. The author believes that many eld
problems would be avoided or mitigated if the
Guidelines were applied assiduously.
In the review of individual Guidelines below,
illustrative examples in italics demonstrate how
vulnerable any project is to eld construction
problems. Examples from the authors experience
are prefaced by an asterisk and/or by reference to
Veterans Administration Board of Contract
Appeals (VABCA) Decisions in which the au-
thor served as the VA Contracting Ofcer.
Guideline 1
Promote the Workers Innate
Desire to Do a Good Job
Workers want to do a good job and take pride
in their work. Sadly, many workers believe
they have to choose between honesty and their
own immediate interests. Mutual condence
is developed through successful interaction.
Managers should set an example; assign clear
duties and responsibilities; offer timely guid-
ance; provide environmental and physical
safety, appropriate tools, and equipment; and,
listen to and respond to worker concerns.
Whistle-blowers are often among the best,
most conscientious workers, but are often
frustrated by their inability to draw attention
to their concerns.
Two measures that encourage worker honesty
directly are: 1) an honor code type certica-
tion on important project documents, and
2) a system that assures high probability that
transgressors will be caught. High prob-
ability of detection is a greater deterrent
than the severity of punishment for the
transgression (Mazar and Ariely 2006).
Guideline 2
Follow Building Code Requirements
The building code is mandated by law.
Failure to follow the governing building
code in design or construction may be
considered as proof of negligence.
For many years, California structural
engineers and contractors routinely used Type
V (sulfate-resisting) cement for residential
foundation concrete, with a specied f 1c of
2000-3000 psi (13.6-20.5 mpa). The water-
cementitious materials ratio was generally in
the range of 0.8 0.6. There were no reports of
sulfate deterioration of the foundation concrete.
However, an ACI 318 revision required the
use of Type V cement and a maximum water-
cementitious materials ratio of 0.45 for foundation
concrete exposed to sulfates. This requirement was
included in the 1985 Uniform Building Code
and considered applicable to residential construc-
tion in California. After construction of a large
housing development that did not conform to
the new requirement, lawsuits amounting to bil-
lions of dollars were led alleging deciencies in
foundation construction due to code violations,
even though there was no evidence of foundation
concrete deterioration due to sulfate exposure
(Bondy 1999).
Guideline 3
Require Independent Review
of Plans and Specications
Poor quality construction documents cause
many problems, although details are rare in
the literature (Lefter 2005). Two main categories
of defective documents are: 1) those poorly
coordinated, and 2) those with too many details
of construction left up to the contractor.
Independent Review should address the basic
question: Is the project buildable? The author
strongly encourages Peer Design and Construc-
tability Reviews, through which many potential
problems are discovered and corrected at a
relatively low cost (Elwin 2000).
The collapse of the Sleipner Offshore Platform in
the North Sea on August 23, 1991 was reviewed
by Collins, Vecchio, Selby and Gupta (1997).
The article was based on extensive laboratory
testing and analysis. A principal cause of the
collapse was attributed to a computer program
that underestimated the applied shear stress.
An independent review would have caught
and corrected this error.
Guideline 4
Build it Right the First Time
There are estimates that over 10% of all new
construction has to be reworked, much of it
due to recurring types of problems. Lists of
most frequently encountered eld construc-
tion problems usually include low strength
concrete, premature removal of forms, omission
or misplacement of reinforcing steel, improper
ashing, weld defects, inadequate soil compac-
tion, unbraced masonry walls and unbraced
structural steel erection. These types of problems
are generally preventable.
Column and slab concrete strength specied
for a reinforced concrete high rise building
was f 1c=5000 psi (35 mpa). The compressive
strength of the concrete in place, based on eld
cores, ranged from 950 psi to 3900 psi (6.5-
27 mpa). Compared to the approved design
mix, the field concrete had lower cement
content, a higher water-cementitious ratio, and
unapproved lightweight aggregate (Szypula and
Grossman 1990).
Figure 1.
D-RiskManag-Lefter-Jan10.indd 1 12/18/2009 9:07:31 AM
46
Many constructors seem to consider not
knowing how to build something a personal
weakness. Encourage craftsmen and eld su-
perintendents to seek help if they dont know
how to build it.
Guideline 5
Provide Continuous Field Inspection
from the First Day
Competent and continuing eld inspection is
a fundamental need for any quality assurance/
quality control program. Most construction
contracts hold the contractor responsible for
quality control and require a documentation
program. The author advocates that contractors
quality-control be augmented by independent
inspectors who know the work well enough to
judge if it is being done in accordance with
contract documents and good practice.
*Column reinforcing bar cages had been erected.
The carpenter foreman measured the cages and
found them too large for the column sizes shown
on the drawings. He cut off the last row of column
bars to t the column sizes shown. Fortunately,
the error was discovered by independent inspectors
and corrected before the concrete was placed.
How To See What Is There and Not
There: Develop, Maintain, Update and
Enforce Check Lists. Each inspector
performs differently, based on personal
experience and interest, and may neglect
some areas while over-emphasizing
others. Check Lists can help bring
uniformity and consistency to almost any
process, including inspection. Textbooks
and publications on quality-control and
construction inspection by suppliers,
manufacturers, and professional societies
often include Check Lists.
Check lists are vital when coordinating the
work of several crews. For example, placing wall
concrete in hot weather requires a mix that ows
smoothly and without segregation while extending
the time for placing. The method of placing the
concrete (pumping or crane and bucket) im-
pacts the mix ingredients (air entrainment, use
of retarder and superplasticizer, aggregate size,
etc.), lift heights, crew size, location and number
of vibrators, placement monitoring, and loca-
tions of control joints and construction joints.
Overlooking any of these factors can result in
unacceptable construction. Figures 1, 2 and
3, from one of the authors projects, show that
the concrete placement did not meet important
ACI-318 Code Requirements, including that
the that top surfaces of lifts be level (Figure 1, page
45), concrete ow readily into spaces between
reinforcement (Figure 2), and be placed continu-
ously until completed (Figure 3). Using check
lists would have helped prevent this embarrassing
and costly asco.
Inspection Should Be
Geared to Prevention Not
Rejection.
Do Not Rely on Self
Inspection: Monitor the
Performance of Every
Level of Field, Ofce Staff,
Including Inspectors.
The Alaska Pipeline was almost
half nished in 1975. Sections
of 80-foot pipe lengths had been
eld welded to the pipeline already
in place. Strict weld quality con-
trol procedures in force began
with visual inspection and were
followed by radiography to detect
hidden aws. Metal tags iden-
tied each weld, each weld was
x-rayed, and a computer uniquely
identified each weld. Then
an Inspector claimed that he was
red for refusing to falsify radiographs. He tes-
tied that x-ray equipment could not keep up
with the welders, who were under pressure to
maintain the construction pace. Reinspection of
30,800 field welds showed that 3,955 were
questionable. A Congressional Committee later
reported that the quality control system had
broken down because on-site inspectors felt they
had little support from their organization or
federal ofcials (Ross 1984).
Trust but Verify. Contract enforcement
should not be a matter of trust, it should
be a matter of record and procedure.
A testing company was accused of falsifying
concrete strength test results on many city,
commercial, and industrial projects in New
York (Rashbaum 2008).
Guideline 6
The Construction Schedule Should
be a Tool Not the Master
The Project Schedule is the primary control
system for a project. Updating the schedule as
the project progresses is a priority responsibility
of the project manager, requiring comprehensive
review and coordination of all concurrent and
planned future activities.
The author was a Member of the National
Academy of Engineering Committee that eval-
uated the management of Bostons Big Dig,
the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project
(NAE 2003). Although the project mangers
were highly qualied and experienced, the proj-
ect was very complex, and difcult to plan and
coordinate. It was plagued by cost and schedule
overruns. The Committee Report discussed
several methods used to enforce the overall project
schedule that often led to extensive modica-
tions and change orders during construction.
Excerpts from the NAE Report follow:
the risks of highly technical engineering
design and construction, unknown soil conditions,
existing underground utilities, and other factors
that increase costs and delay schedules should and
could have been anticipated and addressed through
additional planning and design, site analysis and
cost and schedule contingencies. (p. 15).
The project used a fast track design and delivery
method to reduce overall project time The CA/T
work packages had complete civil design, but they
frequently required modications to accommodate
project-wide systems that were designed in later
packages. The result has been a high rate of claims
and changes (p.16).
The project had large cost increases resulting
from changes in scope, design, and project limits,
as well as from deciencies in coordinating
contracts. ... All contract modications should
be comprehensively reviewed prior to execution
for impacts on scope, design details, interfaces,
and contract duration. (p.18).
Construction acceleration (extended periods of
overtime and longer workweeks), with accom-
panying premium costs, could lead to problems
with work quality and a bigger-than-expected
list of items to be reworked or completed prior
to acceptance. (p.18.)
The Committee advised that strict adher-
ence to the schedule, if it means sacricing
project coordination, may result in time and
money wasted.
If a project is behind schedule, the project
manger should review the remaining sched-
ule to nd opportunities for recovery. Most
schedules are planned and sequenced on a
preferential rather than need basis, and it may
be possible to recoup time by resequencing
activities. This was accomplished on the Big
Dig project.
The project management consultant developed
a Milestone Manager to provide real time per-
Figure 2.
47
formance data and develop new work sequences
to work around delays. (p. 16).
Finally, as reported by Kim and de la Garza
(2003), the traditional CPM schedule is of-
ten not realistic; even resource-limited CPM
schedules generally do not calculate oat and
critical paths correctly. Kim and de la Garza
presented a direct solution to this problem.
Guideline 7
Address Field Problems When They Arise
Contracts usually assign responsibility for
means, methods and sequence of operations
to the Contractor. However, Owners can be
held responsible for their own actions or lapses
as well as those of their agents, including
designers, project managers, and independent
inspectors. Therefore, all parties should work
together to resolve problems in the eld when
they arise.
*A $14 million construction contract required
pre-drilling through a layer of cemented sands
for foundation pile installation. The contractors
equipment could not penetrate the layer. The
Owner (Government) offered no direct help or
advice, just pointed to the soil borings logs and
insisted there was no differing site condition. The
contractor completed the project nine months
late. He then led a Differing Site Conditions
claim for direct costs of $1.5 million and prepared
an additional claim for acceleration costs of
$5.0 million. The Owner counter-claimed $2.7
million for liquidated damages. Total claims:
$9.2 million. During the Board of Contract
Appeals hearing, both sides learned that there
were discrepancies in the eld logs. Although
the Owner won the case, there
were no real winners, only losers. In
retrospect, the Owner should have
been more open to the possibility of
a differing site condition and consid-
ered sharing the cost of more suitable
equipment. This would have been a
small fraction of the cost of litigation,
preparation for the court hearing,
schedule delays, and the claims them-
selves. (Murray Walter, Inc. 1987).
Courts generally recognize normal
give and take between Owner and
Contractor when both sides are
jointly seeking a mutually agree-
able solution to a problem. A notice
of a claim is necessary to indicate
when the battle lines of a dis-
pute were clearly and irrevocably
drawn. (Santa Fe, Inc. 1986).
Occasionally, design engineers
are reluctant to help solve eld
problems because of concern of
assuming additional responsibil-
ity. Review of a number of court
decisions has persuaded the author that the
courts generally recognize contractual re-
sponsibilities but, nonetheless, frequently
assign to the Engineer-of Record authority
and responsibility over construction opera-
tions involving worker safety.
Guideline 8
In Negotiations, Look for Common
Interests: A Better Deal for Both Parties
In Getting to Yes, Fisher, Ury and Patton
(1991) presented principled negotiation.
Principled negotiation is deciding issues on
their merits rather than through haggling;
looking for mutual gains wherever possible;
and, where interests collide, looking for some
fair standard, independent of either side.
Guideline 9
To Win In Court: Perform an Experiment
to Enhance Expert Witness Testimony
Expert witnesses can be problematic in many
ways: Judges and juries often do not understand
technical presentations; there are questions as
to how much weight should be given an expert
witnesss testimony; and, because each experts
testimony usually supports the sponsor, expert
witnesses often cancel each other out.
An expert witness should perform an ex-
periment or test to strengthen a presentation.
A good experiment can impress both judge
and jury.
*In a case discussed earlier (Murray Walter,
Inc. 1987), the contractor testied that if the
materials he was to predrill had been classied
The online version of this article
contains detailed references. Please
visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
James Lefter, P.E., was Visiting Professor
and Lecturer in the Area of Construction
Engineering and Management in the
Departments of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana campus, and at
Virginia Tech. He has also held positions
at the Ofce of Facilities, Veterans
Administration, Washington, DC, and on the
American Concrete Institutes Committee for
Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI-318) and the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute. James can be
reached at jlefter@comcast.net.
ADVERTISEMENT For Advertiser Information, visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org
The easiest to use software for calculating
wind, seismic, snow and other loadings for
IBC, ASCE7, and all state codes based on
these codes ($195.00).
Tilt-up Concrete Wall Panels ($95.00).
Floor Vibration for Steel Beams and Joists
($100.00).
Concrete beams with torsion ($45.00).
Demos at: www.struware.com
as limestone instead of cemented sands, he
would not have bid the project. Consequently,
he suffered major losses. The Governments expert
witness presented several limestone samples to
the Board. Their compressive strengths ranged
from 2000 psi to 10,000 psi (14-70 mpa). He
encouraged the Judge to examine the samples and
scratch them using his own pen knife. The Judge
was persuaded that the word limestone would
not have been a better description of the hardness
of the material and based most of his decision on
this experiment...
Summary
Guidelines were presented to help graduate
students learn how to prevent or mitigate
eld construction problems. The Guidelines
complemented the essential technical and
management skills taught in the core cur-
riculum. Although experienced managers can
readily expand on them, enforcement is often
lax. The author believes that many eld prob-
lems would be avoided or mitigated if the
Guidelines were applied assiduously.
Figure 3.
BUSINESS PRACTICES
business issues
48
Digital Signatures
Electrifying the Structural Engineering Work ow
By Dr. Gadi Aharoni
New Flyer was looking to implement an end-to-end digital sign-off
process to keep up with its high-pressure engineering and manufacturing
environment. Our engineers can now electronically add their signature
and professional seal to CAD, Microsoft Word, Excel, and Adobe PDF
documents, signicantly enhancing our processes; reducing paper,
scanner and labor costs.
- Dave Fraser, New Flyer CAD Systems Manager
To reduce time consuming and expensive paper-based processes,
electronic documents are increasingly used by structural engineering
organizations in business processes from bidding and design through
project completion. However, when preparing to sign electronic docu-
mentation, engineers often nd themselves forced to reintroduce paper
into the workow, extending project schedules and increasing costs.
Printing a hard copy of an electronic document just to sign it leads
to a cumbersome and needlessly long process: physically routing
the original for signatures across multiple ofce locations, and then
shipping the document back to the project team to be scanned into
a document management system. Such a scenario is like putting
stoplights on the Autobahn. It brings efcient businesses to a grinding
halt and increases operating costs.
This reality nullies the benets of utilizing electronic documentation in
the workow. Applying a hand-written signature to printed electronic
les extends project schedules and increases budgets. Additionally, the
costs associated with archiving and auditing paper documentation sig-
nicantly increase an organizations overhead, affecting a rms ability
to efciently manage and scale operations. Moreover, printing a hard
copy requires the organization to store and maintain both a signed
paper-based copy and an unsigned electronic copy. This doubles the
necessary archiving space for documentation, and fails to leverage a
key benet of electronic documentation the lack of space required
for archival.
Secure and durable electronic approval is therefore vital to realizing
the full benets of a rms investment in project efciency and regulatory
compliance. That said, more and more organizations are adopting digital
signatures. In fact, analysts expect the market for advanced authenti-
cation and data protection to reach nearly $1 billion in 2010. Three
trends are driving this growth: 1) Continuing adoption of electronic
documents and document management; 2) Increasing pressure to meet
government and industry regulations; and 3) Growing demand for secure
and trusted collaboration with customers, partners, and suppliers.
Today, there is a very simple solution for all engineering organizations
that enables them to maintain and enjoy the benets of a completely
electronic workow. The solution to breaking the cycle of a paper-
based workow is a digital signature (standard electronic signature).
Business Benets for SE Firms
By incorporating digital signatures on drawings and into business
processes, engineering organizations can reduce approval cycle
times as well as the costs of handling, distributing, and archiving
signed documents.
Digital signatures use the concept of traditional paper-based signing
and convert it into an electronic ngerprint. This ngerprint is
unique to both the document and the signer. Digital signatures are
based on a fundamental technology called Public Key Infrastructure
(PKI), which invalidates the signature if any changes are made to the
document after signing, thereby protecting against signature forgery
and information tampering. As such, digital signatures are fundamental
in helping organizations sustain proof of the signers identity, intent,
and the integrity of electronic documents valuable characteristics
for engineering organizations with secure documentation concerns, or
engineering organizations that rely heavily on project collaboration
or documentation review. A digital signature capacity essentially
eliminates the need to ever reintroduce a paper-based signature into
an engineering organizations electronic workows.
Moreover, recent advances in non-proprietary digital signature tech-
nology free the organization that created the le, and the companys
customers and partners, from being locked into a specic vendors
proprietary software. These advances allow recipients to verify the
digital signature with any commonly used application such as Microsoft
Word, Excel
, PDF or AutoCAD
, as opposed to requiring the recipient

to use software plug-ins for verication purposes.
CoSign Digital Signatures allow anyone to
seamlessly verify and retain proof of identity,
intent, and document integrity without costly,
complicated or proprietary software.
D-BusinessPract-Aharoni-Jan10.in1 1 12/18/2009 9:08:43 AM

A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
Structural engineering organizations can leverage todays digital
signature solutions which cost 90 percent less than they did ve
years ago into several signicant organizational benets including
the following:
Reduced Approval Cycle Times
With an intuitively veriable and non-proprietary signing solution,
an organization can expect easy and rapid document routing (both
internal and external). Structural engineering documents ranging
from contracts and site analysis reports to AutoCAD drawings can all
be approved in minutes.
Lower Costs
A digital signature allows engineering orga-
nizations to reduce the costs associated with
authorizing and signing paper-based docu-
mentation (i.e., eliminating paper, printing,
scanning, faxing, postage, and processing time).
In smaller engineering rms, these costs can
be thousands of dollars a month. In larger
organizations, the costs related to physically
signing documentation can total hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year. A digital signature
solution allows a quick Return on Investment
(ROI) and the cost benets of faster work-
ows. Additionally, maintaining an electronic
workow from document creation through
signing authorization allows for easy manage-
ment via a Document Management System
(DMS), further reducing the costs associated
with physically archiving paper documents.
Simplied Compliance
When using digital signatures, engineers not
only have access to a simple tool for signing-
off on Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
and work instructions, they also have an
ability to comply with industry-related signing
requirements like those established by the
American Society of Civil Engineers.
CoSign Digital Signatures allow anyone to seamlessly verify and retain proof of
identity, intent, and document integrity within engineering documentation.
Dr. Aharoni is the CEO of ARX (Algorithmic Research), a global
provider of cost-efcient digital signature solutions. Dr. Aharoni has
held a number of engineering positions at companies in the UK and
Israel. His background and degree are in Computing.
The online version contains references.
Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
Secure Document Exchange and E-Submissions
With a non-proprietary digital signature, electronic documents
can be trusted and exchanged with external parties that need access
to the records, entirely independent of the vendor and organization
that created them. Digital signatures bridge the geographic, technical,
and corporate boundaries with outside parties, making document
collaboration seamless. Global organizations encounter no challenges
accessing documents created thousands of miles away.
Business Solution
Structural engineers need to look no further than a non-proprietary
digital signature solution that will allow them to maintain a completely
electronic workow that streamlines their business processes and cuts
back on overhead. The benets of a digital signature go well beyond
a simple signing capacity. From the verication of signer identity and
intent to a collaboration-enhancing solution, digital signatures are
a business-enhancing technology that engineering organizations are
quickly adopting as an industry standard.
49
D-BusinessPract-Aharoni-Jan10.in2 2 12/18/2009 9:08:45 AM
LEGAL PERSPECTIVES
discussion of legal issues of interest to structural engineers
50
Cost Estimates, Project Budgets, and the Structural Engineer
By David J. Hatem, Esq. and David M. Ponte, P.E.
Your clients, whether private developers,
public owners, lead architects, or design-build
constructors, rely on construction cost esti-
mates prepared by a design professional to
establish project budgets and plan future work.
Structural engineers rarely nd themselves in a
lead role for these project documents but, nev-
ertheless, need to understand the signicance
of these documents and their implication for
the structural engineers scope of services.
The design and construction industry gener-
ally agrees that the risk of inaccurate or defective
budgets is born by the projects owner. While
not the norm, under certain circumstances the
design professionals contract will require it bear
the costs of redesigning to bring the project back
within budget. This understanding is memo-
rialized in design professional agreements such
as AIA B-101s 6.2 which, after discussing
the scope of the design professionals cost
estimating services, provides: Accordingly,
the Architect cannot and does not warrant
or represent that bids or negotiated prices will
not vary from the owners budget for the cost
of the work or from any estimate of the cost
of the work prepared or agreed to by the archi-
tect. Those same AIA documents, however,
require that the design professional revise and
redesign the project at no additional cost to
the owner in order to bring the cost within
budget. 6.5 of AIA B-101 provides that the
Architect, without additional compensation
...shall modify the construction documents as
necessary to comply with the owners budget.
Many design professional agreements from
public owners contain similar provisions.
The Massachusetts state legislature has recent-
ly indicated a divergence from this generally
understood maxim by statutorily requiring
that 90% of its bridges be repaired or rebuilt
under a special accelerated bridge program on
time and within budget. The engineers per-
formance on those projects will be measured
against that engineers cost estimate prepared
at the 75% design submittal. While the
stage is now set for a showdown on these cost
estimating issues in Massachusetts, it is unclear
how they will be resolved. The industry will
need to keep its eyes on Massachusetts to see
whether this attempt to hold the designer re-
sponsible for its cost estimate is successful or
merely an expensive experiment. If the programs
benets are deemed worth the added costs in
terms of overall project management, then we
should expect this initiative to be adopted by
other states.
The more typical claim against a design pro-
fessional comes in the form of an unrealistic
initial budget. Often it is a case where the
design professional provides an estimate (against
his better judgment) that turns out to be overly
optimistic. Despite the design professionals
admonition that the estimate is based on certain
assumptions that are presently indeterminate,
the owner embarks on the project based on
that estimate. When the owner subsequently
learns that the more expensive nal project
is unaffordable, allegations of bad advice are
often leveled at the designer, insinuating that
the project should never have been undertaken
given the economic loss. Alternatively, the
owner publishes an assumed project budget
and the design professional makes no repre-
sentation, or provides only a mildly guarded
opinion, that the project can be accomplished
within that budget. The claim against the design
professional is the same; but for your
failure to warn me, I never would have gone
forward and my nancial loss or cost overrun
is your responsibility.
Similar tension arises on publicly funded
municipal projects. Consider for example a
state DOT that provides funding for a projects
construction based on an estimate prepared at
the 60% design stage. During design devel-
opment, omissions are detected in the 60%
design that result in cost growth that the
municipality is now forced to bear. While
these omissions may very well represent non-
compensable betterments, the municipality,
with no alternate source of funding, is forced to
pursue the engineer to make up the difference.
On design-build projects, the structural en-
gineer may be called upon to provide takeoffs
that the contractor can use to solicit rm
prices from subcontractors. If, for example,
the amount of structural steel increases from
conceptual to nal design and the subcontractors
price increases commensurately, then the design-
build contractor will often seek recovery of
those increased costs from the structural engi-
neer. Unfortunately, existence of an insurance
policy to cover these alleged errors makes that
engineer a particularly attractive target.
There are several types of construction cost
estimates: preliminary or ballpark estimates,
intermediate estimates, engineers estimates
(sometimes referred to as the owners estimate),
and the contractors bid estimate. The appro-
priate estimate type depends on when, during
project development, the estimate is required.
For planning and budgeting purposes, estimates
are prepared during the early stages of the project
life cycle, particularly the design phase as well as
during the procurement phase.
Design phase estimates include preliminary
and intermediate estimates. The preliminary
or ballpark estimate is done at the very
beginning of a project and is useful in helping
the owner to establish either the scope or the
magnitude of the project. As the name sug-
gests, these estimates have very little basis in
hard data and a high degree of variability. This
category of estimate typically relies on rules
of thumb or is based on a similar, recently-
completed project.
The intermediate estimate is performed dur-
ing the design phase and typically matches
the design schedule, such as the 30% or 70%
design submittal. As the design progresses,
information available to the estimator becomes
more reliable, thereby increasing the estimate
accuracy. At the 30% submittal stage, the
structural engineer will have very little detail to
provide other than a concept of the structural
systems intended, such as a steel vs. concrete
framing system, the lateral bracing system, or
the ooring system. As the design progresses
and the structural system becomes more de-
ned, the estimator will expect to be able to
quantify various aspects of the design.
There are two procurement phase estimates:
the engineers estimate and the contractors
bid estimate. The engineers estimate is the nal
estimate prepared by the design professional
once the design is complete, but before the
project is released for bidding. This estimate is
the most complete and, if developed properly,
should be within the lowest and the high-
est contractor bids. The structural engineer
will be expected to contribute not only nal
quantities, such as weight and member sizes of
structural steel including connections and vol-
ume of structural concrete, but the structural
The appropriate estimate type depends
on when, during project development,
the estimate is required.
D-LegalPerspectives-Hatem-Jan10.1 1 12/22/2009 9:32:33 AM

A
D
V
E
R
T
I
S
E
M
E
N
T

F
o
r

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

v
i
s
i
t

w
w
w
.
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
m
a
g
.
o
r
g
51
engineer must convey any particular construc-
tion sequencing or other potential restrictions
which could impact the cost of construction
to the estimator.
The structural engineer can avoid many
problems by simply conrming with the client
that both parties have a similar understanding
of the type of estimate at issue, and their
respective expectations as to how that estimate
will be used. This discussion should happen
prior to providing any cost estimating services.
The context of, and any limitations to, cost
estimating input should be documented by
way of a brief notation included with the
actual data provided.
Preparation of Construction
Cost Estimates
Cost estimating, particularly in the con-
struction industry, is not an exact science. A
qualied cost estimator, well versed in appropriate
estimating techniques, can reasonably be ex-
pected to determine what the work, as dened
in the contract documents, should cost. In
addition to having a thorough understanding
of the contract documents, and any unique
project characteristics, there are several other
factors that the estimator should consider
when preparing a construction cost estimate
(Ref. 1). These cost factors include: uctuation
of costs; traffic conditions; restrictive work
hours or method of work; small quantities
of work; separated operations; handwork and
inefcient operations; accessibility; geographic
location; construction season; and material
shortages. Of these, the structural engineer
needs to be cognizant of cost uctuations,
geographic location, construction season, and
material shortages when preparing or con-
tributing to cost estimates.
Determination of
a Project Budget
Upon completion of an estimate, the Project
Owner will use that information to develop
a project budget; however, the construction
cost estimate is just that, an estimate. The
owner must also account for unknowns
such as bid climates, differing site conditions,
or other change orders. This is done through
the use of contingency funds. The amount of
contingency funds will vary not only from
project to project but also from one estimate
to the next; i.e., from a 30% estimate to a
50% estimate to the nal engineers estimate.
As the project design progresses, the amount
of the contingency should be reduced. For a
30% design estimate, the contingency should
be 25-30% of the estimated construction
cost, while for a final design estimate the
contingency should be only 5-10% of the
estimated construction cost.
For traditional design-bid-build projects,
contingencies for the structural aspects of
the project should be a minimum. Structural
quantities are well dened and contingencies
would only be necessary to address any potential
volatility in the market place. However, in a
design-build project, where the design-builder
needs to establish a budget/proposal prior to
completion of the design, it is imperative that
the structural engineer be assured that an ad-
equate contingency has been established based
on the status of the design at the time of the
proposal. This contingency should account
for potential variability between the proposed
and nal quantities, which for the structural
engineer would include those things discussed
above; i.e., weight and member sizes of structural
steel, including connections and volume of
structural concrete.
Conclusion
Design Professionals engaged in development
of construction cost estimates for their clients
should understand not only the project for
which they are providing design services, but
also the external environment in which that
project will be constructed. This additional
insight into the various external nuances of a
project will enable the design professional to
select the best method, or combination of
methods, to adequately develop the construc-
tion cost. Avoiding claims and managing risks
to your rm also requires frank discussions with
your client to assure that there is a meeting
of the minds regarding what the cost estimates
represent and their associated limitations.
Equally important is the ability to deliver the
bad news of actual or anticipated budget
problems as soon as you are aware of them and,
hopefully, concurrently proposing the solutions
and constructive alternatives to abandoning
the project.
David J. Hatem, PC, is a Founding Partner
of the multi-practice law rm, Donovan
Hatem LLP. He leads the rms Professional
Practices Group. Mr. Hatem can be reached
via email at dhatem@donovanhatem.com.
David M. Ponte, P.E., is a Senior Claims
Consultant with DH Consulting Group,
LLC, a subsidiary of Donovan Hatem LLP.
He is a licensed Structural Engineer in two
states, and has memberships in the American
Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural
Engineering Institute. David can be reached
at dponte@dhcboston.com.
The online version contains references. Please visit www.STRUCTUREmag.org.
D-LegalPerspectives-Hatem-Jan10.2 2 12/22/2009 9:32:49 AM
N
C
S
E
A

N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s

f
o
r
m

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
52
Report on the 2012 ICC Code Development Hearings
By Ed Huston, NCSEA Code Advisory Committee (CAC) General Engineering Subcommittee Chair, with input from
Seismic Provisions Subcommittee Chair Kevin Moore, Existing Buildings Subcommittee Chair David Bonowitz, and
CAC Committee Chair Ronald Hamburger.
Most of us will soon begin using the 2009 IBC. The code
change process, however, is already underway for the next
version of the I-Codes, to be published in early 2012. Members
of the NCSEA Code Advisory Subcommittees recently attended
related ICC Code Development Hearings.
The major change in the 2012 IBC will be its adoption of
the updated version of the Minimum Loads standard, ASCE
7-10: One of the most signicant changes to this standard is the
substantive technical and editorial revisions to the wind design
requirements. Chapter 6 will be reorganized and expanded into
several chapters. Rather than using a single map to determine
wind design speeds, a set of four maps will be used. These new
maps, which are adjusted for occupancy importance, will yield
wind forces at the Strength Design level. As a result, the load
factor for wind in the Strength Design Load Combinations will
be 1.0 and, in the Allowable Stress Design Level, the load factor
will be 0.6. Prior to the hearings, several material standards
developing organizations expressed dissatisfaction with the
changes to the maps; however, with almost no testimony at the
hearings in opposition to the maps, the code change proposal
adopting the new maps was approved. ASCE 7-10 also adds a
new simplied wind design with a 160-foot height limit. The
Alternate All-Heights provisions which NCSEA introduced into
the 2009 IBC will remain in the 2012 IBC, giving engineers a
chance to contrast and compare the two methods.
ASCE 7-10 also introduces new maps for seismic design. These
new maps are intended to produce a uniform risk of collapse
for buildings of not greater than 1% in 50 years. As a result, the
denition of MCE ground motion has been revised to incorporate
adjustments that account for the rate of seismic activity across
the country. These new maps will lower the seismic forces by
up to 15 percent in some parts of the country, while increasing
them slightly in the regions of most severe seismic risk. The new
seismic maps, which were created by USGS in cooperation with
the Building Seismic Safety Council, were also adopted into the
2012 IBC.
ASCE 7-10 contains a number of important updates to the
General Requirements chapter. The chapter has been rewritten
around the concept of risk-based design. The former Occupancy
Categories have been renamed Risk Categories and, in addition,
the laundry list of building types that fall under the various
occupancies have been moved to the Commentary, so as to
avoid conict with the table contained in the building code.
In addition, an extensive section on performance-based design
procedures has been added, providing guidance for use of
alternative means to the prescriptive requirements for justifying
the adequacy of structural designs. These performance-based
procedures, originally developed for seismic design, can be used
for any load condition. Finally, the basic structural integrity
provisions, which formerly appeared as requirements for Seismic
Design Category A structures, have been moved to the General
Chapter and claried as being structural integrity rather than
seismic requirements.
Several code changes were proposed to modify the design
requirements for connections between wood sill plates and
concrete foundations. Together with Simpson Strong-Tie,
the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC)
supported a research program that tested the connection of
wood sill plates to concrete foundation elements, to conrm
that ductility demand occurs within the wood member and
steel bolt and that there is little (if any) ductility demand on
the concrete anchorage. The tests were limited to nominal 2x
and 3x sawn lumber plates, connected to concrete foundation
elements with nominal -inch diameter cast-in-place L-bolts.
Plate specimens were loaded in direct shear parallel to the long
axis of the member. Based on this research, SEAOC developed
two code change proposals, one of which was adopted and
promulgated by the Seismic Subcommittee of the CAC. This
code change proposal claried current ACI 318 language to
allow the use of wood design values for this connection. At
the Code Development Hearings, NCSEA moderated several
discussions among members of the concrete and wood industries,
bolt manufacturers, structural engineers, the Code Resource
Support Committee and others. Ultimately, NCSEA was able
to expand this code change proposal to make it applicable in
more situations, while maintaining safe and adequate building
performance. This change will resolve a signicant issue in the
code since its adoption of the ACI 318-02 Appendix D anchorage
requirements in the 2003 IBC. Numerous code change proposals
aimed at simplifying Chapter 17 were also submitted this cycle.
While signicant progress was made at the Code Development
Hearings, more effort will be required to achieve this goal.
Other Code Change Proposals to delete the alternate allowable
stress load combinations, and the alternate methods of live load
reductions, were opposed by NCSEA and were defeated.
In the 2006 and 2009 code change cycles, NCSEA spoke
against Code Change Proposals related to hardening stair
enclosures. These proposals would have required that exit stair
Ed Huston Kevin Moore David Bonowitz Ronald Hamburger
NCSEA News Jan10.indd 1 12/18/2009 9:10:20 AM
N
C
S
E
A

N
e
w
s
N
e
w
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
53
shaft enclosures be designed for 288 psf of lateral pressure.
The proponent of hardening stair enclosures resubmitted
their proposal again in the 2012 cycle, although the pressure
was reduced to less than 200 psf. This proposal was defeated
once again.
NCSEAs Existing Buildings Subcommittee continued work
on IBC Chapter 34, adjusting some of the major revisions
successfully proposed for the 2009 code, and continuing its
proactive development of the International Existing Building
Code (IEBC).
The 2009 IBC, for the rst time, triggers wind and seismic
evaluation, and possibly upgrade, when extensive damage is
repaired. For 2012, this new requirement will be adjusted to
exempt one- and two-family homes from seismic upgrades, and
to exempt all buildings assigned to Seismic Design Category
C from seismic upgrades, unless the damage in question was
caused by an earthquake.
In the IEBC, NCSEA was successful in proposing major
revisions, updates, and clarications to two oft-cited appendix
chapters: Chapter A3 for the seismic retrot of cripple wall
houses, and Chapter A4 for the seismic retrot of soft, weak,
and open-front woodframe buildings. Among the 2012 changes
to Chapter A4 is a solution to a code loophole that has troubled
engineers and ofcials since ASCE 7-05 limited the R-value of
retrot systems. The solution will allow higher values as long as
key irregularities are eliminated.
The 2012 IEBC will also have a new appendix, developed by
the Institute for Business and Home Safety, for voluntary retrot
of gable-end wood buildings subject to high winds. NCSEA
expects to work with IBHS to develop these provisions further
in future cycles.
NCSEAs Code Advisory Subcommittees work with similar
committees in NCSEA Member Organizations, and with
others, in developing positions and, where possible, taking
those positions forward to the ICC. Input from any Member
Organization is welcome. If you notice a provision of the IBC
or IRC that you believe needs to be addressed, or if you or your
SEA are developing a code change proposal and want us to help
you with it, please contact one of the subcommittee chairs.
Friday, March 12, 2010 8.0 Professional Development Hours
ASCE 7; Underlying Concepts in Seismic Design Codes: Application to Steel Building Structures
The 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions will be used to demonstrate how these principles are implemented in the code. Chia-Ming Uang,
Ph.D., Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of California, San Diego.
Design Issues and Evaluation Methods for Masonry Structures
Basic concepts on the seismic design of reinforced masonry structures using the strength design method. Benson Shing, Ph.D., Professor
of Structural Engineering at the University of California at San Diego.
Tours of UCSD Laboratory and UCSD Shake Table Facility
Tour and learn about large-scale dynamic and static tests performed at the Charles Pankow Structures Laboratory and the Robert and
Natalie Englekirk Structural Engineering Center at the University of California San Diego, including the NEES Large Outdoor High-
Performance Shake Table, a blast simulator and two soil pits for performing soil-foundation studies.
Reception from 6:30 7:30
Saturday, March 13, 2010 7.5 Professional Development Hours
System Performance Factors for Concrete Structures from a Displacement-Based Perspective
Comparison of the design lateral forces obtained using the conventional force-based methods as prescribed in ASCE 7-05 and those
obtained from a displacement-based method. Jos I. Restrepo, Ph.D., Professor in Structural Engineering at the University of California,
San Diego, and Director of Operations of the Charles Lee Powell Structural Research Laboratories.
Design Provisions for Wood Construction A Comparison of Past and Present
Highlight of differences and similarities in todays wood design provisions. Phil Line, P.E., member of the wood industry technical committees
on the development of wood design standards, including the National Design Specication
(NDS
) for Wood Construction.

Fragility of Nonstructural Components and Systems
Discussion of fragility-based approaches and design examples specic to the most critical nonstructural components and systems (NCSs) in
typical building systems. Tara Hutchinson, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor in the Department of Structural Engineering at the University
of California, San Diego.
Modeling Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction in a Design Environment
Discussion of the various aspects of soil-foundation-structure-interaction (SFSI), including various modeling techniques for incorporating
SFSI in seismic analyses. Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., J.D., President of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and Vice President
and General Counsel for John A. Martin & Associates, Inc. in Los Angeles, CA.
Development of Next-Generation Peformance-Based Seismic Design Criteria
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-sponsored Applied Technology Councils ATC-58 project to develop Next-
generation Performance-based Design Criteria. Ronald O. Hamburger, S.E., SECB, Senior Principal with Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
Inc. in San Francisco and Chair of NCSEAs Code Advisory Committee.
NCSEA 2010 Winter Institute The Marriott Coronado Island Resort
A two-day seminar featuring Seismic Design: Explaining the Y Factor From One Generation to the Next
more information at www.ncsea.com
NCSEA News Jan10.indd 2 12/18/2009 9:10:28 AM

T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

A
S
C
E
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

C
o
l
u
m
n
s
Errata
SEI posts up-to-date errata information for our
publications at www.SEInstitute.org. Click on
Publications on our menu, and select Errata.
If you have any errata that you would like to submit,
please email it to Jim Rossberg at jrossberg@asce.org.
54
Wilhoite Award Presented at ETS Conference
2010 Structures Congress
May 12-15, 2010
Orlando, Florida
For more information see the SEI website at:
http://content.asce.org/conferences/Structures_2010/
Encourage a Young Mind
Shape the Next Generation of
Structural Engineers
2010 SEI/ASCE Student Structural
Design Competition
The Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE sponsors a structural
design competition for universities. Innovative projects demonstrat-
ing excellence in structural engineering are invited for submission.
Awards include cash $$$ prizes and an opportunity to present
their designs at the 2010 SEI Structures Congress in Orlando,
Florida, May 12-15, 2010.
Deadline for Submissions: January 14, 2010
For competition guidelines, entry form and a poster to promote
the competition, visit: www.SEInstitute.org.
SEI was proud to present this years Gene Wilhoite Award in Transmission Line
Engineering to John D. Mozer, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE. This award is presented
to an individual for signicant contributions to the advancement of the art and
science of transmission line engineering. Dr. Mozers illustrious career in civil
engineering spans more than four decades, including stints in academia and in
professional practice. After six years teaching at Carnegie Mellon University, Dr.
Mozer spent 36 years at GAI Consultants, Inc. working on transmission line
projects around the world. He has also given generously of his time serving on
Technical Activities Division committees with SEI and is currently an ASCE
Life Member.
The Gene Wilhoite Award was presented to Dr. Mozer by Bob Nickerson,
Chair of the Wilhoite Award Committee, during the Opening Plenary Session
of the Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures Conference, November 9, 2009 in Fort Worth, Texas.
Last April, 3,400 design and construction professionals came
together for three days of educational sessions, networking,
and exploring the industrys largest exhibition hall at the 2009
NASCC: The Steel Conference and the Annual Stability Conference.
A month later, another 1,400 designers and academics met
for three days at SEIs Structures Congress, CASE Spring
Risk Management Convocation, and the 18
th
Analysis and
Computation Specialty Conference.
But this May, everyone will come together in Orlando for a
joint conference between all the above groups.
For the rst time ever, the leading programs for those involved
in the design and construction of buildings and bridges will all
be held under one roof. And with the uncertain economy, the
combined conferences are happening at a propitious moment
now you can pay one low fee of just $390 (SEI and AISC
members) and have your choice of more than 200 seminars,
network with colleagues and potential clients, and visit the
industrys largest exhibit hall.
Technical sessions cover the full gamut of structural design,
ranging from serviceability issues to the seismic design of bridges
and from wind effects to legal issues. There also are special sessions
for those involved in construction, including steel fabricators,
erectors, and detailers. To view the Structures Congress Sessions
visit http://submissions.miracd.com/ASCE/Structures2010/
Itinerary/ConferenceMatrix.asp.
For a complete conference information and the NASCC
sessions, please visit www.aisc.org/nascc.
Structural Engineering Poster
for Young Students
Available Now
SEI and the National Council of Struc-
tural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) have produced a poster
to promote structural engineering as a career among young stu-
dents. We encourage you to include this exciting poster in your
efforts to reach out to students in local schools. This years Make
Your Mark poster features the Birds Nest from the 2008 Olympic
Games in Beijing. Limited supplies of the poster are available
upon request to Suzanne Fisher at ssher@asce.org. Be sure to
include the number of posters you are requesting and where they
should be sent. The poster is also available for download from
the SEI website at www.SEInstitute.org.
SEI News Jan10.indd 1 12/18/2009 10:27:31 AM

T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

A
S
C
E
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

C
o
l
u
m
n
s
55
Electrical Transmission Conference brings
record numbers to Ft. Worth
The Renaissance Worthington Hotel in Ft. Worth, TX sizzled
with excitement as more than 650 registrants arrived in droves
for this years Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures
Conference. A pre-conference workshop by noted expert
Anthony M. DiGioia, Ph.D., P.E., on the Design of Transmission
Line Structure Foundations kicked off the Conference and left
attendees eager for the rest of the program. The Plenary Session
keynote presentation by Charles W. Jenkins of Oncor highlighted
Competitive Renewable Energy Zones in Texas.
As the Conference progressed, participants crowded into
technical sessions on Loading, Analysis and Design, Foundations,
Substation Design, Applied Technology, and Case Studies on
Foundations and Construction.
Attendees quickly discovered that there was never a dull
moment in the highly interactive sold-out exhibit hall with 51
booths. One of the most celebrated aspects of the Conference
was the excellent networking opportunities at meals and evening
receptions. Those who were fortunate to attend greeted old
friends, made new contacts, and sampled savory local cuisine.
SEI Local Chapters and Groups
Meet in Berkeley
The 2009 annual meeting of local SEI Chapters and Structural
Technical Groups was held November 6-7, 2009 in Berkeley,
CA. Representatives from six chapters and 17 local groups came
together to participate
in discussions and
share ideas on how to
improve their programs
and outreach, and pro-
vide input to the SEI
Local Activities Divi-
sion (LAD) Executive
Committee for new
initiatives. Members of
the SEI Board of Governors took part in the meeting, as well as
a boat tour of the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge construc-
tion project and a special presentation by Marwan Nader, P.E., M.
ASCE of T.Y. Lin International on the Self-Anchored Suspension
Span Design.
Get involved with the local SEI Chapter or Structural Technical
Group (STG) in your area visit http://content.seinstitute.
org/committees/local.html for contact info and participate
in SEI local activities and events. Many groups offer dynamic
programs and provide valuable opportunities for networking,
continuing education and more. If there is not an SEI Chapter
or STG in your location and you would like to consider starting
one, contact Suzanne Fisher at ssher@asce.org.
2010 Fazlur R. Khan Lecture Series
at Lehigh University
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
February 26, March 19, & April 16, 2010
Dan M. Frangopol, the rst holder of the Fazlur R. Khan
Endowed Chair in Structural Engineering and Architecture at
Lehigh University, is the initiator and organizer of the Khan
Lecture Series honoring Dr. Fazlur R. Khans legacy of excellence
in structural engineering and architecture.
The 2010 Khan Lecture Series are as follows:
Friday, February 26, 2010 4:10 pm
ZDENK P. BAANT, McCormick Institute & Walter P.
Murphy Professor, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Progress Engendered by Collapses of Record Setting Structures:
Malpasset Dam, World Trade Center Towers and KB Bridge in Palau
Friday, March 19, 2010 4:10 pm
RON KLEMENCIC, President, Magnusson Klemencic
Associates, Seattle, WA,
OUTRAGEOUS!
Friday, April 16, 2010 4:10 pm
JOHN E. BREEN, Professor & Nasser I. Al-Rashid Chair in
Civil Engineering, The University of Texas, Austin, TX
The ABCDs of Bridge Building: Affordable, Beautiful,
Constructible, Durable
See the Lehigh University website at: www.lehigh.edu/frkseries
for more information about the lecture series.
Sponsors included:
American Electric Power
Oncor
FWT, Inc.
Power Line Systems, Inc.
Thomas & Betts
Valmont Newmark
Electrical Consultants, Inc.
Sabre Tubular Structures
Black & Veatch
Locweld
Area manufacturers opened their doors to display pole fabrica-
tion, galvanizing facilities, and cable production in a series of
tours at the end of the Conference. Tours were conducted by
Falcon Steel Company; FWT, Inc.; General Cable; Sabre Tubular
Structures; and Valmont Newmark.
SEI would like to extend a special thank you to our sponsors
for their commitment to providing excellence in programming
and networking events.
POWER Engineers
SAE Towers
Brametal
DIS-TRAN
Fabrimet
Falcon Steel Company
KEC International
Ozkan Steel
Underground Devices, Inc.
Gorrondona
SEI News Jan10.indd 2 12/18/2009 9:11:13 AM
T
h
e

N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
h
e

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
C
A
S
E

i
n

P
o
i
n
t
56
CASE Winter Meeting in January
Industry Issues Roundtable at SEA of Texas Houston Dinner/Meeting
CASE Chairman Urges Structural Engineering
Community to Take Active Role in Legislative Issues
New Orleans Course Explores Green Opportunities
for 2010 and Beyond
Green Infrastructure and Sustainable Communities:
Opportunities in New Markets
February 23-26, New Orleans
The CASE Winter Meeting will take
place on Thursday and Friday, January 28-
29, 2010, at the Westin Galleria & Westin
Oaks, Houston, Texas. On Thursday, the
CASE committee breakout meetings will
take place for the National Guidelines,
Contracts, Programs & Communications,
and Toolkit Committees to continue work
on their respective assignments. The CASE
Executive Committee will meet on Friday.
In addition, on the evening of Wednesday,
January 27, CASE will conduct an industry
issues roundtable in conjunction with the
SEAoT-Houstons dinner/meeting. This will
be held at the HESS Club (Houston Engi-
neering and Scientic Society) in Houston.
Topics will include:
Risk vs. Reward in Integrated Project Delivery Projects
The Risks Associated with BIM and Certied Models
The Risks Associated with LEED Ratings and Managing
Owner Expectations
How to Collect Your Fees Without Getting Sued
CASE Committees have been the reason for CASEs success
for over 20 years and are vital to CASEs future. As part of
the Committees ongoing activities, face-to-face meetings and
informal discussions are held twice a year to explore current issues
and work on projects like new and revised Risk Management
Tools, Guidelines and Contracts, as well as Publications, and
Risk Management Convocations. These meetings also allow
the various CASE committees to interact across all of CASEs
activities. For more information on the CASE committees and
CASE in general, visit their website at www.acec.org/CASE.
In this months Editorial, The Right to Petition the Government
(Page 5), CASE Chairman Douglas Ashcraft urged the structural
engineering community to become more active in federal and
state legislative issues affecting their industry. ACEC and CASE
are currently active in many legislative issues. To nd out more,
go to www.acec.org and click on Advocacy to read about
the issues that affect structural engineering rms as well as the
broader engineering community. Firms who are not members of
ACEC and CASE should consider joining to add their voice to
those already lobbying on their behalf. A good search engine for
nding contact information for legislators is www.congress.org.
Get involved in politics at the local, state or national level and
make a difference!
ACEC presents Green Infrastructure and Sustainable Communities:
Opportunities in New Markets, February 23-26, 2010, New Orleans.
Participants will examine sustainable development within a business
context; sustainability audits, assessments and other design tools and
techniques; and, sustainable design specic to emerging engineering
markets in urban water management, transportation projects, and
state-of-the-art buildings. Engineers and planners looking for a course
that showcases applications of sustainable engineering by some of the leading practitioners in the U.S. will particularly benet from
this unique certicate program.
CASE News Jan10.indd 1 12/18/2009 9:11:52 AM

C
A
S
E

i
s

a

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

C
o
m
p
a
n
i
e
s
C
A
S
E

i
n

P
o
i
n
t

January 2010 STRUCTURE magazine
57
CASE Risk Management Convocation in Orlando This May
Registration to Open Soon
The following CASE Convocation sessions are scheduled to
take place on Friday, May 14:
6:45am 8:00am
CASE Breakfast: Changes to AISC Code of Standard Practice
What SEs Need to Know
Speaker: David B. Ratterman, Secretary and
General Counsel, AISC
The AISC Code of Standard Practice has served as a specication
guideline and statement of custom and usage in the fabricated
structural steel industry since approximately 1921. The Code
is regularly updated and maintained by a balanced committee
of industry professionals; approximately one-third of the Code
Committee is comprised of practicing structural engineers.
Mr. Ratterman is a graduate engineer and counsel to the Code
Committee. He will discuss the relationship of the Code to the
practice of structural engineering.
8:00am 9:30am
Steel Design Dos & Donts A Construction
Friendly Perspective
Speakers: Carol Drucker, Drucker Zaidel; Other Speakers TBA
This session will be led by a licensed structural engineer special-
izing in connection design who will comment on the document
quality as it relates to potential risk management issues for the struc-
tural engineer of record. Often, problems in steel design are not so
apparent until after the job has been awarded and is in detailing,
fabrication or erection. Small oversights can have big impact, and
may cause delays or additional costs. Potential issues are avoidable
by understanding structural steel systems and their connections.
This seminar will address different aspects of lateral system design,
main member design, connection design and avoidable problems.
Actual examples from real projects will be highlighted and discussed.
The session will include discussion from a steel detailer and a steel
fabricator related to the associated construction costs and/or change
orders resulting from document quality and clarity.
1:45pm 3:15pm
A Day in the Life of a Project Manager
Speakers: John Aniol, Walter P Moore;
Corey Matsuoka, SSFM International
Follow a structural project manager as he struggles through a
day lled with risk, and discovers tools to help him mitigate those
risks. Some of the tools he will discover include communication,
corporate culture, planning and prevention, education, scope
and contracts, construction documents and construction.
3:30pm 5:00pm
Managing Expectations and Risks During the Steel
Detailing Process
Speakers: Glenn Bishop, LBYD, Birmingham AL;
Will Ikerd, RLG Engineers, Dallas, TX
The AISC Code of Standard Practice provides two options for
structural steel connections, either fully detailed by the engineer
or selected and completed by the detailer. After much discussion,
AISC is considering adding a third option for connection: design
by a specialty structural engineer retained by the fabricator.
This session will explore the needs and expectations of both the
engineer and the fabricator for each of these three options. Also
discussed will be how these expectations might change in the
BIM world.
The CASE Risk Management Convocation will be held
in conjunction with the rst-ever combined Structures
Congress/North American Steel Construction Conference
at the Gaylord Palms Convention Center in Orlando,
Florida, May 1215, 2010. The Structural Engineering
Institute of ASCE (SEI) and the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) are joining forces in 2010
to host this rst-ever combined event. Registration will
open sometime this January and will be handled at AISCs
website: www.aisc.org. A preliminary program is available
for viewing at SEIs website www.seinstitute.org.
CASE News Jan10.indd 2 12/18/2009 9:11:55 AM
STRUCTURE magazine
free information from advertisers
January 2010
Advertiser Index
58
With the Advertiser Index, STRUCTURE
provides a convenient listing of important advertiser contact information, all in one useful location.
Please investigate these advertisers for free information on their products and services. Learn more about STRUCTURE advertisers; visit
www.STRUCTUREmag.org/advertisers.htm for up-to-date information on products and resources.
ADVERTISER PHONE WEBSITE PAGE #
Anderson Drilling 800-237-4551 www.andersondrilling.com Page 40
Computers & Structures, Inc. 510-845-2177 www.csiberkeley.com Page 60
CRSI 847-517-1290 www.crsi.org Page 6
CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp. 800-929-3030 www.ctscement.com Page 51
Foresight Products, LLC 800-325-5360 www.earthanchor.com Page 35
Fyfe Co. LLC 858-642-0694 www.fyfeco.com Page 27
Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. 800-371-7470 www.geopier.com Page 29
Grip-Tite Manufacturing Co., LLC 714-222-6175 www.griptite.com Page 40
Hayward Baker Inc. 800-456-6548 www.HaywardBaker.com Page 43
Hubbell Power Systems, Inc. 573-682-5521 www.hubbellpowersystems.com Page 37
Integrated Engineering Software, Inc. 800-707-0816 www.iesweb.com Page 8
KPFF Consulting Engineers 206-622-5822 www.kpff.com Page 49
Loadtest, Inc. 352-378-3717 www.loadtest.com Page 36
Magnum Piering 800-822-7437 www.magnumpiering.com Page 38
Monotube 330-454-6111 www.monotube.com Page 41
Mortar Net 800-664-6638 www.MortarNet.com Page 3
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
(NCEES)
800-250-3196 www.ncees.org Page 20
Pile Dynamics, Inc. 216-831-6131 www.pile.com Page 34
Powers Fasteners, Inc. 800-524-3244 www.powers.com Page 2
QuakeWrap, Inc. 866-QuakeWrap www.QuakeWrap.com Page 8
RISA Technologies 800-332-RISA www.risatech.com Page 59
SidePlate Systems, Inc. 800-475-2077 www.sideplate.com Page 21
Simpson Strong-Tie 800-999-5099 www.strongtie.com Pages 13 & 17
StrucSoft Solutions, Ltd. 514-731-0008 www.strucsoftsolutions.com Page 4
Struware, Inc. 904-302-6724 www.struware.com Page 47
Subsurface Constructors, Inc. 314-421-2460 www.subsurfaceconstructors.com Page 39
Taylor Devices, Inc. 716-694-0800 www.taylordevices.com Page 42
Wood Products Council 866-966-3448 www.woodworks.org Page 15
Your Name Here 847-854-1666 sales@STRUCTUREmag.org (email)
Advertiser Index Jan10.indd 1 12/22/2009 9:33:54 AM
Blank.indd 1 12/10/2009 12:47:52 PM
Blank.indd 1 12/11/2009 4:42:36 PM

Structure201001 PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Structure201001 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A

magazine does not constitute endorsement

(Volume 17, Number 1). ISSN 1536-4283.

- Not Your Ordinary Fiber Wrap System

Anchors that crack the code.

screw anchor, Strong-Bolt

wedge anchor and SET-XP

|00|8 |88tI18 |00|8 |881II1 |00|8 |88t508

magazine Editorial Board.

magazine Editorial Board.

ordinary moment frames

shearwalls allow for narrow wall sections while providing

6.5. From Figure 2(b) this ductility

J methoo ol ol |ooo test|ng o||||eo sholts

Cop]r||| 2010 luooe|| lrcorpora|ed

Piles. Solid Economics

magazine is not responsible for errors.

The Thermal Pos-I-Tie

adhesive (ESR-2508), Titen HD

screw anchor (ESR-2713) and Strong-Bolt

wedge anchor (ESR-1771).

, as opposed to requiring the recipient

) for Wood Construction.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi